Can we discuss the historicity of Jesus?

[Martin TK]

I was on another site, a theist one, and I began discussing the differences between a historical Jesus, the mythical one that the Christian gospels describe, and the effect that Paul had on the modern Christian belief system.

My thoughts are:

Jesus was a historical figure, probably a solid Jewish teacher/rabbi who most likely taught somewhere around the first century. He was not a radical in the sense that many believe, he did not set out to be the savior of the world, he probably said he was the son of god, meaning that all of us are in some way the son/daughter of the Jewish god. He may well have taught some of what is attributed to him in the New Testament, but certainly not all.
The MYTHICAL Jesus, that today's Christians follow, with his virgin birth, his walking on water, healing the sick, and his resurrection, was most likely a construct of the early Christians, certainly those who HAD to give him street creds and prove his ties to the Old Testament and a lineage to David.
Paul probably did more to invent Christianity than did Jesus or any of the disciples. It was the writings, and ramblings, of Paul that set up much of the early structure of the Christian religion. I'll stop short of calling it a cult, though I am inclined to view early Christianity as a cult in many ways. Paul's writtings and teachings, even today, make up the backbone of most of the Catholic Church structure, and his writings were undoubtedly extremely important in the Nicean Council's bringing together the early sects of Christianity into one in the fourth century.

I put this out, so that we might have a very good discussion on this topic. Please understand that I think the bible is an important part of the literature of the world, even as I do not believe it to be divinely inspired or written.  Anyway, I had this one guy who completely made a fool of himself, constantly trying to "show me the peer reviewed research" that shows Jesus was a historical figure.  The problem was that he kept calling those of us who disagreed with him, idiots or ignorant.  I was amazed that he called himself an agnostic, but said he had a degree in Biblical Studies.  Anyway, Thanks.

[Double D]

I'm glad to read some of your opinions, but I'm sad to say that you're not posting much on how you derive your beliefs.  If you want some proofs on the existence of a man named Jesus from whom the term 'Christian' was from, there are a few secular sources.

First of all, let's look at what the roman historian, Tactus writes of Him (and the treatment of early Christians)

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Annals

And from a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy Babylonian Talmud

So it would appear that at least from a secular historical perspective, there was a man names Jesus (or Yeshu), who was 'suffered the extreme penalty' on the eve of passover because he practiced 'sorcery' and 'enticed Israel to apostasy' by a procurator of Rome named Pontius Pilate.

I can give exact textual references from the Bible if you like, but I'm sure we're all at least versed well enough to know about Jesus' miracles, his constant challenge of the intense legalism and man-made traditions of the Jewish people (mainly by the Pharisees and Saduccees), and was crucified (hanged) by Pontius Pilate on a cross.

The Apostle Paul, don't forget, initially was such a Pharisee who persecuted the early Christian Church, even condoning the killings of early Christians.  Ironically, he was converted (according to the Bible, by Christ himself) and became the subject of such persecution by both Jews and Romans before eventually being put to death for his beliefs.

FTR, I believe that If Paul were to write a letter to the Catholic Church today, it wouldn't be filled with many pleasantries.

[radicalaggrivation]

The historicity of Jesus seems to be a pretty touchy subject so I will be as diplomatic about this as possible. To be brief, there is no reliable secular source that supports the existence of Jesus. It is likely that the man was a total concoction of early Christians in the same vein as Hercules. A hero myth figure used to advance religious ideas, that would have mass appeal to the largely pagan and Jewish beliefs of the time. The religion truly has many borrowed ingredients from many other systems of belief.

