jesus

Unless you’re a Christian still following the rules pertaining to virgins and slaves, your religion pretty much comes down to: ad-hoc clichés (“be nice”-type statements), the ten commandments (most of which you’ll be ignoring, even if you do know them), and the mysterious events surrounding someone called jesus christ. The rest is just morally-questionable stuff that you forgot soon after leaving Sunday School.

Debate goes on as to whether jesus is god or “the lord”, or whether he is only the son of god. Regardless, we can agree that he’s in the top two – which is all that is needed for the following.

Here’s the problem: there are no verifiable contemporary non-biblical writings about the birth, life, or death of jesus – let alone anything to do with his supposed divinity. Does that shock you? It should.

The bible does not give a date for the birth of jesus. When was the last time one of your holy men mentioned that? No, it wasn’t in the year 0, and there was no such year as 0 since the calendar goes from 1 BCE to 1 CE (had it been thought of in those terms at that time). The main reason that there is doubt is because of a contradiction in the only two gospels that discuss jesus’ birth.

Firstly, the gospel of matthew states “when jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,” (matthew 2:1) and Herod is known to have been king from 37 BCE until his death in 4 BCE. So 4 BCE is the upper end of the range, and according to the text, jesus may have been born even earlier.

Secondly, the gospel of luke states:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of david, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of david) To be taxed with mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son (luke 2:1-7)

The Cyrenius mentioned is Quirinius and he was governor of Syria from 6 CE onward (as documented by the Jewish historian Josephus), so he couldn’t have made his census prior to adopting that role. Therefore, according to the bible, jesus was born in both 4 BCE (or earlier) and 6 AD (or later). Still think the bible is the inerrant word of the omniscient creator of the universe?

Incidentally, it’s not the only issue in those gospels concerning the birth of jesus. Compare “the angel of the lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, joseph, thou son of david, fear not to take unto thee mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the holy ghost.” (matthew 1:20) with “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, mary: for thou hast found favour with god. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,” (luke 1:30-31). How did these writers (70 to 80 years after the supposed events) know that an angel appeared (in a dream) to one, but not to the other person (and vice-versa for the other writer)?

And while we’re on the topic of genealogy, compare “And jacob begat joseph the husband of mary, of whom was born jesus” (matthew 1:16) with “And jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of joseph, which was the son of heli” (luke 3:23). So was jesus’ grandfather jacob or heli, and while we’re at it, how does a grandfather become relevant if mary had a virgin birth? It seems evident that the writers of the gospels didn’t believe in the virgin birth, and they certainly couldn’t agree with each other.

Despite all of that and despite jesus being (arguably) the most important literary figure in history, someone forgot to get god to define (with evidence) when his “son” was born, and into which lineage. Most people know the exact age of their sons and daughters, so why didn’t mary and joseph, with or without god’s help, get the date recorded for posterity – especially since the immaculate-conception nature of the event would have made it notable (not to mention the visitation by the wise men)? The reason of course is that no one thought it worth noting until people started to write about the embellished jesus mythology decades after his death.

There is no evidence that jesus was born on December 25. These days churches admit defeat when it comes to the date and only say that the 25th is “the day we celebrate the birth of jesus”. The day is just after the winter solstice – which is an important part of the year for pagan rituals. There’s a pretty good chance that by December 25 you had survived the worst of the winter and you could look forward to the days getting longer and warmer – hence a reason to celebrate – which is why Christianity borrowed the season for the birth of their saviour. With temperatures dipping below 10 degrees celsius (50 degrees fahrenheit), it’s a little difficult to imagine shepherds tending their flocks at the time (and if they were indoors, then they wouldn’t have needed much tending), but it would be wrong to use one bit of fiction to disprove another bit of fiction.

Because abrahamic religions are terrified of the natural functions of women, they came up with the concept of a virgin birth. That way they could retain a purity over mary and stop people’s minds wandering in church as to the messy details such as which positions were employed to conceive the baby jesus (“missionary” would be a themed-appropriate best bet). And regarding the “virgin birth”, jesus is supposed to have had many brothers (possibly James, Judas, Joseph and/or Simon) and a number of (unnamed, of course) sisters, so one would have to conclude that they were all younger than jesus otherwise you’d have to assume that mary and joseph didn’t have sex prior to jesus’ birth and then they decided not to trust immaculate conception for the rest of the children after the miraculous first kid.

Actually “came up with” isn’t correct because the writers of the bible borrowed the concept of a miraculous birth from other religions. Here are some examples of virgin and miraculous births that predate the writing of the jesus story (with the approximate date they were written):

The Greek demigod perseus was born when the god jupiter visited the virgin danaë and impregnated her via a shower of gold. (7th or 8th century BCE.)
The god buddha’s mother’s womb was accessed via an opening in his mother’s right abdomen. (6th century BCE.)
In later traditions, zoroaster’s mother, dughdova, was a virgin when she conceived zoroaster via a shaft of light. (6th century BCE.)
The god mercury was born of the virgin maia. (4th century BCE or earlier.)
The god horus was born of the virgin isis. (3,000 to 2,300 BCE.)
The virgin nana took a pomegranate from the tree watered by the blood of the slain agdestris, and laid it in her bosom, and gave birth to the god attis. (Around 1,250 BCE.)
The twin founders of Rome, romulus and remus, were said to have been born to a virgin named rhea silvia. (25 BCE.)
The Mesoamerican deity quetzalcoatl was said to be born by a virgin named chimalman. (1st century BCE or 1st century CE.)

