​In my foray into holy book history, I learned that beliefs based upon events of the past are best derived from reliable evidence, such as eyewitness accounts, artifacts, archeology, paleontology, reliable dating, and self-written documents. That's the preferred evidence used by historians to create a credible history.
 
That's not the evidence available for god figures, of which there are thousands. It's noteworthy that the gods, prophets, great sages, and theologians upon which religions are based have all died out. None are around or being born into our day to interview and check credentials. Those who do appear as our contemporaries always turn out to be either frauds or far less than claimed.
 
Notice that it's always in the ancient past when nothing can be verified with certainty that the great religious figures existed. Religions capitalize on the human inclination to ascribe greater credit to the unfamiliar than to the familiar. People and script in the distant past, from a different country, with a different language, somehow always seem more fascinating and believable than our neighbors and contemporary writings.
 
A case in point is Christianity.
 
(The following history of Christianity threw me for a loop when I first discovered it. As I learn more, I'm more and more astonished. But, as is apparent in our dissection of evolution, materialism, and religion thus far, consensus views being out of step with reality are not only common but expected. If what follows seems too unbelievable, please delve more deeply by perusing the sources in the Resource section for this chapter or Internet search any of the terms, names, or phrases.)
 
Noncontemporary Hearsay Evidence
 
Exceptional claims, particularly related to events in the misty past, demand evidence, not uncritical acceptance.
 
Instead, religions are usually founded on the most unreliable support of all, namely noncontemporary hearsay evidence. That means we today are relying on the writings of someone testifying about a religious figure. But that person is reporting what they heard or read about the stories of someone else who did not even live at the same time as the religious figure upon which the religion is based.
 
Imagine one day being dragged into court to face an accuser who got on the stand and said under oath, "I heard from someone who heard from someone else who heard from someone else—who can't be found and was not born until the year 2000—that you were a serial killer in 1961." There's no evidence other than the accuser's word. Of course, no judge or jury in a just society would take for granted the accuser's hearsay words. A qualified judge would throw the matter out before it ever got to trial.
 
Tragically, throughout history, the firm belief in such sham evidence has been used to kill and torture millions.
 
Courts interested in truth only allow direct eyewitness evidence, logic, expert witnesses, circumstantial evidence, scientific, and other demonstrative evidence. What courts forbid is hearsay evidence, particularly if it's noncontemporary.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Reliable Evidence
 
People today agree that many god figures, such as Hercules and Zeus, didn't exist. Reliable evidence is lacking.
 
Astonishingly, I found that there is scholarly debate today about whether Jesus is a historical figure or an imagined religious playmate. As noted in the previous chapter, even many of the earliest Christians did not espouse the belief.
 
Scholars rely upon tenuous evidence to argue that he did exist. But that's either because they have a vested interest in their own belief or position, or because it's safe. It's safe because it's impossible to prove a negative. One cannot prove that Santa Claus, tooth fairies, or any proposed figure of the past, like Jesus, did not exist. That would require universal knowledge of all potential hiding places in the universe which, of course, no one possesses.
 
True history, which is not tradition, myth, opinion, belief, or hearsay, traces to the sources. Generally, accepted historical figures such as Alexander the Great, the Caesars, Napoleon, Hitler, Greek philosophers, etc., are usually supported by artifacts, busts, first-hand writings, and eyewitness accounts.
 
However, no bust of Jesus sculpted by a contemporary can be found. None of the Bible writers describe the physical appearance of Jesus, as was common in historical writings about noted people. There are no proven Jesus artifacts, no eyewitness testimonies, no descendants with pedigrees, and no works of carpentry, dwellings, or written documents attributable to him. Although this is also true for other figures who are thought to be valid historically, it would seem that mountains of incontestable evidence would exist for Jesus, considered to be the same as the Creator by most Christians.
 