Usually when people point to extra biblical text to support the claim that Jesus was real they cite Josephus and Tacitus. I will address the one I feel more strongly makes a case for a secular source about Jesus; Tacitus. The particular passage that is typically quoted is from Tacitus’ The Annals, written around 109 CE. The Annals was Tacitus’ last work. It was intended to be a comprehensive history of the four Roman emperors that followed Augustus. Much of this work was lost, however, and what remains is the majority of Tiberius and Nero’s reign.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Annals

There is little doubt that Tacitus is referring to Jesus in this passage but this brings us to the most glaring issue with his reference. Jesus is believed to have died between 30 and 35 CE. Rome devastated Jerusalem at around 70 CE. Understanding that Tacitus wrote The Annals in 109 CE, we are left with 75 year gap between the time he authored his works and Jesus’ supposed death. We are also left with a 40 year gap between the authorship of The Annals and the time that Rome sieged Jerusalem.  Time is a key factor in determining the credibility of a source and there is no evidence that Tacitus was using a firsthand source at all. If he was writing 5, 10, or even 20 years after the fact we could be less critical but 75 years after the event is too much time to consider Tacitus a reliable secular source.

There is no argument that people lived much shorter lives and the vast majority of people were also illiterate. For ignorant people, who consider a 30 year old woman elderly, it is not hard to see the issues cropping up for the credibility of Tacitus’ excerpt about “Christus”. He is far from the range of any credible first had accounts. That fact alone creates a huge discrepancy in just how accurate Tacitus could possibly be. For those that would argue that the Romans destroyed all of the firsthand accounts of Jesus during the 70 CE siege, not only is that totally ridiculous (Romans kept the best records in antiquity, including their embarrassing campaign against Hannibal), it would go against every Roman historical tradition before and after this event.

Another glaring flaw in Tacitus’ account of Christian persecution is how he refers to Jesus. There is no doubt that he is referring to Jesus when he says “Christus”. The question is why did he use that term? Christus would not have been used in any Hebrew writing because it was a Latin word. If there were any firsthand accounts of Jesus life being written by those who witnessed him personally, it is more likely that this would have been translated from Hebrew or Greek, rather than Latin. Yeshu or Yeshua are the common Hebrew words used to refer to Jesus. Given the time The Annals were being written, it is strange that Tacitus did not use the Hebrew word or at the very least the Greek word for Jesus; Christos (the anointed one).

This may all seem trivial but it is very important to note that aside from a mistranslation, there is little other reason that Tacitus would have used the word Christus, instead of Christos or Yeshua. The reason for this mistake is likely because Tacitus was not using any first hand sources but possibly citing from the then widely circulated Gospels themselves. It is possible Tacitus was using some of the Vetus Latina (Old Latin Bible) or that he simply misread a Greek translation or that his particular translation had a textual mistake (which was very common). All of these scenarios are more likely than the word Christus being purposely used as a reference to Jesus in, what should have been, Greek or Hebrew text.

Another embarrassing issue with arguing for a historical Jesus is the fact that not one of Jesus’ contemporaries writes a single word of his existence. It is only after nearly 4 decades have passed that anyone mentions him at all. That is very strange considering there were a formidable amount of historians and scholars that lived around the time of his life and death.  This laundry list includes Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus, and most notably Philo of Alexadria.

Philo deserves a special nod because not only did he live during the entire supposed lifetime of Jesus (between 20 BCE to 50 CE), he was most active during the time when Jesus supposedly died, he only lived a few hundred miles away from Jerusalem, and he wrote extensively about the persecution of Jews by Pontius Pilate! Nearly all of Philo’s work is preserved and yet he seems to never have heard of the King of the Jews, Jesus Christ! How strange for someone who was clearly invested in the plight of Jews and had every available opportunity to hear anything at all about Jesus and yet he never mentions then name. Surely Philo would have heard of a man who claimed to be the son of God, who challenged the very foundation of the Jewish practice in Jerusalem, and who was sentenced to die by a well known Roman leader Philo followed closely. Philo got everything else but somehow missed all of that.

I know that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence but this is just ridiculous. Some may dispute all of these coincidences but as a skeptic I cannot do that. There are simply too many more logical explanations, other than everyone who could have attested to Jesus caught amnesia or all of their records were destroyed. I would have no problem rejecting a real Jesus as the son of God but in this case Jesus is just as paper-thin as all the other heavily praised deities of history. Jesus was just lucky enough to be popular when movable type was invented, so his myth could be spread far and wide for pennies on the dollar.