It can’t be denied that there was a great desire to impose a pure means of conception onto future deities. It must also be noted that there is not the slightest scrap of evidence to support a single one of those stories. Fundies don’t accept the nonsense suggesting that the god horus was born of the virgin isis, so why do they entertain the suggestion that jesus was born of the virgin mary? Both “events” have the same validity of supporting evidence – which is to say, none.

By the way, when it comes to parentage, what’s more likely: that an invisible deity miraculously impregnated an unsuspecting Jewish woman, or that she lied about having it away in a manger somewhere? Unfortunately, lying to protect her “virtue” (if she was a real person) may have led to the greatest piece of nonsense fiction that is still plaguing us today.

Regarding the life of jesus, it is extremely likely that the figure we “know” today is a composite of many figures and characteristics that people remember from the time. There were many people walking around the Middle East at the time either spruiking words of wisdom (as they saw it) or claiming to be something or someone they were not. As is the case for politicians today, everyone has their least and most favorite, and over the decades the stories and memories of those politicians grow to suit the memories.

One giveaway that the jesus figure is a composite is that he now wears too many hats. For example, he was supposedly an exorcist, a healer, a king, a defender of the poor, a prophet and a sage – all while being closely related to (if not the same as) god. It is possible that the figure whom jesus was based on was one of those things (not the related-to-god thing), and that he inspired one or more people to add attributes to his repertoire after he was gone. Remember that there weren’t the same reliable methods of recording and transmitting facts and events as we have today, so one does wonder what the long-term effects of a few well-placed exaggerations based on a little too much wine would be – especially among people who desperately wanted answers to unanswerable questions?

If jesus was so famous that he inspired a religion that would last over two thousand years, why did he not come to the attention of Roman historians of the day? There are over thirty known first-century historians who had a great deal to say about every aspect of the life and times of the day – except what jesus was doing and saying.

And jesus is supposed to have been very famous. For example, didn’t wise men travel to celebrate his birth? And that’s before he even got started! Here’s what matthew had to say about the fame of jesus:

And jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan. (matthew 4:23-25).

So it is inconceivable that jesus’ actions would not have been brought to the attention of the large number of historians who are known to have recorded even the most mundane aspects of daily life. And jesus didn’t even try to keep his actions low key, for example it is stated that he saved the life of the son of a nobleman (john 4:46-53). You’d also have to think that jesus driving out the money-changers from the temple (john 2:14-15) would have brought him to the attention of at least some prominent and important people who would have subsequently informed the authorities?

In case you feel that jesus didn’t do enough to warrant attention, the end of the gospel according to john must reverse that thought: “And there are also many other things which jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (john 21:25). Surely one of those enormous number of things should have been recorded by a contemporary source? Or did whoever wrote that suffer from fatigue and instead of making more things up, simply decide to encapsulate the rest into a dismissive final statement? If so, then it really was just mankind who was inventing the “divine word” of the omniscient creator of the universe.

According to the bible, the fame of jesus carried through to his triumphant entry into Jerusalem – something supposedly witnessed by a large number of the city’s folk: “On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the king of Israel that cometh in the name of the lord.” (john 12:12-13). For some reason, the triumphant arrival of the supposed king of Israel didn’t trouble the historians of the time. Did they decide to avoid the crowds and stay home for the day?

It must also be remembered that jesus dabbled with resurrections. He raised the widow’s son at nain (luke 7:11-17), jairus’ daughter (matthew 9:18-26; mark 5:21-43; luke 8:40-56), and lazarus (john 11:1-44), however those weren’t enough to draw his attention to contemporary historians.

However one does wonder if jesus’ “fame” was all that deserved? We all know about the healing of the sick and the resurrections, however not many know about his cursing of the fig tree. One day jesus and his disciples came across a fig tree that had no fruit (figs were out of season at the time), and this upset jesus because he was hungry, so he cursed the tree. The following day they found that the tree had withered and died (mark 11:12-20). Some say that this story is a parallel for his clearing of the temple or for the state of Israel (that’s the problem with allegories: who knows?), however that’s guesswork when the text clearly states that jesus was simply hungry. And allegory or not, why curse a tree for not fruiting when it was simply out of season? Incidentally, the same story is told in the book of matthew (written 15 to 20 years after the book of mark), however a bit of legendary embellishment occurs because the tree withers and dies immediately following jesus’ curse: “Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!” (matthew 21:18-20). That’s more impressive, isn’t it? To you bible literalists, which is it: did the tree delay its withering or did it wither immediately? You can’t be literal and have it both ways. If those bits of the bible are in contradiction, then what else is obviously man-made?