No Eyewitness Accounts
 
Although I thought, as do most others, that the Bible is a first-hand eyewitness account, the stories are actually from authors who lived after the events happened. Christian song stories, word of mouth accounts, and writings were passed on for decades and centuries throughout the Middle East and Roman Empire. Only later were writings winnowed into the holy books upon which billions of readers, today and in the past, base beliefs.
 
Imagine trying to recall accurately what somebody said a month ago, let alone decades or hundreds of years ago. Even if there were first-person accounts, imagine attempting to recall and write the exact words from another person decades after the words were spoken.
 
All the New Testament documents turn out to be just copies of copies of copies of noncontemporary hearsay evidence, the most unreliable of all evidence.
 
Moreover, the early church, the holder of the copies upon which the Bible was based, was not above fabrication and prevarication. For example, Ignatius of Loyola, the theologian founder of the Jesuits, wrote: "To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black if the Hierarchical Church so decides it." The early church father and sainted John Chrysostom wrote: "And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
 
Contemporary Writers
 
I thought there surely must be support for Jesus from contemporary Roman, Jewish, or Greek writings. That turned out not to be true either.
 
Josephus was ostensibly a Jewish noble, a general in wars against the Romans, and then a defector who later even assumed the emperor Vespasian's family name of Flavius. Flavius Josephus, in his Antiquities book, was the earliest historian to mention Jesus and his brother, James. But he was not born until 37CE, which was after Jesus' reported death. He didn't write Antiquities until 93 CE. The small portion of his writings, about a paragraph, called the "Testimonium Flavianum," uncharacteristically (since Josephus was a Jew and remained such) affirms Jesus as the Messiah.
 
A survey by Feldman found that 4 scholars regard the passage as completely genuine, 6 more as mostly genuine; 20 accept it with some interpolations (putting words in another person's mouth—meaning later editors inserted the words and ascribed them to Josephus), 9 thought there to be several interpolations; 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation. The Caesar editors and/or the Catholic Eusebius reportedly did this insertion in the third to fourth century CE.
 
The reference to Jesus as Messiah would create some much-needed secular evidence for an earthly Jesus. Thus, it has been enthusiastically used by Christians ever since.
 
Huge amounts of ink have been spilled arguing whether Josephus affirms the existence of Jesus or not. In those puddles of ink can be found compelling evidence and arguments that Josephus was, in fact, a fictional character created by the Romans who devised Christianity to quash the continuously rebellious Jews. The New Testament stories, particularly the Gospels, written, accumulated, and given imprimatur by Caesars in the second to fourth centuries, follow quite closely the Josephus writings dated at 93 CE. This would make the Gospels not original accounts of Christianity, but copies of Roman writings some sixty years after the time of Jesus.
 
Most scholars regard the New Testament as pro-Roman. Others take it a step further arguing that Christianity is a mere Roman political device to create a story that fulfills awaited Jewish prophesies. By blending Judaism with the new Christian religion, the Caesars created a new Roman controlled messianic Jewish religion that was inclusive of all peoples under the Roman domain.
 
Roman Christianity was opened to Jew and Gentile alike, abrogating the Jewish claim to being god's chosen people. This had the effect of denying their clannishness which fed their rebellious proclivities. The Roman Jesus messiah preached "turn the other cheek" anti-sedition, and kept the money flowing to Rome with Jesus' command to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." This pacifistic and Roman obedience message served well the interests of Caesars, and later their religious heirs, the Roman Catholic popes, who arrogated to themselves "Christ on Earth" authority and power.
 
If we keep in mind that Rome was the greatest power on Earth at the time, and primarily interested in keeping that position and power, such shenanigans with religion are to be expected. Think of the covert and deceptive things governments do to this day to retain or expand their power. Nothing is beyond bounds.
 