Check out some of the links below for my sources and I have to give big props to R.G. Price, who has the most comprehensive argument against a historical Christ I have ever seen. If you do nothing else, check out his website radicalrevolution.net. Links below.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... tory.htm#8 (if you are even fleetingly interested in the subject you need to check out this site. It is an amazing resource and he cites everything for us to use. This is the major source for my article. Props to R.G. Price again.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo
http://dictionary.babylon.com/christus/
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/how- ... jesus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina

[hismikeness]

Added as a signature. I like it...  

As for the historical Jesus... there may be, in the minds of some, no doubt that a man called Jesus lived. In fact, he may have been incredibly popular and charismatic enough to have people follow him. And maybe he was just David Blaine enough to actually pull off the water in to wine thing, and that woulda just put him and his sandals right up over the top.

However, whether or not he actually existed, to me, is a moot point. He probably did. I think it is easier  to spread the son of god butter on a real person rather than a fictional one, especially if he was a charismatic jew. But making a guy up out of thin air, and making him divine, even 2000 years ago that might have been a stretch.

Two facts remain: 1. None of us were there and the records are spotty at best. 2. People throughout history have had enough personality to have ridiculous posthumous tales told of them, and many have had "followers" whist they were still living. See: Joseph Smith.

[Martin TK]

The historicity of Jesus seems to be a pretty touchy subject so I will be as diplomatic about this as possible. To be brief, there is no reliable secular source that supports the existence of Jesus. It is likely that the man was a total concoction of early Christians in the same vein as Hercules. A hero myth figure used to advance religious ideas, that would have mass appeal to the largely pagan and Jewish beliefs of the time. The religion truly has many borrowed ingredients from many other systems of belief.

Usually when people point to extra biblical text to support the claim that Jesus was real they cite Josephus and Tacitus. I will address the one I feel more strongly makes a case for a secular source about Jesus; Tacitus. The particular passage that is typically quoted is from Tacitus’ The Annals, written around 109 CE. The Annals was Tacitus’ last work. It was intended to be a comprehensive history of the four Roman emperors that followed Augustus. Much of this work was lost, however, and what remains is the majority of Tiberius and Nero’s reign.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Annals

There is little doubt that Tacitus is referring to Jesus in this passage but this brings us to the most glaring issue with his reference. Jesus is believed to have died between 30 and 35 CE. Rome devastated Jerusalem at around 70 CE. Understanding that Tacitus wrote The Annals in 109 CE, we are left with 75 year gap between the time he authored his works and Jesus’ supposed death. We are also left with a 40 year gap between the authorship of The Annals and the time that Rome sieged Jerusalem.  Time is a key factor in determining the credibility of a source and there is no evidence that Tacitus was using a firsthand source at all. If he was writing 5, 10, or even 20 years after the fact we could be less critical but 75 years after the event is too much time to consider Tacitus a reliable secular source.

There is no argument that people lived much shorter lives and the vast majority of people were also illiterate. For ignorant people, who consider a 30 year old woman elderly, it is not hard to see the issues cropping up for the credibility of Tacitus’ excerpt about “Christus”. He is far from the range of any credible first had accounts. That fact alone creates a huge discrepancy in just how accurate Tacitus could possibly be. For those that would argue that the Romans destroyed all of the firsthand accounts of Jesus during the 70 CE siege, not only is that totally ridiculous (Romans kept the best records in antiquity, including their embarrassing campaign against Hannibal), it would go against every Roman historical tradition before and after this event.

Another glaring flaw in Tacitus’ account of Christian persecution is how he refers to Jesus. There is no doubt that he is referring to Jesus when he says “Christus”. The question is why did he use that term? Christus would not have been used in any Hebrew writing because it was a Latin word. If there were any firsthand accounts of Jesus life being written by those who witnessed him personally, it is more likely that this would have been translated from Hebrew or Greek, rather than Latin. Yeshu or Yeshua are the common Hebrew words used to refer to Jesus. Given the time The Annals were being written, it is strange that Tacitus did not use the Hebrew word or at the very least the Greek word for Jesus; Christos (the anointed one).