Then there’s the episode involving the pigs. In mark (mark 5:1-20), jesus goes across the sea to the region of the Gerasenes where he finds a man possessed by a demon. As an aside, there is no evidence that such a thing as a demon exists, let alone be able to possess a person. Anyhoo, after driving the demon out, the demon begs jesus not to send it away but since it turns out that there are multiple demons, jesus drives them into 2,000 pigs which happen to be standing in a field nearby. The pigs then run down the hill into the sea and drown, although that would appear to be a tall order since the region is many tens of miles (tens of kilometres) from the sea. The gospel of matthew also mentions the story (matthew 8:28-34), but doubles the number of men possessed by demons and doesn’t mention the number of pigs. The gospel of luke (luke 8:26-39) also tells the story, but now it’s back down to one possessed man. (Literalists: was it two men or one?) The gospel of john ignores the story. Apart from how ridiculous the story is, a big problem is that the story has its roots in the Greek story Odyssey by Homer – a work which was written long before any part of the bible was written.

As another aside, the next time a religious purist criticises something like Harry Potter or Star Wars because they depict magic and spells, perhaps you could remind them about the time their jesus used his powers (magic spells?) to drive a demon out of a man and into some unsuspecting pigs? If Harry had done that you’d rightly say it was just a bit too stupid and unlikely to be in the movie, but when your jesus does it, it’s okay is it?

When was the last time one of your holy men stood up in your church and talked about the demons and pigs? Could it be that such events are now omitted from day-to-day church life because they risk alienating any among the congregation who are even vaguely intelligent?

Following his arrest (any paperwork?) jesus underwent a number of trials. He was supposedly questioned by:

the Jewish Sanhedrin High Court,
then by Annas who was the father-in-law of the High Priest,
then by the High priest himself,
then by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate,
then by King Herod Antipas,
and then once again by Pontius Pilate.

How many of those elite people and institutions recorded the proceedings levelled against someone proclaiming to be the king of the Jews? None, of course.

There is a reason that there is not a single record of the large number of actions, miracles and exploits of jesus until the gospels were written long after his time on Earth ended: they didn’t happen.

However it is in death that the jesus story and mythology really kick off. The popular version is that he was found guilty, crucified on “good” Friday, died, was buried, and three days later was resurrected to “ascend” to his rightful place. There is no non-biblical support for those events, and if you examine the various gospel accounts, you’ll soon discover that the story is, if you’ll pardon the expression, full of holes.

The biblical accounts of the death of jesus originate from five “sources”. Those are (in chronological order):

paul writing in 1 corinthians – in about 53 to 54 CE (about 20 years after the events),
the book of mark – in about 66 to 70 CE (about 35 years after the events),
the book of matthew – in about 80 to 90 CE (about 50 years after the events),
the book of luke – in about 80 to 110 CE (about 50 to 80 years after the events),
the book of john – in about 80 to 100 CE (about 50 to 70 years after the events).

Five sources sound impressive, but those five sources are not independent of each other. The thickness of the bible makes it look like it has authority, however it is well documented that each of the authors (and we have no idea who they were) borrowed heavily from the works written before theirs. Here is a detailed summary of the percentages of the material in matthew, mark and luke (the “canonical”, or first three books of the new testament) that are:

unique to matthew: 20%,
unique to mark: 3%,
unique to luke: 35%,
common to all three: matthew 46%, mark 76%, luke 41%,
common between matthew and mark: matthew 10%, mark 18%,
common between matthew and luke: matthew 24%, luke 23%,
common between mark and luke: mark 3%, luke 1%.

The very small percentage next to the uniqueness of mark (which was written first out of the three) is because matthew and luke had a copy of the gospel of mark open as they went along writing their “divine revelation”. More about paul and john’s versions is covered below.

The greatest symbol of many religions is the cross. It sits on the top of churches and is worn around the neck or as piercings; people make the sign of the cross on their chests and foreheads; large-scale ceremonies are designed around the stations of a cross; the bigger religious buildings have their floor plans in the shape of a cross; it adorns the windows, walls, floors, paintings and sculptures of most churches; there’s even a feast of the cross, so it might surprise you to learn that there is no biblical support for a cross being used in the execution of jesus. The simplest way to crucify someone is to get a pole, tie or nail the victim’s feet to the pole, and then tie or nail the victim’s hands to the pole above their head. The Latin term for using a single pole is crux simplex. There are known cases of a crossbeam being used, but it is thought that they were mainly employed to restrain the victims hands as they were brought to the pole – at which point the crossbeam would be attached to the pole for the execution.

The pre-Christian cross was used as a religious symbol and as an ornament among the Egyptians, Syrians, Greeks, Persians, Europeans, and in some parts of Africa – all long before the invention of Christianity. Christianity borrowed so many things from earlier religions and from paganism, so why not the symbol that has come to define the religion? Following the Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in the 4th Century, crucifixion was abolished and the cross was promoted as a symbol of the religion. None of the followers of the religion at that time would have had the slightest clue or evidence as to how jesus was supposed to have been executed, however there’s no doubt that the shape of the cross is a great marketing tool – and it remains so to this day. Unless you are into a certain type of dance genre, who would want to put a symbol of a pole around their neck? There does remain the question as to why anyone would want to wear a miniature of a torture device on their person? And of course there is the point of view that the symbol gets dangerously close to idol worshiping.

