The Words Of Jesus?

• If you have something important to say to someone you care deeply about, what do you do?   

• Well, if at all possible, when you truly care, if you truly love them, you deliver the message in person, right?  Face to face, to everyone you love deeply, whenever face to face communication is possible.  

• When you want a message to a loved one to be accurate and to reflect your words and thoughts precisely, do you give the message yourself, directly, in person, or via video or FaceTime, or do you send other people to deliver your message?  Do you send people unknown to the beloved person with whom you desire to communicate?   Would you send them with conflicting written documents that do not even bear your own signature upon them? 

• IF Christian theological claims had been true and Jesus really had been a divine incarnation, or the "Son of God," and really had been powerful enough to rise from the dead, and IF he honestly wished to save humanity and to reveal Yahweh or God and Yahweh's/God's plan, he could have simply revealed himself to all people on the planet simultaneously and made sure everyone understood.    

  • • ... Actually a real, personal God could communicate with all people directly, with perfect clarity, even without an incarnation.  So either there is no real, personal God who desires to communicate with the whole world in a clear and indubitable manner, or else he is incapable of it, which would call into question the title "God."

• IFJesus rose from the dead, but faced limitations on his powers for some undisclosed reason, such that he could not reveal himself to all people personally and simultaneously, at least he could have stayed around on earth, loved everyone (like he allegedly desired/desires to do), taught everyone all of the most important truths from his own mouth, while alive and resurrected, while on earth, so that everyone could see, hear, learn, and know for themselves.  Makes sense, right?  Why not stay?

• IF that was too difficult, IF Jesus faced more severe limitations on his alleged divinity, IF he rrreally needed hastily to get back up to the sky realm for some undisclosed reason, and IF his divine power did not include the ability to duplicate himself or to be in more than one place at the same time, then the very least he could have done would have been to write a high-quality book for us all, and maybe even inscribe everything in durable stone or marble so that all earthlings could see and have access to it.  But IF stone and marble were too expensive for Yahweh/God/Jesus, as long as he could at least read and write, then the least he could have done would have been to write a book of his own, so we could all have it.  What do we have instead?  Lots of secrecy, lots of politics, multiple factions vying for control, a set of four late, anonymous (names were added later), contradictory gospels, with no surviving originals, a whole bunch of other gospels and literature that did not get chosen for inclusion in the bible, and no clear leadership, but a bunch of people with varying ideas and opinions, fighting over what to say, what rules to follow, which versions of which stories to include in a bible and which to leave out, etc.

• IF there was a historical Jesus and IF he could read and write, and IF he really wanted to reveal truth and himself and Yahweh/God to the Jews and to the world, one would reasonably think he would have written something himself!  

• Preliminary Tentative Conclusions:

  • • It appears that no God or other supernatural power loves humanity enough or has given enough thought or consideration to the matter to do us all the small favor of communicating directly with us all or establishing an inerrant holy book for us to read.

    • If there was a historical Jesus behind later myths and legends, he probably could not read and write.

This is actually a very important question.  Sadly, somehow people do not seem to think about this. I want to take some time to talk this through, flesh it out.

• IF you truly love someone, how do you show it?  

• Do you ever try to spend time with that beloved individual in person?  

• If good parents love their children, how do they show it?

• Do they spend time with their children in person, face to face, hard in hand, heart to heart, embracing them, showing abundant physical and emotional affection to them, playing and laughing with them, teaching them as best they can, being patient with them, providing for them, doing their best for them day in and day out, for years / decades, until the children are mature?  And even then, don't good parents still visit with their children in person?  Isn't loving one's children a matter of life-time devotion?  Even parents who send their children to boarding school still visit their children once in a while or bring them home once in a while, if possible.  IF a parent chose never to spend time with a child in person, face to face, and never to communicate clearly to the child, ever, what would that say about the parent?  Honestly.

• Imagine this:  A father loves his children deeply, and he raises them for many years, but then he gets captured and murdered by violent men. So sad for his poor children, right?  What IF the good, loving dad could come back from the dead and live forever?!  What if he DOES come back from the dead?!  Will he show himself alive to his children?  ...  Think carefully now: Will he show himself alive to ALL of the children he loves, or only some of them?  ...  

  • • • A good and loving father, if he were able to come back from the dead and live forever, would show himself alive to all his children.