This may all seem trivial but it is very important to note that aside from a mistranslation, there is little other reason that Tacitus would have used the word Christus, instead of Christos or Yeshua. The reason for this mistake is likely because Tacitus was not using any first hand sources but possibly citing from the then widely circulated Gospels themselves. It is possible Tacitus was using some of the Vetus Latina (Old Latin Bible) or that he simply misread a Greek translation or that his particular translation had a textual mistake (which was very common). All of these scenarios are more likely than the word Christus being purposely used as a reference to Jesus in, what should have been, Greek or Hebrew text.

Another embarrassing issue with arguing for a historical Jesus is the fact that not one of Jesus’ contemporaries writes a single word of his existence. It is only after nearly 4 decades have passed that anyone mentions him at all. That is very strange considering there were a formidable amount of historians and scholars that lived around the time of his life and death.  This laundry list includes Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus, and most notably Philo of Alexadria.

Philo deserves a special nod because not only did he live during the entire supposed lifetime of Jesus (between 20 BCE to 50 CE), he was most active during the time when Jesus supposedly died, he only lived a few hundred miles away from Jerusalem, and he wrote extensively about the persecution of Jews by Pontius Pilate! Nearly all of Philo’s work is preserved and yet he seems to never have heard of the King of the Jews, Jesus Christ! How strange for someone who was clearly invested in the plight of Jews and had every available opportunity to hear anything at all about Jesus and yet he never mentions then name. Surely Philo would have heard of a man who claimed to be the son of God, who challenged the very foundation of the Jewish practice in Jerusalem, and who was sentenced to die by a well known Roman leader Philo followed closely. Philo got everything else but somehow missed all of that.

I know that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence but this is just ridiculous. Some may dispute all of these coincidences but as a skeptic I cannot do that. There are simply too many more logical explanations, other than everyone who could have attested to Jesus caught amnesia or all of their records were destroyed. I would have no problem rejecting a real Jesus as the son of God but in this case Jesus is just as paper-thin as all the other heavily praised deities of history. Jesus was just lucky enough to be popular when movable type was invented, so his myth could be spread far and wide for pennies on the dollar.

Check out some of the links below for my sources and I have to give big props to R.G. Price, who has the most comprehensive argument against a historical Christ I have ever seen. If you do nothing else, check out his website radicalrevolution.net. Links below.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/ ... tory.htm#8 (if you are even fleetingly interested in the subject you need to check out this site. It is an amazing resource and he cites everything for us to use. This is the major source for my article. Props to R.G. Price again.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo
http://dictionary.babylon.com/christus/
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/how- ... jesus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina

This is perhaps the BEST argument I have ever seen written, WELL DONE!!!!

[McQ]

Nicely put, Radicalagg. I was aware of only a few of the facts you laid out, and not in any depth, so this post is a big help to our knowledge base. Thanks!

[radicalaggrivation]

Added as a signature. I like it...  

As for the historical Jesus... there may be, in the minds of some, no doubt that a man called Jesus lived. In fact, he may have been incredibly popular and charismatic enough to have people follow him. And maybe he was just David Blaine enough to actually pull off the water in to wine thing, and that woulda just put him and his sandals right up over the top.

However, whether or not he actually existed, to me, is a moot point. He probably did. I think it is easier  to spread the son of god butter on a real person rather than a fictional one, especially if he was a charismatic jew. But making a guy up out of thin air, and making him divine, even 2000 years ago that might have been a stretch.

Two facts remain: 1. None of us were there and the records are spotty at best. 2. People throughout history have had enough personality to have ridiculous posthumous tales told of them, and many have had "followers" whist they were still living. See: Joseph Smith.