Still, if the cross is so important to many religions, why wasn’t it specifically mentioned in the bible in reference to jesus’ execution? Perhaps you are wondering about the verse “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” (matthew 27:40)? Well, if you look back at versions of the gospel before the many English translations, you will find that the word “cross” doesn’t appear. The Orthodox Jewish bible uses “העץ”, which means “tree”; the Complete Jewish Bible uses the word “stake”; and there’s the belief that the closer translation from Hebrew is “gallows”. There’s no doubt that “cross” was an invention that was added to the translations hundreds of years after the events depicted. Why are you elevating to a status of holiness a symbol that doesn’t appear in the “original” texts? Why were the substitutions from the original text made?

It probably won’t come as a surprise that the year is not known for the supposedly most important death in history. The best guess is that it is either 30 CE or 33 CE. It’s inconceivable that, following all the fame and events, the year of passing of the person who was executed for claiming to be the king of the Jews is unknown – especially for someone so important that wise men are said to have visited his birth. The gospel of mark has jesus dying at 3 pm (mark 15:25) on Friday 15 of Nisan (the first month in the Jewish calendar) – which was the afternoon of Passover, but the gospel of john has him dying on the previous day (john 19:31-33) – which is on the preparation day for the Passover. How both of those accounts can still be on a Friday is not explained. Also never satisfactorily explained is how it is possible to squeeze three days and nights into the period of time between Friday (afternoon) and Sunday?

No one is denying that the Romans killed a lot of people who were practicing the cult that would develop into Christianity. There are letters from Roman officials requesting instruction on how to deal with the cult members. The earliest descriptive account of the death of jesus is thought to be from someone called mark (no original or copy from that time survives of course), but even so, those writings were about 35 years after the time jesus was supposed to have been executed. It is very likely that one or more men who roamed the countryside preaching peace and a strict adherence to the old testament were gathered up by the Romans and executed, and also that their tales were retold and exaggerated in those intervening decades by fanboys. On such things, legends grow.

Speaking of legends, the words supposedly uttered by jesus while dying are interesting:

mark and matthew depict jesus as anguished and miserable “My God, why have you forsaken me?”,
ten years later the gospel of luke depicts jesus as serene: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” and “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”,
after another decade or so, the gospel of john depicts him as being more succinct and in charge: “Woman, behold thy son. Behold thy mother”, “I thirst” and “It is finished”.

By the way, that’s the complete set of “documented” utterances by jesus while being crucified. Why the discrepancy between accounts? Wouldn’t that episode have been a perfect time to have an authoritative set of meaningful final words from the lord-to-be? Which is not to say that people have not subsequently gone to extraordinary lengths to impose various meanings on each and every one of those utterances. Unfortunately, all interpretations are nothing more than guesses and speculation. The interesting utterance is the one about “today you will be with me in paradise”, because that’s not how it is supposed to work. The new testament is clear that people will die, be placed in their graves, and then be called forth on judgement day (not “today”). Did jesus not get the memo concerning procedural matters?

But it’s the resurrection that everyone has come to see because dying and rising for our sins (whatever that means) is the central belief of Christianity. Even though the events involved were covered by four main people, it must be remembered that there is no description by someone who witnessed the resurrection (if it did even happen). There is certainly no non-biblical account.

The first minor “account” was by paul. No one knows who paul really was and it is thought that there were four different people writing as “paul” in the new testament. Before getting too worked up about the witness potential of paul, please remember that there is no non-biblical evidence that paul existed.

There’s no doubt that paul had a guilty conscience when it came to all the new-fangled “Christianity” going on around him, mainly because he (supposedly) had persecuted the church when he was younger. Even a cursory reading shows that paul really wanted to get in on the act. Strangely, he identifies himself as an apostle, albeit a minor one (1 corinthians 15:9), and also strangely, he writes that jesus rose from the dead three days later and bases that on “according to the scriptures” (1 corinthians 15:4). But because his writings predate the main four gospel accounts of the jesus story, which scriptures? If you think that paul was referring to some sort of prophecy from the old testament, then forget about it (“prophecies” are covered elsewhere on this site). Or did paul know of other writings that have now been lost or suppressed?

His writing proves that he didn’t witness the actual crucifixion or resurrection, however he is unique in the bible as being the only person to have written about claiming to have met the resurrected jesus. Unfortunately it must be remembered that he only “met” a light and a voice that he interpreted to be jesus – during his conversion while he was on the road to Damascus (supposedly within three years of the resurrection). Out of the many other people who are supposed to have met the resurrected jesus, none wrote an account of their supposed experience.

There’s a strong indication that even though paul desperately wanted the resurrection of jesus to be true, he had doubts. That’s because he goes on a long rant in which he presents a petulant and circular attempt at a “proof” as to why resurrection just has to be the case (from 1 corinthians 15:12-17):

Now if christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is christ not risen: And if christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of god; because we have testified of god that he raised up christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not christ raised: And if christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

This really does appear like someone who thinks: “I double-dare you to call me a liar when I tell you things that we all know most likely didn’t happen”. Sadly, this is what happens to superstitious and ignorant people when they have no scientific or logical training. Based on his earlier life during which he persecuted the church, there was only one imaginable way out for paul, and he took it by jumping onto the bandwagon.

