Thursday, October 15, 2009

Jesus has never existed

There have always been those opposing the lies of the so called Jesus Christ, both concerning his origin and his very existence, both as a man and a god.

Right from the very start, the very creation of the prevailing myths, people have exposed the lies. Those sharing what was then the present with the first Christians could easily expose it for the fairy tale it was, since everyone or at least a lot of people then knew them to be right. They exposed it as bullshit, what everybody should do today as well, when it has long since become such dangerous and insane bullshit.

I’ve had the pleasure of reading Archaya S and others’ writings on this for years. They expose claim by claim Christianity’s most fundamental lies.

There is no proof what so ever that Jesus has existed, in any form. On the contrary it becomes ever clearer that the Christians invented him. One of the church fathers, Eusebius of Caesarea is even bragging about it in his books.

«We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.»

Eusebius of Caesarea - church father of Nicaea 325 - Ecclesiastical History (Vol. 8, chapter 2).

«How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived»

Eusebius of Caesarea - church father of Nicaea 325 - Praeparatio Evangelica (title book 12, chapter 32).

These are merely a few of the «highlights» in his writings.

The early Christians picked and chose between ancient pagan legends and myths in which they created their savior to deceive the world. They didn’t emulate one particular story but a little from many of them, from the story of Zeus, Mitra, Buddha and Horus, to mention a few.

Non-Christian historians living in the first few centuries after the professed crucifixion don’t mention Jesus or Christ with a single word. Either the word Christ (or Christos) means something completely different where they used it, or historical documents were quite simply changed and forged by later Christians. The entire so called Testimonium Flavianum presumably from the writings of Josephus, a Jewish general and historian is probably Eusebius’ doing, his insertion.

Thinkers and researchers like Archaya S and the rest have studied the material thoroughly, and with far more critical eyes than officially sanctioned scientists. Doing elementary cross-checking and true scientific methods they have pieced together a picture quite different from the accepted story, exposing established scientific circles for the deceivers they are.

Because the fallacy continues today. The Christians and their apologist supporters have the power and decide what should be held as truth. The established scientific circles work with something they call the «zero hypothesis», which is basically what is currently seen as the most probable «truth». Then they defend that against any alternatives, and have the gall to claim that they are seeking the truth and nothing but the truth. Two thousand years after everything started the hustlers have convinced almost the entire world, with disastrous results. Fortunately there are those that won’t be fooled, people seeing religion for what it is: opium for the people and a pox on mankind.

  More here


  1. I think you're falling into the same trap as the Christians here. You're not giving any evidence to support your claim that Jesus never existed. The writings of Eusebius don't mention what lies they inserted, just that they were indeed inserted. This could mean that Jesus was an actual person, but they made him out to be God in order to further their cause.

    I am an atheist, but I must say that I don't agree with you on this one. There is no proof anywhere in your writing to support your claim of Jesus' non-existence.

  2. Hi, Joseph, great to hear from you.

    You can't prove a negative, you know. I thought everyone knew that.

    I'm just pointing out, like others do that there is no proof that Jesus ever existed, that one just as well could claim that Zeus and other pagan gods existed. We base a lot of western civilization on a bluff, quite simply. All existing "evidence" is doubtful, at best.

    As stated I'm simply pointing out a few things among many here. Others, like Archaya S have devoted entire sites to their research.

  3. I love the idea that all of Christianity started as a prank! It kind of gives me hope for the eventual worldwide domination by those who follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    My understanding ( and I could be wrong) is that there is nothing but a fairly oblique reference to a " Teacher from Nazareth" in an historical document other than the bible. I agree that there is no proof. Those who claim there is proof refer to the bible as their proof. I need a lot more than that.

  4. Just give the Flying Spaghetti Monster a few decades, and it will be worldwide. The moonies and scientology churches were overnight successes.

  5. I study litterature - and, as you might know, I am an atheist (almost militant as such). Although I have never believed in christianity, my views actually have been reinforced by what I have been taught at the university. We "close-read" a few texts from the bible in one of the courses I took a couple of years back, and every single one of those texts had been written by several people (this has in fact been proved as there are clearly several different styles of writing - even in quite short texts), or as my professor put it; it is obvious that not just one person has altered the original text[s] severely during history, but in fact several - and it is more than likely that this was done to suit their own purposes. If they actually believed what was written, there would be no reason to change it!
    I believe that when things like this is taught at the universities, there is still hope. Although, I'm guessing that something like this never would (unfortunately) be taugh at an american university. But, hopefully, this will prevail as the dominant view among literary students - and again, hopefully, they (we) will bring these views into whatever form of litteratur they'll work with later in life. I know I will (though, I always would). I I've said - there is still hope!