More so was this true in the past when plebian ignorance was enforced and people were constantly reminded of the consequences of disobedience by public executions and impaled bodies and heads scattered strategically about like billboards. Religions were the greatest threat since they required homage to other than Roman leaders and engendered enthusiastic rebellious gumption. To deal with that, the Caesars simply adopted religious beliefs into an amalgamated state religion with them at the head.
 
In that regard, it is of note that the first official Christian religion is called, to this day, the Holy Roman Catholic Church. This name embraces the very purpose of the Caesars: one universal (the definition of "catholic") Roman authority.
 
A common Christian retort to the idea that Rome and Christianity are inextricably related are the stories of early Christian persecution and martyrdom at the hands of Romans. But historical research demonstrates that Christians assimilated well into Roman society, as was the objective of the Caesars, and were not singled out for persecution, other than in stories created hundreds of years after a person's death.
 
But there was utility in this theme of heroic martyrdom, which, not coincidentally, emulated Greek, Roman, and Jewish mythologies. In ancient times, death was common everywhere all the time. So, a heroic death at least gave a person longevity in legends. Moreover, the state would kill people for picayune infractions, or even reports of such. It's likely that many Christian deaths were due to matters entirely unrelated to Christianity. As it turns out though, people were venerated hundreds of years after their deaths in order to serve the purposes of those venerating them. Stories of "martyrs" banded people together in an us-against-them mentality, used in religions down to this day.
 
An internet search will provide you (living 2000 years since the purported events) with a lifetime of study to try to determine if the words of someone of questionable existence, Flavius Josephus, writing in 93 CE, proves the existence of people living more than 60 years before that.
 
Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Origen and other early religious writers mentioning Jesus were also not contemporaries of Jesus. The dates of documents and the birthdates of the writers always give the writers away as unreliable storytellers expressing beliefs, not facts, about Jesus' existence.
 
All their testimony is, therefore, hearsay as well.
 
The Bible claims great multitudes and fame followed Jesus and that Jewish high priests and Roman officials knew of him. The Bible describes a three-day eclipse, an earthquake with graves opening up at the time of Jesus. Not a single historian, philosopher, scribe, astronomer or follower who lived during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him or these spectacular events. This is in spite of historians, poets, orators, and travelers aplenty in the time of Jesus.
 
Although Pontius Pilate has been verified archeologically, there is no secular evidence of him trying Jesus. Nor is there such evidence of Herod killing all the baby boys in Bethlehem (although the historical Herod seemed capable of such atrocity). Additionally, there are many Roman records of the killing of many messiahs, but none for Jesus.
 
This incredible silence is particularly noteworthy since Jerusalem was a center for scribes, books, education, and record keeping.
 
Philo Judaeus (also known as Philo of Alexander) was born in 20 BC and died 50 CE, spanning the entire life of Jesus. He was considered the most noteworthy Jewish-Hellenistic historian of the time. He lived and traveled in Greece and Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus and wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area and of a pre-Christian celestial Jewish messiah. In all of his volumes of writings, there isn't one reference to an earthly Jesus.
 
There is also no mention of an earthly Jesus in other historical writings of the time, such as from:

Aulus Perseus (60 CE)
Columella (1st cent, CE)
Dio Chrysostom (1st cent, CE)
Justus of Tiberius (1st cent, CE)
Livy (59 BC-17 CE)
Lucanus (63 AD)
Lucius Florus (1st cent, CE)
Petronius (66 CE)
Phaedrus (15 BC-50 CE)
Phlegon (1st cent, CE)
Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE)
​Plutarch (46-119 CE)
Pomponius Mela (40 CE)
Rufus Curtius (1st cent, CE)
Quintilian (35-LOO CE)
Quintus Curtius (1st cent, CE)
Seneca (1 BC-65 CE)
Silius Italicus (25-101 CE)
Statius Caeliaus (1st cent, CE)
Theon of Smyrna (70-135 CE)
Valerius Flaccus (1st cent, CE)
Valerius Maximus (20 CE)

Gospels and Letters
 
Although I thought the four gospels were the only ones and were written by contemporary disciples of Jesus, that cannot be established as true. For one thing, the texts of the gospels do not identify their authors. Nor have any of the originals been found. For another, Irenaeus of Lyon, who lived in the middle of the second century, primarily chose certain gospels from among many that were lost or destroyed. Some early Christians accepted one gospel, others accepted four, while others accepted more than four.
 