The bit about “how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead” (if believed) is telling because it indicates that there was quite a battle at the time amongst those who didn’t believe a word of it and those (like paul) who just wanted it to be true. When was the last time that one of your religious instructors pointed out that there were people close to the action who didn’t believe in the concept of resurrection (let alone the resurrection of jesus)?

The account of the crucifixion by paul is very basic, with no astronomical or mystical events. He does say that a lot of people witnessed the event: “he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.” (1 corinthians 15:6). It is strange that not one of those 500-plus witnesses bothered to record their experience. Especially since the word must have gotten out that the person they saw executed was resurrected shortly afterwards.

The “account” by mark was written about 15 years after paul’s ramblings. For some reason, following jesus’ trial, someone named simon was compelled to carry jesus’ “cross” to the place of execution. This is the same as is written in matthew and luke, but in john, jesus had to carry his own “cross”. Well, biblical literalists, which version is correct?

Was jesus offered a drink and did he drink it? In mark he didn’t (mark 15:23) but in matthew he at least tried it (matthew 27:24). In luke and john he wasn’t offered a drink, however in each he was offered a smear of vinegar (just before dying). Well, vinegar is obviously more fitting than a mere drink for someone who is supposed to be suffering on our behalf, isn’t it?

The gospel of mark introduces the supernatural to the proceedings of execution, because at noon, three hours of darkness engulfed the land. This is repeated in matthew and luke, but john doesn’t mention it. Three hours is too long for a solar eclipse and it is known that no solar eclipses occurred in the region in the years attributed to jesus’ passing. It’s worth noting that many ancient cultures described darkness at the time of the passing of a monarch or to mark other significant events or signs, for example Herodotus 7.37, Plutarch Pelopidas 31.3, Aemilius Paulus 17.7-11, Dio Cassius 55.22.3, and John Lydus De Ostentis 70.a. The people who wrote the bible simply adapted tried-and-tested old-fashioned mythology.

Also in mark, the temple curtain (fabric that divided parts of the physical temple) was magically torn – something that also happened in matthew and luke, but not in john. Not certain that too many people would have noticed some ripped fabric but you can bet your bottom dollar that three hours of darkness would have been documented by a number of Roman sources. It wasn’t.

However the “account” by matthew steps the supernatural up a notch or three when he wrote “and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (matthew 27:51-53). The next time you stand in a cemetery, try to imagine the force of the earthquake that would be needed to cause graves to open. Would any building or structure remain standing if enough force was expended to open the graves of all of the holy men? And what state were those corpses in as they began the zombie apocalypse of Jerusalem? You’d have to imagine that seeing rotting corpses of holy men whom you knew to have died (presumably still in recognizable burial garb) would leave a lasting impression on a large number of people in the city, yet strangely there is not a single non-biblical source that records the event! And what’s really strange is that even the other gospels fail to mention it. It’s only the most extreme bible literalists who can keep a straight face while believing that such an event occurred. But that leads to obvious questions: if the bible is the true word of the omniscient creator of the universe how could such a fantasy make it into the text, and of course what else in the bible is nothing but exaggerated man-made fantasy?

According to mark, when they (“mary magdalene, and mary the mother of james, and salome”) went to the tomb of jesus, they found the covering stone had been rolled away and “they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.” (mark 16:5-6). Who was that masked man? Surely not an angel? It was obviously someone in the know, but sadly there is no name or explanation for the circumstances under which the young man came to be in possession of a situation report. Weirdly, early versions of the gospel of mark conclude shortly after that point with “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.” (mark 16:8), which seems a strange way to start the central message of a new religion, but “thankfully” later versions tack on a bit more about how jesus appeared to many people and exhorted them to “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (mark 16:15). Was the “tacking on” (years later) part of the divine plan of the omniscient creator of the universe? Of course, none of the people described as eyewitnesses to the resurrected jesus wrote an account of the events.

Disturbingly, it’s near the end of mark that we get the sage advice regarding true believers: “and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (mark 16:18). True believers testing themselves with deadly poison is something that doesn’t happen nearly enough in these modern times, and it’s notable that not a single case of Covid-19 (or any other illness) is known to have been reversed following the laying of hands on the sick by a true believer. Hell of a religion when there’s not one known true believer in over seven billion people!

The gospel of matthew also introduces supernatural events when it came to the two mary’s going to visit jesus’ tomb. Instead of the tomb simply being open (as it was in mark), “there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” (matthew 28:2). The other gospels fail to mention this earthquake. In mark’s gospel, mary was determined to keep very quiet about the whole scary risen thing, but in matthew she ran as fast as she could to inform the disciples. Somehow jesus (yes, that jesus) was already there when she arrived, and he instructed everyone to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” (matthew 28:19). There’s a strange account near the end of matthew whereby the high priests paid large sums of money to the soldiers (who apparently knew about the resurrection) to say that jesus’ body had actually been removed by his disciples. Why the attempt at suppression of the truth? Wasn’t the aim to spread the good word? Of course, none of the people described as eyewitnesses to the resurrected jesus wrote an account of the events.