• Now, would he show himself alive in person, or would he hire some random poor, uneducated people from the countryside to deliver a message to his kids saying he was alive?   

  • • • A good, loving father, IF he were able to come back from the dead and live forever, would certainly show himself alive to all of his beloved children, in person.

• Also, would the resurrected dad who loved his children and had conquered death spend lots of time with his children and stay on earth to see them regularly, or would he see them for only a few days, appearing and disappearing at random moments, doing some magic tricks, but then go up in the sky promising to return "soon," but then never see them again, letting a few thousand years go by?

  • • • A good, loving father, IF he were truly able to come back from the dead and live forever, would certainly show himself alive to ALL of his children, in person, and would stick around on earth to spend time with his children, and would not go away for the rest of the children's lives.  IF he did go away, to enjoy himself, he would come back regularly to visit. And he would not make a secret of it, as if there were some kind of shame in a father spending time with his children.

• Any human, who is being honest, knows that good parents, IF they could come back from the dead, would return to their children to continue being good parents, spending time with their children regularly, checking up on them, keeping in contact, and making sure everything went well for the children.  If the parents' powers were unlimited, they could communicate with the children regularly, watch over all their children, and make sure everything goes well, ensuring a wonderful future for them. If the resurrected parents' powers were limited and they were somehow constrained merely to send a message, would they not write the message themselves?!

Dad's Back:  A Skit to Serve as a Thoughtful Illustration:

• WHAT IF someone told you that a loving father died tragically by gunfire, and that after his death, some time later, all of his children were spending a few days together at their family home, and at breakfast on morning, one of the children suddenly came downstairs and told the others the following:

"Hey, guys, you're not going to believe this, but dad is alive! ... "

"John, that's not funny."

"For real!  He appeared to me last night, ... or some time early this morning. I'm not sure what time it was."

"John, that's not funny, bud.  You were dreaming, man.  I'm so sorry. I know you love Dad. I do too, man. But Dad's gone, brother."

No, it was not a dream!  Dad came back from the dead, and he visited me!  Actually he visited me multiple times last night. Yeah.

"John, I'm so sorry. Sometimes when people go through tragedy, especially a violent tragedy, they can think they see or hear things. They can have really vivid dreams, even hear voices, hallucinations."

"But it was not just a hallucination or a dream. Dad really came to see me. We had a whole conversation."

"John, people can dream whole conversations too, man. What makes you think it was not a dream?"

"Dad proved to me that he was still alive!  He even showed me the scars from where he got shot and everything!  And he gave me a message for you guys. He said to tell you he loves you so much."

"John, seriously you have to snap out of this. Just think for a second, ok?  We were all here last night, buddy. All of us. We all love Dad too, right? And Dad loved us al, right?  So IF Dad were really alive, don't you think, I mean don't you know he would visit all of us, not just you? See what I mean, brother. You're not making sense this morning. You had a vivid dream, and you need to wake up."

"No, for real. I am awake. It was not a dream or a hallucination. Look, Dad even gave me a message for you guys."  [Hands siblings a small, folded up sheet of paper.]

• • • • Brother #1:  [unfolding paper] "John, this is messy, and it is definitely not Dad's handwriting. Hey wait, this is your handwriting, bro. Plus Dad always spoke Spanish. This is in English! Dude, this is not funny, and you need to stop playing around. It's inappropriate."

        • • • "Well, yeah. I wrote it down for dad, and I put it in English instead of Spanish. But he is alive. He's really alive."

      • Sister #1: [giving eye signals to brother #1] "John, it's ok. So Dad's alive?  Where is Dad now? Take me to him."

        • • • "Well, ... I can't.  He left."

      • Sister #1: "What do you mean, he left?  Where would he go?  Thank about what you're saying, John. Okay?"

        • • • "I don't know.  He went up into the sky until I could not see him through the clouds. ... But actually, oh, also, Dad is God now. He has divine powers."

      • Brother #1: "What?  John, did you take something last night?  Look at me, dude. Let me see your eyes."

      • Sister #1: "Danny, don't say that. Don't be mean. What if it's true?"