Glad to see you guys enjoyed the post. I was hoping for a few more examples of secular history that supports Jesus at all. I have yet to find any. There are mentions of a Jesus in some forms that I cannot cite (so I am not even sure if they are true). The only issue with that is that Jesus was a very common name anyway. Just because Christians want it to b their Jesus still means nothing if there is no way to distinguish who he was. I do agree with you hismikeness, that people will believe what they want to believe. When people refuse to be critical of their worldviews, it is very difficult to get them to change. I don't think it is because they honestly believe all of it. It seems that people cannot admit the flaws in their beliefs because it would devastate a large part of their identities. Or at least that is the belief.

I can honestly say that the day I realized I was free from the mental oppression of God and religion was one of the happiest days of my life. To challenge everything without restraint is the most powerful blessing of all and it is something that not even God himself could grant, if he were a true factor of anything outside of our vivid imaginations.

[SSY]

Excellent posts in this thread

This is certainly an interesting question, on the one hand, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but at the same time, it is intrinsically harder to prove a negative. If there was no god infused Jesus, a lack of his miracles being mentioned certainly makes sense, it is what you would expect. At the same time, just because they are not mentioned, it is not definitive proof that they did not happen.

I personally, obviously fall on the side of believing him not to be a god, or indeed, possibly existing at all, the incorporation of other myths also points strongly in this direction, but as I said, you can never be certain, this argument could go on and on without reaching a satisfactory conclusion.

[Martin TK]

Excellent posts in this thread

This is certainly an interesting question, on the one hand, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but at the same time, it is intrinsically harder to prove a negative. If there was no god infused Jesus, a lack of his miracles being mentioned certainly makes sense, it is what you would expect. At the same time, just because they are not mentioned, it is not definitive proof that they did not happen.

I personally, obviously fall on the side of believing him not to be a god, or indeed, possibly existing at all, the incorporation of other myths also points strongly in this direction, but as I said, you can never be certain, this argument could go on and on without reaching a satisfactory conclusion.

I'm truly "agnostic" on the historicity of Jesus, the man; as to Jesus the Bible Myth, I am completely, hard core atheist, because the probability of anyone being able to suspend the laws of physics is zero in my opinion.  There is simply no evidence that the things he is credited with are possible.

Like you, I am going with my gut that there never was a Jesus, except for the possibility that there were many men named Jesus in that time, so if you look at it that way, then maybe there was a Jesus.  

[radicalaggrivation]

I'm truly "agnostic" on the historicity of Jesus, the man; as to Jesus the Bible Myth, I am completely, hard core atheist, because the probability of anyone being able to suspend the laws of physics is zero in my opinion.  There is simply no evidence that the things he is credited with are possible.

Like you, I am going with my gut that there never was a Jesus, except for the possibility that there were many men named Jesus in that time, so if you look at it that way, then maybe there was a Jesus.

I guess that is always the catch. Those who believe will try to use special pleading to say that natural law was suspended "just this once". If a logical person decide to accept it, it usually seems that this is done out of a fear that they could be wrong. Pascal's Wager is still a very powerful rationale for many people. At any rate, this neither validates or invalidates a historical Jesus. If we go strictly by the topic though, there is no historical Jesus Christ. There is no historical evidence that a person fitting the bombastic descriptions in the Bible was real. I have my personal opinion about why that is and the details of how this came about but if we only stick to the topic, there has yet to be a single shred of evidence that links any Jesus to something remotely similar. That is true in or outside of Jerusalem, so far as I know. So keep in mind that it is not our jobs to "prove" that Jesus did not exist but if we can refute his historicity we have reasonable grounds to ignore any tall tales associated with him.

I can remember giving up on Islam when I was in my last year of high school and my mom really wanting me to convert to Catholicism. I had never considered Jesus as my lord and savior until that point. I was forced to go to church every Sunday and the more I went the more questions I had. The more questions I had the less rational the answers got. I talked one of my friends out of church because when I wanted deep information as to why I should give my whole life and philosophy over to Jesus, she could only spout the same, canned responses you get from everyone else. She walked out of church the next Sunday. I did not have a wealth of information or the support of like minded individuals. I just had a small series of logical questions that no theist has yet to answer. I point is, no matter how great the story is or how much people want Jesus to be real, they do not have the substance needed to make him a believable prophet, let alone a historical figure. I am just glad that I was brave enough to follow my questions through to a logical conclusion. Despite the fact that we cant disprove Jesus, reviewing the facts leaves the Son of God looking anemic.