So was the tomb open before the women arrived? Some gospels say yes and some say no. Which is it, bible literalists?

It’s obvious that whoever wrote matthew would have made a first-class Hollywood screenwriter because his special effects were top notch – which is not to say that luke didn’t try to ramp things up just a little over the accounts by paul and mark. Whoever wrote luke didn’t go in for the zombie apocalypse version, but he did double the number of people found in the tomb when mary and mary went to see what had happened to jesus: “behold, two men stood by them in shining garments” (luke 24:4). He also added to the mary mix: “It was mary magdalene and joanna, and mary the mother of james, and other women that were with them” (luke 24:10).

The gospel of luke does become specific about where jesus caught up with his followers after the resurrection trick: in the town of emmaus, supposedly about 12 km (7.5 miles) away from Jerusalem – although, as you were no doubt expecting, no one today knows where that town was. For some reason the followers could not recognise that they were conversing with jesus – “their eyes were holden that they should not know him” (luke 24:16), but admit that “when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.” (luke 24:23). Luckily, after breaking bread and eating meat with them, jesus opened their eyes and they knew him – at which point he vanished. They then went back to Jerusalem and explained the day’s events to simon and the eleven. Perhaps not believing that the message really had got through, jesus suddenly appeared to everyone and asked for some meat, and ate the broiled fish and honeycomb he was given. Having finally established things beyond doubt, he requested that the message be preached in his name among all nations – at which point he was carried up to heaven. Of course, none of the people described as eyewitnesses to the resurrected jesus wrote an account of the events.

Whoever wrote john’s gospel dispensed with the three hours of darkness and zombies, but did invent the concept of a brand new sepulchre (a small, stone room, vault, or cave used as a tomb) into which jesus was the first body to be laid (apparently it’s important that there be no prior ownership when you are going to use a tomb for three days on your way back to the pointy end of heaven). In john’s version it was mary mag. alone who discovered the tomb open and jesus missing. She ran to inform simon and another disciple, who in turn ran back to have a look (simon won that race). They didn’t appreciate the fuss about an empty space and returned home. Staying behind, mary “stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.” (john 20:11-12). Turning around, mary then saw a man whom she first took to be the gardener (as you do), but then realized to be jesus when he asked her to stop touching him because he had not yet ascended to “his father”. He asked mary to let the disciples know what had happened, and a little later he materialized in front of the disciples to prove who he was (john didn’t mention anything about the road trip to emmaus). One of the disciples, named thomas wasn’t there that day, so to quell any doubts he was having, jesus was forced to appear to the group again eight days later – apparently the first time thomas had a window in his calendar in over a week. This time, that doubting thomas got the message. To the bible literalists, why is there no “joanna, and mary the mother of james, and other women” in the account by john?

In case you think that jesus was a little remiss in term of signs, john tries to put the reader’s mind at ease with “And many other signs truly did jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book” (john 20:30). It’s likely john realised that just stating that there were many other signs wasn’t going to cut it, so he decided to describe one. Apparently jesus appeared to the disciples who were having a bad day’s fishing and, after asking them to cast their net one more time, filled it so full of fish (153 fish!) that they couldn’t draw it in (which doesn’t sound that helpful to be honest). Somehow they managed to get the net to the shore and they had a nice meal with jesus of BBQ fish. Perhaps john thought that he had underdone the example-sign because he finished his gospel with: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” (john 21:25). Of course, none of the people described as eyewitnesses to the resurrected jesus wrote an account of even one of the events.

The analysis (above) of the four main gospels (mark, matthew, luke and john) concentrated on the death and resurrection of jesus, but of course there is much more in each of them. The miracles and actions of jesus do progressively get more fantastic as the stories are told, and that’s a phenomenon called legendary embellishment. It’s a natural human characteristic when writing fiction to take what has been written before and to add to it. It would be boring to just write out what had already been written, so each writer took the bits they liked and added the bits they thought would make the story more interesting and exciting.

It’s not well known, but there is a gospel of peter (not 1 peter or 2 peter because those are by a different “peter”), however it was rejected as apocryphal by the Catholics. It is believed to date from the first half of the second century CE, and here are three excerpts that deal with the resurrection (peter 8-10):

and having rolled a great stone together with the centurion and the soldiers, they all who were there together set it at the door of the sepulchre; and they affixed seven seals and pitched a tent there and guarded it. … there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend with a great light and approach the tomb. And the stone that was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in. … they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes.

Here, the soldiers are the witnesses (no, they didn’t write accounts). Bathed in a great light, two men (angels?) accompany jesus back up into the sky. The two men went pretty high, but jesus overshot them to be the highest. For some reason, the “cross” was in the tomb, and it moved by itself, and even talked. The account does what the others didn’t: it fills in the blanks as to the mechanics of how the resurrection “worked”. It does go on to mention how mary found the empty tomb and fled – in a manner practically the same as the description in the gospel of mark. That means that whoever wrote the peter account copied mark and added bits as required.

If you are thinking that the account by peter is ridiculous and deserved to be rejected, then the question is why do you think that? Is it because it wasn’t written by an eyewitness? Is it because it adds to previous versions? Is it because it was written long after the events described? Is it because it contains unbelievable and supernatural events? If so, you’ve just given the reasons why the other gospels should also be rejected (and have been by sane and intelligent people all over the world).