Historians date the writing of the gospels from 70 CE to 90 CE which would put them beyond the feasible age of the disciples (given the short lifespans for common people of the day). Besides, the disciples were likely illiterate peasants not capable of the sophisticated language and style in the gospels.
 
The gospel writers do not admit to actually seeing Jesus. They were not eyewitnesses.
 
Paul's and others' New Testament letters which follow the gospels reveal that the authors never met a physical Jesus.
 
The gospels do cite historically verified people, events, and places which seem to give credibility to the stories. But inventing historical events that are then seeded with real places and people is common in fictional stories. Historicizing myths is done even today in fiction such as Superman and Star Trek.
 
There Should Be Unequivocal Evidence
 
The laws of nature, the things of creation, are clear, unequivocal, and universally understood by people of all cultures and languages. There is no interpretation of 2+2 or gravity. People of all rank and file understand perfectly.
 
Jesus is worshipped as a god-man on Earth in whom all must believe to be saved. If that be the case, it seemed to me that the Creator of the universe would be capable of making sure the evidence for the existence of Jesus on Earth was overwhelming unambiguous and crystal clear, like 2+2=4.
 
The question loomed as to why a pivotal and critical figure that people are required to believe in was not born in our modern era. Rather than handwritten scraps of copies of copies of unknown origin, there could be first-hand documents, photographs, recordings, interviews, videos, DNA testing, forensic technology, and other means to prove beyond any doubt existence and acts.
 
Nevertheless, people en masse, Christian and not, believe Jesus and his acts are certain. I did too. That's what happens when faith trumps reason and evidence, or lack thereof.
 
To repeat, a quick internet search will provide an almost endless array of information briefly touched upon here. Search words and names in this chapter as well as phrases such as "did Jesus exist," "pagan origins of Christianity," "origin of the Bible," etc. (truthbeknown.com is a good start.)
 
Why Belief
 
There were cultural and religious reasons for belief in a messiah. In 70 CE, under Titus, the Romans laid waste to Jerusalem. About a thousand desperate Jews later took a stand on Masada and rather than be captured or slaughtered, committed suicide. Indeed, these were times in need of a savior.
 
The Jews had prophesized one in the Old Testament and fervently hoped one would appear to lead them out from the oppression of the Romans and into the Promised Land. As this oppression was escalating, savior stories were being composed and written, and messiahs popped up here and there. These provided hope and served to authenticate Hebrew scripture and validate the Jewish priests. Forced fulfillment of prophecy was common.
 
Today many scholars (not all) agree that an unremarkable Clark Kent physical Jesus did exist. However, they do not agree that he was the Superman version walking on water, raising the dead, etc. Myths abounded in the time of Jesus, as even the Bible admits. (2Peter1:16) Scholars thus conclude, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and due to the shared features with prior pagan gods described in the previous chapter, that the Superman version of Jesus was a myth as well. They contend that the sensational version of Jesus, complete with a resurrection and the ability to erase sin was needed.
 
The Roman goal was enduring awe and dedication from the masses, so a fantastic story worthy of a god fit the bill. Once the state fostered Christianity with Caesars as god personified and the fulfillment of Jewish messiah stories (Roman popes taking over later where Caesars left off), people had little choice but to believe. Today, however, it's the sheer momentum and ubiquity of the belief in itself that is compelling. People find it hard even to imagine that a belief so prevalent, supported by so much voice and ink, and with such stature, architectural presence, religious hierarchy, scholarship, and wealth could be questionable. I had been swept along in this belief as well.