      • Brother #2: "Liz, I'm sorry, but John is clearly not in his right mind. Look at his eyes.  Plus, just think about it for a second. Nothing John is saying is realistic in the slightest.  For one thing, people don't come back from the dead.  But even if they did, IF Dad were alive, really alive, clearly he would find us all, talk to us all, not just John.  Right?  We are all just as easy for Dad to find and talk to as John is.  We are all right here in this same house. If Dad were alive, he would be here right now, with us all, not just in John's imagination, drug-induced state, or sleep-deprived state.  Where else would he be?  And if Dad became a God, ...  Oh my gosh, how can you even ...?  ...  Clearly if Dad could conquer death and gain magical powers, he would show himself to ALL of us, not just to John, right?  Duhh.  And why we he go up in the sky?  What's in the sky?  Clouds?  The moon?  Stars billions of light years away. And even if he did go up in the sky, he would come back to see us.  If he can fly in the sky, then he can fly back down!  Why doesn't he come back down to see the rest of us, huh?  Seriously?  It does not make any sense at all, not even the smallest part of a little bit! Clearly John is out of it, and he either needs sleep, or to let the drugs wear off, or we need to get him help, or all of the above.  ... John, what did you eat yesterday?"

      • John: "Nothing, bro. I've been fasting for so many days, going without food in Dad's honor.  And look, now he rewarded me. I even had to do battle with demons, and some angels of light came and helped me through it."

      • Brother #2 shakes his head.

      • Sister #1: [To brother #2] "But what if dad really is alive, somehow, like a ghost, but ... maybe John is ... 

      • John:  "It wasn't a ghost. I'm telling you he was here. He had his real body."

      • Sister #1: [Still taking to brother #2] "But what if dad really is alive, somehow, and really sent a message to John, but John is simply confused from the experience? What if Dad really did somehow visit John and communicate with John and give him some kind of message for us."

      • Brother #2: "Sis, you can't be serious!  Here, look at the note. This is not Dad's handwriting. You recognize that, right? I mean, John even admitted he wrote it himself. Plus it's in English, for crying out loud. You know Dad's English wasn't that good. John wrote this, not Dad. And even IF Dad were somehow really alive, he would visit us too. Come on. It makes no sense.  Plus, if Dad had a message to give us, he would give it to all of us, not just to John, right? And if he wanted to write a note, he would write us a note himself, in the language he always spoke, ... IF he were really still alive.  Am I right?  [Looking also at Brother #1] Am I right?  It makes zero sense."

      • John: "But he is alive! He is God! ... Actually, he was always God, we just didn't realize it."

      • Brother #2: [to Liz and Brother #1]  "And see, he already keeps changing and adding to his story! He's clearly on something or having a mental breakdown. What did he just say, he hasn't eaten in who knows how many days?  Do you know what that does to a person's brain?  A grieving person's brain?"

      • Brother #3: "What does the note say, Liz?"

      • Liz reads the note, squinting because the handwriting is messy and a bit hard to read, and with some things scratched out and written over: "Dad is alive. He just came back to see me. Well actually, he appeared in a different form at first, and I didn't recognize him. But then he came back again later, and I recognized it was really him. And he could walk through walls!  And then he came back again later, and he showed me his scars from the bullets to prove it was really him. And he said to give you this message: "Hi, children. I love you so much. I have conquered death. Death has no power over me now, or over any of us. I have joined God and become more powerful than you can imagine, and I have shown myself to John just now several times, and I have given him this message for you. I have to go now, but you must believe John. In fact, I will tell you the truth. The truth is, God has been super angry for a long time, and you were all ugly in God's sight because of sin. But I volunteered to get shot by God so he could take his wrath out on me instead. I did it for all of you.  So IF you do believe John and just trust me, that I have conquered death, and IF you will devote the rest of your lives to worshiping me in my divine form, writing songs about me, listening to what John tells you about me, following John's guidance, and telling all people you know -- the whole world -- that your Dad has conquered death and has come back from the grave, and has gone to build a special house for everyone in the sky realm, then I will give you all a very special prize later, and after you die, one day I will come back down to earth and bring your dead bodies back to life too, and I will give you kids the authority to rule over the earth, and also there will be a new earth, yes, and a new sky realm, and you can also come to the sky realm and live with me forever.  But if you do not believe me, and you do not believe John, to whom I entrusted this sacred truth, then you will receive nothing, no prize, and you will not get to see me or live with me in the sky realm.  So put your faith in me and this special message I am giving John. Go tell everyone. Oh, and I am coming back very soon, so act fast. Follow John.  He speaks for me, and his words are true. Love, your Dad."