A large problem with today’s religions is that almost no person who maintains that they are religious has read the texts (critically or uncritically) upon which their religion is based. Instead, they blindly accept the words of those who believe that they are in a position to teach. Those words are based on: cherry-picking, a lot of interpretation, indoctrination, suppression of the unsuitable parts of the text, marketing, a faulty foundation of logic, and a desire to wield power with the aim of controlling others. The result of that system is a set of unquestionable ideas, and in the case of the jesus story the fundamental idea is that of someone having died for the sins of others. This apparently gives every single person a way out of this life and into an afterlife – a process called vicarious redemption or substitutionary atonement.

A scapegoat is the concept of an entity onto which something bad can be laid, and then have that entity take the blame and consequences for others. The concept is an ancient one, and there are examples from Ancient Syria and Ancient Greece that predate the writing of the new and old testaments. The Syrian example involved a she-goat with a silver bracelet hung from her neck which was driven forth into the wasteland. The Greek example took it up a notch because the scapegoat would usually be an individual of lower society such as a criminal, a slave, or a poor person, and was for example, a poor man who would be feasted and then led around the walls of the city before being chased out with stones. These are superstitious rituals and the people involved obviously believed that they were appeasing a higher being or power with their sacrificial practices.

The bible is full of examples of sacrifices made as atonements, but it’s in leviticus that the text becomes very specific as to the practice of using a scapegoat (leviticus 16:7-10):

And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat. And aaron shall bring the goat upon which the lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

Can you imagine in this day and age obtaining an animal, performing a ritual that you believed transferred your sins to it, driving it to a remote location, letting it go into the wilderness, and then driving home feeling much better because you now believe that your sins have vanished? Well, your god says it is a suitable technique to employ. Apart from the cruelty involved, the thought is so ridiculous as to be risible. However the jesus story is nothing more than an elaborate retelling of the ancient practice of deploying a scapegoat.

The elephant in the room is the ridiculous concept underpinning one person dying for another person’s sins and redemption. To begin, if jesus did exist, he died about 2,000 years ago, and therefore he had no idea about the type, extent and nature of sins that someone might care to indulge in today. Does it really make sense for someone to have died retrospectively? There’s also the loophole that someone can continue to practice those nasty old sins as long as they come clean just before the end. If someone does recant their wicked ways just before the end, why is it important that someone died 2,000 years ago? Surely genuine recanting is all that is needed (without anyone dying)?

For anyone stating that fake recanting wouldn’t count, don’t forget that it is likely that any number of prior fake recants would be forgotten if someone knew that they were really dying this time. I.e. they could game the system in the knowledge that they really did plan to recant when they knew there was no way out.

And what is a sin anyway? Is it just those described in the bible? Is shorting a stock in the minutes following the 9/11 attack a sin? The bible is a bit short on advice on that one. “Sin” only makes sense if one accepts a moral framework defined by something like the bible. There are tribes who have never heard of the abrahamic god or the bible, so do they need jesus to have died if they stumble into something that is considered a sin in Christianity? Can a new-born baby already be a sinner by its thoughts and actions? Fundamentalists believe that we are all born evil and have to become good, but what exactly has a baby done (yet) to be considered a sinner? Is a small child who lies about the number of lollies they’ve eaten guilty of a sin? We have a sense of not hurting others (which is a good evolutionary strategy because we survive better in groups), but what constitutes hurting someone? If a Nazi comes to your door and asks if you know the whereabouts of a Jewish girl who is hiding in your attic, is it a sin to lie and say no? The religious fundamentalists (the ones who end up destroying themselves and everyone around themselves) would say that it was a sin. Perhaps they would change their tune if they (or their child) was the one in the attic? For more on this topic, see morals (a link to a page on this site).

And did jesus really die? Perhaps “loaned” is a better word, because all the scriptures are quite clear that he came back to life to ascend to his rightful place next to god up there in heaven (or some such). Apart from the hours of crucifixion nastiness, one suspects that jesus will do pretty well for himself during all eternity. Hell, according to luke, jesus was back up and on his feet eating fish and honeycomb shortly after being resurrected! Doesn’t sound too bad, does it? There have been people who have suffered far worse deaths than crucifixion – without becoming the basis of a new religion.

Churches today try to portray Christianity as beginning with a happy band of brothers, centred around jesus – all roaming the countryside and passing on the message via good words and miracles; but the truth is very different. Since Christianity didn’t exist in the early days as we know it today, this book will simply refer to it as “the Cult”. And it is as a cult that the Romans knew it.

The Cult was divided: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our lord jesus christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1 corinthians 1:10), and early Cult practices were happening in a number of very different places including in Damascus, Antioch and Rome. There’s no doubt that paul was very worried about Cult members splintering: “For if he that cometh preacheth another jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2 corinthians 11:4). Even the major players were divided with sects forming around peter, paul, john the baptist, and mark – the point being that the seeds were set for myth-making and embellishments that happened after the time jesus is supposed to have lived.

