I always thought so, now my doubts have been solidified, whether there was even a person named Jesus to ever even exist.
Even back when I called myself a Christian I entertained doubts about the full accuracy of his existance, actions, and sayings. I mean, what proof was there aside from the Bible? And the Bible isn’t exactly an accurate, unbiased work of non-fiction. I always relyed on the fact that some non-Bliblical documents existed somewhere…but, do they? The only non-Judeo/Christian document to mention Jesus doesn’t even mention him by name, and says he was stoned to death then hung on a tree.
Why not just go with the Bible? Well, it has a vested interest in his existance. It’s a collection of religious stories and rules and prophesies, much of which either predicting the coming of a supernatural messiah or telling the story about the arrival of the messiah…all based on the same religion.
Think about this: The writers of the New Testament were Jewish. They were well schooled and knowledgeable of the Talmud and Torah (what would become the Old Testament,) and knew the prophesies. Likewise were most of the early Christians whom the stories passed around through. They weren’t exactly unbiased fact checkers and historical researchers. They had a purpose and an agenda, and there’s no reason they couldn’t alter and change and fudge and fabricate stories and descriptions to match Old Testament prophesies (many of which don’t exactly match anyway.)
Be skeptical for a second, and think, hypothetically, isn’t it possible, even just simply possible, that early Christians may have expanded on stories both real and imagined, rumored and taken from other people, and built up someone that may not at all have been like we assume?
The “facts” in the Bible are self-contradictory. The lineage of Christ in one Gospel is different from the other. One has the newborn Jesus and his family going to different countries and different times than the other Gospel. The exact events of the 2nd or 3rd most important event in Christianity (the crucifixion, depending on how you rank the birth,) has some discrepancies among the Gospels, and the most important event, the resurrection, only has one thing in common among the four Gospels and that’s the presence of Mary (interesting fact, that.) The four Gospels, when they aren’t copying word-for-word and style-for-style from the earlier written Gospels, have other factual differences among themselves…much like how rumor and stories passed by word-of-mouth would develop.
Jesus had always been thought of as the new Moses. So I’ve always had my concerns over the whole repeating of the murdering of the first-born Jews surrounding both Moses and Jesus’ births. Especially when something and horrific and monumental as that, wasn’t recorded anywhere else in history regarding the period of Jesus’ birth. And we have a lot of non-religious reporting of events in that time and place.
It’s something to consider. And to not consider it, not just entertain the possibility, I think, would be a sign of fear and insecurity and too much reliance on dogma.
I came across this site last night:
yeah, it’s from an atheist Web site. And so I say again, I am neither an atheist nor do I endorse nor encourage atheism.
Also, the author’s style tends to be very abrasive and disrespectful, and a bit insulting wich I don’t appreciate. But the article is still worth reading and considering.