[KDbeads]

There is no historical evidence that a person fitting the bombastic descriptions in the Bible was real. I have my personal opinion about why that is and the details of how this came about

Actually I'd like to hear it honestly, considering how well thought out/researched your other posts have been it could be an very interesting idea.  Hubby and I have argued on whether or not he was a real person for years, I'm on the he was not side, he's on the other.  He'll probably be reading later on as well

[SSY]

Despite the fact that we cant disprove Jesus, reviewing the facts leaves the Son of God looking anemic.

This is a good position, sometimes I forget the standards of evidence I should hold myself to, looking for a definitive answer where none exists, I think in this case, I will pour myself a cuppa' from Russell's teapot and not worry about it unless more evidence is dredged up.

I would also be interested to hear your personal theory, here or a new thread, your posts have certainly been worth reading so far.

[Martin TK]

Despite the fact that we cant disprove Jesus, reviewing the facts leaves the Son of God looking anemic.

This is a good position, sometimes I forget the standards of evidence I should hold myself to, looking for a definitive answer where none exists, I think in this case, I will pour myself a cuppa' from Russell's teapot and not worry about it unless more evidence is dredged up.

I would also be interested to hear your personal theory, here or a new thread, your posts have certainly been worth reading so far.

I agree with you completely, this kid is smart, above average IQ, and I'm a pretty good judge of this, professionally, and unless he's scamming us, which I hope isn't the case, he certainly seems to have his "poop" in a pile, a very organized pile.  Very enjoyable reading.

[radicalaggrivation]

I wanted to start writing on my personal theory about Jesus but I got into a very detailed debate with someone a another website. I do a very deep review of almost all of the commonly used sources that support a historical Jesus. If any of you are interested I can post a new thread with our debate after he response to my latest rebuttal. In the meantime I will post up my theory on Jesus later today.

[radicalaggrivation]

I do not mind sharing my personal opinion on Jesus. I will warn you that some of this is speculation, simply because there is so little evidence about the circumstances surrounding the beginnings of Christianity. Before talking about Jesus though, it is necessary to make a few points about those who started the religion.  There were many mystery religions during the first few centuries of the Common Era. These are religions that were known to exist but had very little or no written doctrine. Some of the deities that people importuned to included Mithras, Attis, Cybele, and Dionysus.

Paganism was in full swing and new religions often rose to prominence and quickly fizzled out. It seems that Christianity was originally meant to appeal to everyone. It was one of the first religions to preach equality between men and women (despite the fact that Christians still placed women in subordinate roles). Christianity also seems to have many elements of other religions built in. To address the most obvious one, they used the Torah as fodder for their new book. This habit of tapping into existing and established events, people, and works is ubiquitous throughout the rise of Christianity.

This is also the same technique use by more recent religions like Islam and Mormonism. “No, we aren’t new at all. This is simply a continuation of (add old established text here).” They are all perpetrators of the same parlor trick but Christianity is just the Houdini of the bunch. Early on it was the inclusion of the man god sent to save use (like Hercules), or the Holy Trinity (a pander to pagans multi-god beliefs). This is why the first Christian apologist Justin Martyr is quoted as saying:

When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter (Zeus)."
- Justin Martyr, church father [21:30]

It seems that the founders of Christianity wanted a religion that could incorporate and pander to the many existing beliefs of the day and this was widely known by the most ardent supporters of the church.

I describe in detail why there is little chance that Jesus was a historic figure in a debate I will post later (I am waiting on a final rebuttal). To be brief, there is no mention or reference to Jesus by any of the prominent historians of the day. I spoke about Philo briefly. Another historian that Christians like to use is Josephus. Josephus frequented Jerusalem just years after Jesus supposedly died. Despite this there are only two references to Jesus in his works. The first is very detailed and has unanimously been declared a fraud. The other is s short reference to the trail of James, Jesus’ brother. He calls James “the brother of the so called Christ”. Now, the reason so many Christians believe this proves Jesus (and this is one of the strongest pieces of evidence they have) is because it is not as widely contested as Josephus’ first reference.