      • Brother #3:  This is &^%$ing insane. John, look at me.  It's your brother, man. You have to snap out of it buddy. If Dad came back from the dead and has divine powers, why is he not here now with all of us? Think about it. Why wouldn't dad come back and see the rest of us?"

        • • • "Well, I don't know. He said he would come back again soon. You see the message. And he wants me to run the household, and truly the entire world, until he comes back. And he wants you all to listen to me and help me bring the whole world to this truth."

      • [Shaking their heads] "That does not make any sense, John. You need help, and we will make sure you get the help you need, okay?"

      • Brother #2: "John, if Dad had a message for the world, I am certain he could give the message himself, brother."  [Turning aside to the other siblings]  "Also, did you notice how earlier John said dad came in his physical body, but now he is saying dad can walk through walls?  And first he wasn't even sure if it was dad. Then dad showed him bullet holes?!  Like somebody who is God and can conquer death can't even fix his own bullet holes?  ...  And now John wants to lead the family and the whole world like some kind of freaking cult prophet.  We need to take him to the hospital or call a psychiatrist ASAP.  What do you think?

      • Brother #3: "Yeah, I'll do it. I'll call." 

      • Liz:  "In the mean time, just humor him. Don't argue anymore, ok? Promise me. You'll only upset him even more."

• So, what do you think of John and his alleged message from his Dad? 

• What if some people came to your door and told you this really happened?

• What if they told you they even had 4 copies of John's note, but in a 3rd language, and with some discrepancies in the texts?

• What if, later on, the stories grew even further, and there were 4 whole novellas produced about the story of John's Dad and the beautiful things he taught while he was alive?  What if nobody was saying such things while John's dad was actually living?  What if the stories said John's Dad used to heal the sick, cast out demons, preach to big crowds, sometimes up to 5,000 people, performing miracles, calming storms, making food multiply to feed 4,000 people with only 7 pieces of bread, or 5 butter rolls and 2 pieces of sashimi?  What if you looked for newspaper or media reports from the time John's dad lived, but none of them recorded ANY of those things at all, not even a single one? [That's the case with everything Jesus allegedly spoke and did. Not a single contemporary author wrote even a single story, a single sentence, a single word about the man John claims was actually God in the flesh.]

• Would you believe it John's story?  

  • • • If not, then you should not be a Christian.

Conclusions:

• It is utterly nonsensical to claim that a personal God truly, deeply loved the entire world so much that he went through the trouble of looking at all the females on earth just to find a single 14-year-old Jewish girl, in a remote, small town, to impregnate with himself, so that he could thus become a human in order to reveal his truth to the world, ... but he (irrationally, mysteriously) chose not to appear to everyone (because that might fulfill the mission in a straightforward and honest way that made sense), but only to appear to a relatively small number of illiterate, superstitious people in one small part of the world, and then he kept his identity secret for his entire life (what?!), but when he was older set aside 1-3 years to preach, teach, perform magic tricks and heal people, and then he got killed -- on purpose -- so that he could be a sacrificial offering to himself to satisfy his need for bloodshed and his desire to kill humans for being so disappointing (as he made them), and then he came back to life in his human bodily form, ... but he only showed himself alive to a few people, either for a day or 2, or even up to 40 days according to one account, and then -- for an unexplained reason -- he was unable or unwilling to stay around on earth, or to show himself to everyone, to teach the world his truth in his own words or to show the world the deep love he said he felt for "everyone," but he had to go up into the sky to live, so he entrusted a few people with his message to give to all mankind, promising special rewards to anyone who would believe the stories without actual clear, solid evidence. And the message allegedly survives in only 4 documents, which were originally anonymous. None of the documents are written in the language Jesus most likely would have spoken, the common Aramaic language of the Galilee region where he supposedly lived.  No one wrote anything about him during his lifetime, even though several decades after his death, people started claiming he was the incarnation of the God who created all things. And the 4 documents do not agree on the details of what happened.  And two of the documents are actually just an altered copy of the first one, but with some changes made and some extra stories added.  This is a completely absurd set-up, but this is Christianity.