  6. Anybody with training in reading texts can easily see it's a fraud, see it with a glance.

    (True) education may be a weapon against religion. On the other hand, there are many religious people hiding behind their academic titles.

    Sorry for the late publication of your post btw. I'm not often on the web and briefly each time.

  7. Anonymous7:44 AM

    While I agree that Christianity is full of lies and flights of fancy, I'm not so sure that we would ever be able to say with certainty that a Jesus did not exist. I would be curious to know how prevalent the name of Jesus was during the time the alleged events of the Bible transpired. It is likely, for the purposes of believability, that Biblical authors may have at least chosen someone (a dude named Jesus) that had at some point been alive. It is also likely that these same authors then began working to transpose the miraculous identity of God's only son onto Jesus. Regardless of the existence of Jesus, it doesnt take much research to find that the Biblical Jesus is nothing more than a ready made makeshift messiah. It must take a tremendous amount of mental effort for apologists to reason their way around the damning similarities of the dozens of precursor gods. I just can't fathom how apologists can remain believers after staring into the very origins of the Christian myth. It's like defending someone that is obviously lying to you. For this very reason, I say that all apologists are either incredibly dishonest or incredibly indoctrinated. The one thing that is clearly evident is that entire history of Christianity is littered with pretenders and liars, even to this day.

  8. There is no evidence that Jesus existed and it isn't very likely.

    Yes, it is a con game of enormous proportions.

  9. Have you read the A. N. Wilson book on Jesus? he started off as a christian and ended up as an agnostic. A well researched book that introduces an interesting take on social commentary of the time like the 'loaves and fishes' being about different factions sitting down and sharing bread with each other.

    Of course there is no evidence to support Jesus being the son of God and Paul had so much to do with turning him into a demi god but it tiks so many boxes for so many needy people. How do we fight it?

  10. Great Read. Most of the Atheist books, including Dan Barker's Godless also deny that Jesus existed.
    Barker makes some great points, 1 of them being what everyone knows which is Matthew is the only person to write about Jesus, many decades after his alleged death. Additionally, others point out the discrepancies and contradictions of how Mary and Joseph arrived in bethlehem.
    Lastly the lineages of Jesus in 2 different books are different. Matthew has David to jesus in 2 names, Luke in 43 names, with only 4 names identical in the 2 books.
    I'm not convinced he existed.....

  11. Phillip: No, I haven't read that one, but it sounds like he had done his research, at least on what you mentioned. It is typical that customs at the time have been interpreted completely different later.

    Jonah: Bible, your name name is discrepancy...

  12. Good blog, raising a lot of important points -

    I don't know that if I could "prove a negative" to say that this Jesus fellow absolutely didn't exist -
    But, I can say that anything that can be attributed through biblical texts to the existence of the character of Jesus are certainly falsifiable.
    If that's splitting hairs, then so be it ( ;

    Any text drawn upon to learn about this Jesus is only a reconstruction undertaken some considerable time after the fact and betrays a "manufacturing" of an idealized person
    ( even being son of and/or god).

    The simple fact is that the "New Testament" as we know it, is a confused and haphazard accumulation of texts which are in disagreement at best, other wise being completely contradictory documents in regards to who this Jesus was supposed to be.
    Their multiple authors, none of whom published anything until many decades after the Crucifixion cannot agree on anything of importance.

    Matthew and Luke cannot concur on the Virgin Birth or the genealogy of Jesus. The two books that are attributed to a Mathew and Luke, flatly contradict each other on the "Flight into Egypt".
    Of course, I believe it was the authors from the book of Mathew when trying to prove that Jesus was the messiah, drew upon the book of Isiah and mistranslated the word "almah", which literally means "a young woman", into meaning "virgin".

    Of course these facts do discredit the gospels as being any kind of a "historical record" or of being any sort of "literal truth".
    This means that many of the "sayings" and teachings of Jesus are hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay, which helps explain their garbled and contradictory nature.

    So essentially, everything attributed to a historical Jesus, is indeed false - which is almost to say that he never existed in the first place ( ;