As previously mentioned, it’s likely that there were many people walking around who were preaching their version of one or more proto-religions, obviously containing messages including peace, love and nonconformity (in one way or another), and it is known that the Romans weren’t afraid to execute Cult members. When all is considered, is it really that hard to believe that the legend grew of a (basically) good man whose life was cruelly cut short by the Romans simply because he went around preaching? Such people had followers and it’s also likely that those followers would have tried to get to the bodies of their fallen leaders, either to perform a different burial or to retrieve a souvenir. All it would have taken is one moved body or a mix up with the location of a body, and hey presto: a resurrection myth is born. The followers would then have tried to incorporate more and more exaggerated versions of miraculous deeds into the timeline of their fallen hero – especially if they were in competition against other factions in the Cult. It seems very likely that in the decades following the 30s CE, mythologies converged based on the jesus legend. In other words, it’s likely that the jesus figure is an amalgam of some unusual circumstance, some (small) fact, some (large) fiction, and (a humongous amount of) embellishment.

It must also be remembered that almost nothing is known of the life of the younger jesus. But how could the accounts of his life incorporate details that later authors didn’t know, or didn’t care about? If he could perform miracles later in life, why not as a kid – and which kid wouldn’t want to perform miracles? You can bet your house on the existence of a kid performing miracles coming to the attention of historians of the day, yet, sadly, there was no mention of such a child.

But what about non-biblical sources that have something to report about the figure of jesus? Christians are quick to claim that there are Roman authors who specifically mention jesus and therefore lend some sort of credence to the historical authenticity of him. The following will save you the trouble of looking them up, because here are the eighteen that are usually mentioned. When you look down the list (their years of birth and death are given), see if you can discover the major problem with accepting any of them as accounts that prove anything about jesus:

Flavius Josephus: Romano-Jewish historian. 37 to c. 100 CE. Wrote Antiquities of the Jews in 93 to 94 CE, but the bits to do with the jesus figure are thought to be a later forgery because no one else references them until the 4th century (despite the rest of his work being regularly referenced by other writers long before then).
Clement of Rome: Bishop of Rome. c. 35 to 99 CE.
Ignatius: Patriarch of Antioch. c. 35 to 108/140 CE.
Pliny the Younger: Roman governor. 61 to c. 113 CE. He discusses more about the followers after jesus’ death, as opposed to things about jesus.
Suetonius: Roman historian. c. 69 to after 122 CE.
Tacitus: Roman historian. c. 56 to c. 120 CE. Wrote Annals c. 116 CE. The oldest surviving copy is from the 11th century and there is evidence that it has been tampered to try and introduce the concept of “christ”.
Polycarp: Bishop of Smyrna. 69 to 155 CE.
Mara Bar-Serapion: Syrian letter-writer. Known for a single letter composed sometime between 73 CE and the 3rd century CE.
Justin Martyr: Christian apologist. 100 to 165 CE.
Lucian: Roman satirist. 125 to after 180 CE.
Clement of Alexandria: Christian theologian and philosopher. c. 150 to c. 215 CE.
Tertullian: Christian author. c. 155 to c. 240 CE.
Hippolytus: Christian theologian. c. 170 to 235 CE.
Origen of Alexandria: Christian theologian. c. 184 to c. 253 CE.
Phlegon: Greek writer. Lived in the 2nd century CE.
Cyprian: Bishop of Carthage. c. 200 to 258 CE
Eusebius of Caesarea: Christian historian c. 260 to c. 339 CE
Thallus: Roman chronologer. Wrote about the supposed hours of darkness at the time of jesus’ death, but no one knows exactly when he wrote that. The best guess is that it was at the end of the 1st century or the start of the 2nd century CE. There is certainly no proof that he was an eyewitness to the event.

Hopefully you noticed that not a single one of those people was alive when jesus is supposed to have lived? Therefore every one of them wrote their works many decades or up to hundreds of years after jesus died (supposedly in either 31 or 33 CE). That means that not one of them was an eyewitness to a single event attributed to jesus, and therefore all of them based their writings on the works of others (none of whom were known to be eyewitnesses). And what’s more, they almost always wrote about what other people believed about jesus – not what they actually knew, let alone could prove.

But what is key in all of the above is that even if logic is relaxed to believe that the sources support aspects of a historical jesus figure, then not a single one is proof of any supernatural aspect or divinity attributed to that figure. In other words, not one of those non-biblical sources proves that the character assumed to be jesus performed a single miracle or that he was resurrected, let alone that he was closely related to a figure that could be considered to be a god. At best the sources might support the mythology and legendary embellishment that built up around the composite figure of the character supposed to be jesus.

The fact is that there is not a single contemporary (or even near-contemporary) eyewitness source for any part of the jesus story. If the reader is honest, it is easy to realise the truth: that the figure of jesus – as is promoted by the modern-day churches, i.e. someone who performed miracles, was resurrected, and is related to a god – never existed. Thing tend to fall apart quickly following that realization.

If you are still tempted to believe in the myth that is jesus, then the only fair thing to do is to leave you with the words of the “man” himself (matthew 10:34-37):

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

So it really is a competition between jesus and you, and your loved ones. Good luck with that.

Back