• [It is perfectly clear and has been demonstrated, as you will see if you explore scholarly research or the essays on this website, that the Christian gospels contain falsehoods, historical inaccuracies, contradictions, the numbers of myth (3, 7, 12, 40), and stories that sound like the myths and religious propaganda of the Jewish culture they came from and the Greco-Roman culture they so strongly opposed and wished to rival.  So the gospels are not trustworthy, but we shall see more on this topic later.  But stil, ... ]

• Since no Jesus wrote anything down in his own words or stayed around on earth to teach people, and since only a few accounts of his life exist, in a different language (Greek), written anonymously, but later having authors' names added, then those accounts are almost the only thing we have to go on, if we want to try to understand what -- out of all the reported sayings -- such a character might really have said, IF such a character really existed.

• Yes, it's really that bad. ... even worse if you get into the fine details.

Why not?  ...

Think about it.

What historical circumstances could possibly create a situation in which NO literate person heard or knew of Jesus during his own lifetime, or no literate person heard or knew anything that seemed important enough to write about it?

• IF there was not a real historical Jesus, but the entire character was made up as a symbolic character for a messianic cult or a set of symbolic stories for a messianic cult that was hoping for a resurrection of an independent Israel, and those symbols and stories kept growing over time, and then evolved when the revolutionary hopes failed, then it makes sense that nobody wrote about Jesus during his lifetime.

• IF there was a historical Jesus, then it could still make sense, ... IF in reality he was simply a poor, uneducated, hyper-religious man from the region of Galilee who developed delusions of grandeur, thinking he was the Jewish god Yahweh's appointed messiah king, and that he would fulfill various rumored prophecies he had heard about growing up.

• IF Jesus really healed the sick almost everywhere he went, and IF he really drove out demons almost everywhere he went, and IF he really multiplied 7 bits of food to feed thousands of people, and IF great crowds of people followed him as the gospels claim, such that he could hardly avoid the crowds, and IF he really calmed storms, walked on water, raised a man from the dead, appeared on a mountain with Moses and Elijah, and had all of those reported arguments with Pharisees and Sadducees, and IF the sky really suddenly went dark for 3 hours when he died, and IF he really showed himself alive shortly after his death, THEN it does NOT make sense that NO ONE AT ALL thought it was important enough to write any of it down during his lifetime or even immediately after his death!  Even his enemies?!  

• There are zero surviving contemporary historical, political, religious, or other documents that mention Jesus, record even a single detail regarding Jesus' life, record a single teaching of his, or imply or verify even the mere existence of a Jesus of Nazareth or a Jesus son of Joseph (Yeshua bar Yehosef), from the possible times of his alleged birth to the possible times of his alleged death.

• Christians do not even know what would normally be simple details about an important person's life, the kinds of details one would expect they should know, like what year Jesus was born or what year Jesus died, or what day of the week it was when Jesus died, assuming that he did indeed exist.  Why would even the Christians themselves have no knowledge of what year Jesus was born and what year he died?

• Greeks, Romans, Jews, and other cultures of the 1st century BCE did write about contemporary events.  So why did no one write anything about Jesus during his lifetime?  

• There IS evidence of people named Jesus, however. Interestingly, according to Dr. Amos Kloner, an Israeli archaeologist and professor at Bar-Ilan University, the name Jesus (Yeshua) has been found 71 times in Judaean burial caves from around that time period.

  • • • Ed Pilkington and Rory McCarthy. "Is this really the last resting place of Jesus, Mary Magdalene - and their son?" The Guardian, London, Feb 27, 2007. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/27/religion.israel

So apparently the name Jesus (Yeshua = "Yahweh is salvation") was quite popular at the time.

• The Christian gospels (written decades after any death of a historical Jesus would have happened) claim that Jewish / Hebrew scribes were often present during Jesus' public appearances.  However, there is no indication that any real scribes ever saw Jesus, knew Jesus, or witnessed anything special that impressed them enough to write about it, whether in favor of Jesus or disapproving of Jesus, or even being aware that an important figure named Jesus, son of Joseph, or Jesus of Nazareth existed.

• Moreover, Christians were so embarrassed by the lack of evidence for the historicity of their alleged savior, that these Christians actually invented evidence in order to convince people by way of deceit.  Dr. Robert Price put it as follows:

  • • • "The overwhelming lack of commentary about Jesus in the historical sources of his supposed time has troubled Christian scholars from the very beginning. As early as the second century, this lack of acknowledgment was noticed. Indeed, it was not long before forgeries attesting to the existence of Jesus were produced. Other such evidences were either intentionally manufactured or inadvertently created through the eye of the beholder. There are several false attestations to Jesus that are of note, among these are the: Letters of Pilate, Letter from Herod Antipas, Letter of Agbar, Letters of Caiaphas, and Testimony of Thallus and Phlegon. All of these supposed evidences from the time of Jesus are universally accepted by scholars today as fraudulent or corrupted, so I won’t bother delving into them in detail."