The James reference is so short that it is difficult to extract any textual variation from it. My logic is as follows; if the first reference has been wholly discounted as an interpolation and both references are the only two times Josephus ever uses the word Christ, we can discount them both as later addition to his work. The reason this is important is not just because it disproves evidence of Christ but also because it eliminates the historian that could validate Christ at the earliest point (aside from Philo). Josephus speaks at length about John the “Baptist” and somehow he only mentions Jesus twice in highly disputed references. How could he speak of John in detail and never mention Jesus?

This is the crux of Christianity. Early Christians cleverly disguised their false profit by attempting to connect him with historic figures and events. King Herod, Pontus Pilate, and John the “Baptist” were all real figures in history. Unlike the majority of mystery religions, early Christians wanted to establish a real figure, who had interacted with other real figures. You might ask how they could establish a totally made up person in so short a period of time. After all, we have writing describing Jesus, by Saul of Tarsus (Apostle Paul) only 30 years later right? Well yes and no. Saul does, indeed, write about Jesus 30 years after his death but he writes nothing about an earthly Jesus at all. There are many instances where Saul’s writings clearly indicate that he does not think Jesus is anything more than a disembodied god. He mentions nothing of his birth, life, or the circumstances of his death.

That is a strange omission for the founder of Christianity to make, considering he could have known some reliable second had sources or at least heard about his deeds (the person I debated had a wonderfully fantastic rationale for this). Another thing to note is that Saul was crazy as hell. He started out as a hunter of the earlier Christian cults (before there was an explicit doctrine and probably before they had a savior). Suddenly Saul has a revelation, changes his name to Paul, and begins to claim that he spoke to Jesus’ directly from the grave. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the creator of Christianity.

There are a few things that Paul does early on that distinguish Christianity from other religions. He makes it a point to write and disseminate his authorship to the separate Christ cults. He speaks at length about the need to unify the cults of Christ. Take note that the early factions of Christianity had widely varying beliefs and practices. There was no definitive Christian doctrine back then, which is why Paul understood that one day they would have to unite (which he often writes about). One of the reasons that Christianity survived where other mystery cult religions failed, was because they were so divided.

There may have been a few basic tents each cult followed but overall they had to await word from others writing about Jesus and his life. This started a strong written tradition among the cults that gave it more longevity that the other cults surrounding them at the time. It is believed that Mark was the first gospel written and that happened around 70 CE, when Rome was laying waste to Jerusalem. There are some interesting views that the Jesus story is an allegorical response to the military destruction of Jerusalem but it seems likely that it was established by an author connected to the Christian cults. Mark was not written anywhere near the times of Jesus. It was written at a time when written histories were becoming common place, making it easy for an educated person to gain information necessary to concoct a story around real people for Jesus.

This was during a time where the Roman dictator Nero was actively hunting Christian as well. The cult was forced to go underground, giving them enough time away from scrutiny to hone their story of Jesus. This is the moment in history where we see Christianity begin to propagate. As the religion begins to gain ground it becomes increasingly important to flesh out the story of Jesus. It is then and only then, that we begin to see the other gospels being written. All of which are estimated to have been written after early second century.

Once Constantine decided to institute Christianity as the empires religion in the early 3rd century, it took little effort to legitimize every claim made by Christians. This was done by creating a hostile environment of those who did not believe, despite some of Constantine’s more egalitarian religious policies.
I know this was brief but I did not want to delve into each point with tedious detail right now because I address much of that in that eminent debate. I will gladly do so if anyone is more curious on my take. If we look at it from this perspective the disputes about when the gospels were written and why there are no details for Jesus’ life become more understandable. They made him up, they gave him a cool story, and then he was propagated throughout the Roman Empire for political purposes. Everything after that is history.