-- Price, R.G. Deciphering the Gospels: Proves Jesus Never Existed (p. 228-229). Lulu Publishing Services. Kindle Edition. 2018.

It is important to realize that influential Christians were more than willing to make up stories and pretend they were written by other people. This characteristic of the Christian Church is yet further evidence regarding the unreliability of claims made by the Church.

I mean, Christians even forged a letter that was supposedly from the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate, who allegedly executed Jesus, to the Roman Senate. The letter ostensibly reported details regarding Jesus' crucifixion. The Church intended for people to see this as proof of Christianity's claims, to make the stories more realistic. Today, we know the opposite is true. Christians were clearly willing to lie, make up stories, and fabricate "evidence." In fact, once a person studies the gospels well, applying critical thinking, one discovers that many stories -- if not most or all stories -- in even the canonical gospels themselves are just more examples of fabrications by Christians. You will see later that Christians also forged a famous passage about Jesus that they deliberately inserted it into a book written by the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, The Jewish War, in order to create the appearance that there was historical evidence of Jesus, when in reality there was no decent evidence at all.

• What kinds of possible scenarios could realistically explain this lack of information about Jesus during his own lifetime?

• If Jesus was just a poor and relatively insignificant man from Galilee who unrealistically hoped he could become Yahweh's messiah-king of an independent Israel, and he only gathered a relatively small circle of illiterate followers, and he was betrayed and crucified before anyone really knew much about him, then the lack of mention of his existence by contemporaries  does make sense.

• If Jesus was a made-up character symbolic of the messianic hope, and was only eventually historicized, with the stories growing over time, then this scenario does make sense. In this case, it is not surprising that no contemporaries of any historical Jesus mention his existence.

• If Jesus was really the kind of person the gospels describe, the lack of documentation of his life does not make sense, because literate people would want to write about such an charismatic character during his lifetime, either that he was amazing or else that he was deluded.  Instead we get neither: no one talking about an amazing preacher named Jesus, and no one complaining about a major figure named Jesus, deluding masses of people.

• If Jesus was an incarnation of a deeply loving God who wanted to save the whole world and teach everyone the truth, establishing personal relationships with people, then it makes zero sense that his life was so unremarkable that no one wrote anything at all about him during his entire lifetime, at least nothing that survives.  The facts certainly do NOT lend themselves to the notion that Jesus was really the "Son of God" who could do miracles and wanted to teach his loving truth to the entire world.  In fact, the facts make that claim look absurd in the extreme.

Re: Christian claims:  Could a truly loving God really become a human, miraculously and deliberately in order to save humanity, to reveal himself to humanity, and to teach everyone the truth, yet not even convince a single writer to think anything was so important as to write about the "Son of God's" words or deeds either during his alleged lifetime or even for two entire decades or more after his alleged death and resurrection?

Yet despite the fact that people were writing, reading, copying, and discussing all kinds of histories, literature, plays, music, mathematics, geographies, biographies, etc. at that time in history, it is indeed the case that NO ONE at all bothered to write an account of the life, words, or deeds of Jesus, the alleged "Son of God" incarnate, the alleged savior of the whole world, at least not any account that was deemed -- even by the Christian religion itself! -- important enough to copy or ensure its survival.  Not only did no historical Jesus write any account himself, but no one at all wrote an account for over 20 years.  Hardly conceivable, IF Christian claims were true.

• If Julius Caesar could write an account of his Gallic Wars, "Commentarii de Bello Gallico," between 58 and 50 BCE, why could a historical Jesus not write an account of anything whatsoever?  

  • • • Would a real, loving, universal God care more about preserving the words of a Roman general like Julius Caesar for posterity than the words of his own alleged Son, his own alleged messiah/Christ, his own alleged incarnation?!

• If Pliny the Younger could write an account of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 CE, having witness the eruption himself, and having lost his famous uncle during an attempted rescue operation, why could a historical Jesus not write about what were allegedly the most important words and deeds ever delivered to humanity?

  • • • Could a loving God of the whole universe really care more about ensuring the survival of an account of a volcanic eruption than an account of the life and teachings of his own Son?!

• Literate persons throughout the Greco-Roman world could write letters to friends, family, other loved ones, colleagues, etc.  So why could a historical Jesus not write any letters?

  • • • Could a loving God of the whole universe really care more about ensuring the survival of ancient individuals' personal letters than an account of the life and teachings of his own miraculous world-saving Son?!

What could explain a situation in which no one would write an account of the life and words of Jesus until over 20 years or over 40 years after his death?

• Option 1: Maybe there was no historical Jesus. 

Maybe he started off as a symbolic myth created by a messianic (Greek "Christ") cult, whose members considered themselves the "body of Christ" (i.e. the body of the living messiah), and who were trying to inspire hope, revolutionary sentiment, and trying to build an empire-wide support network for the Jewish god Yahweh and their messianic movement.  Maybe the group started in Galilee. Maybe the simple original myth -- about a messiah named Jesus / Yeshua / Joshua / "Yahweh saves" / "Yahweh is salvation," who represented the messianic hope and was destroyed by the Romans, but came back to life, went to heaven, and would come again to rule the nations -- continued to grow over time, as various groups cleverly added bits and pieces to it from the Hebrew scriptures, and eventually from Roman imperial cult too, as a way of rivaling Roman symbols.  

The revolutionary hopes were crushed with the failure of the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Maybe some messianic cult members still persisted in hope for an imminent messianic come-back, a return of revolutionary fervor even after destruction, a "Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven" movement, to borrow the symbol used in the supposed "prophecies" attributed to Daniel back around 160 BCE, the symbol used so often in the gospels, a symbol that would be understood as revolutionary for well-educated, thoroughly indoctrinated Jews.  Maybe at first they still put out their inspiring story about how the "Son of Man" would soon return in the clouds. All of the insiders would know what that really meant:  revolution.  However, Jerusalem, the original center of Jewish messianism (the center of of Torah-observing, Mosaic-law-following Jewish Christianity), had been crushed, destroyed, and Gentile converts had come numerically to dominate the network, changing both the demographics and the kinds of things being thought, spoken, done.  Roman power still persisted, and whole decades continued to pass with no real, obvious political successes, and the "Son of Man coming in the clouds soon" climax never happened, yet the movement proved surprisingly VERY successful at winning over Gentiles into the network, especially people disaffected with the Roman empire, like the poor, the uneducated, slaves, minorities, etc., and even some wealthy Jews and wealthy foreigners who sympathized with the Jews, even some sympathetic members of Roman aristocratic families. Some groups began to adjust their expectations. Some began to play the long game, giving up hope that the Messiah's/Christ's return would be soon, but maintaining a teaching that it could happen at any time. Maybe they realized that they were winning so much support throughout the empire, that they should continue this movement. Maybe newer converts were taking the story literally, and the leaders in the know allowed it to happen because it was proving so popular, helping to grow the network, and generating revenue.  The now numerically-Gentile-dominated network was still funneling money to revolutionary causes through leadership, upper-level initiates.  

There was even enough strength to fund and support a second major Jewish revolt, the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-135 CE), also known as the Second Jewish-Roman War.  Simon "Bar Kokhba" was remored to be descended from king David. The greatest rabbi of the time, Akiva ben Yosef ("Son of Joseph), called Simon the messiah ("Christ" in Greek) and gave him the title Bar Kokhba / ben Koseba (“Son of the Star” in Aramaic), a messianic allusion. Note also that Christian groups (messianic groups) had claimed that Jesus, the Messiah, was also "the bright and morning star." 

• • • • 2 Peter 1.18-19: "18. And we ourselves heard this voice from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19. We also have the word of the prophets as confirmed beyond doubt. And you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

      • Revelation 2.25-29: [allegedly Jesus giving a message to the church in Thyatira; see 2.18, "These are the words of the Son of God."] "25. ... Hold on to what you have until I come. 26. To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations — 27. that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’ —just as I have received authority from my Father. 28. I will also give that one the morning star. 29. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

      • Revelation 22.16: "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star."

This is no mere accident or coincidence.  Why did they use the same symbolism?  Because the "morning star," actually the planet Venus, is also the evening star. It appears in the dark evening as the brightest light in the night sky, other than the moon. Then it dies / disappears from sight. Then it eventually reappears, but early in the morning, just before sunrise, as the "bright Morning Star." In other words, the Morning Star is a symbol of resurrection!  The resurrection of what?  Jewish messianic hope, their hope for independence, for political power, for throwing off Roman rule, for the Yahweh cult to rule the nations.

• Matthew 2.1-3:  "1. After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, 2. asking, “Where is the One who has been born King of the Jews? We saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” 3. When King Herod heard this, he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him."

That birth story of the messiah / "Christ" was not literally true, but conservative Jews well versed in revolutionary thought and symbols would have recognized the association of the star with revolution, kingship.

However, the Roman Empire proved too strong once again for Jewish attempts at revolution.  The Romans under Emperor Hadrian crushed the Bar Kokhba / Son of the Morning Star revolt. Moreover, this time the Roman Emperor Hadrian enacted more severe policies against the Jews of Judea to suppress their identity and their will to resist. For example, he changed the name of the province from Judea to Syria Palaestina, erasing Jewish connections to the name of the land. Hadrian also imposed restrictions on Jews, banning them from practicing circumcision and from observing the Sabbath. Third, since this was the second major rebellion, and since even the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE had not been enough to prevent another massive uprising, this time Hadrian even prohibited Jews from living in Jerusalem at all.

By this time, the empire wide messianic cult already contained more Gentiles than ethnic Jews. Is it any surprise at all that Christianity basically became a new religion, less and less Jewish as time went on?  And with the ban on circumcision and Sabbath observance, is it any wonder that the most growth was seen in the messianic groups wanting to make it easier for Gentiles to join, by limiting the requirements regarding the Mosaic law, allowing members to be uncircumcised, and changing observance from Sabbath day to Sunday, the day of the rising Sun, the day of hope.

Hopes for "the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven" (revolution) in their lifetime, in that generation, were now reinterpreted., especially for those Gentile believers who were taking all of the stories literally. Verses were added to authoritative writings and new writings were created (and attributed to Apostles who would have been long dead) to suggest that no one actually knows when it will happen. 

• 2 Peter 3.8-9: "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

The Church had even provided Jesus and Yahweh with a good excuse for inaction on behalf of the Jews and humanity: Yahweh was simply giving the Church more time for sinners to repent and join the Church and be saved from Yahweh's coming wrath, when he finally restores Israel and creates a new sky/heaven and a new land/earth.

Option #2: There was a historical Jesus, but his real actions were so insignificant that no one bothered to write an account of his life and words, and/or at least there was no one literate (and able to afford a pen and paper) who was aware of words and deeds worth writing about.  

Maybe a historical Jesus existed and was even delusional enough to think he would be the messiah-king of Israel, the adopted son of Yahweh (as all anointed Israelite kings were called in ritual). Maybe his relatively insignificant cult following even had plans for revolt and for his kingdom, but he was betrayed and crucified by the Romans for sedition. Maybe some of his grieving followers refused to give up hope in the "soon coming kingdom" their former leader had spoken of. Maybe one or more of them had a personal epiphany, coming to believe that wherever the is still hope and faith in Yahweh and his messiah/ Christ, Christ still lives.  So Christ/messiah is born again, resurrected from the dead in the form of his faithful followers, those willing to devote their entire lives to the cause of messiah, those willing even to give their very lives for the cause.  But Jesus' small circle of followers did not really have any divine power; they were mere ordinary humans with desperate lives, dreaming big, hyper-religious nationalistic dreams for their country. Maybe the group even knew what the Romans claimed about their ancestor Aeneas, their first king Romulus, Julius Caesar, and Augustus Caesar: that after they died, they did not remain dead, but rose up into heaven as gods.  Maybe they hated the Romans, hated Roman religious claims, and thought they could make rival claims, stories, and symbols of their own, incorporating ideas from their own scriptures at the same time, claims that would inspire Yahweh-worshiping Jewish messianic revolutionaries everywhere. So they began to spread the word that the Romans crucified the messiah, and that the messiah rose from the dead, appeared to the chosen ones, and would soon be coming back, within their lifetimes, to establish the kingdom of Yahweh on earth. "Repent, for the kingdom is near."   Maybe they eventually developed aspirations to create an empire-wide network based on this starting point. Over time, various portions of Hebrew scriptures were selected and molded into a story to symbolize these messianic hopes and claim that these hopes were the fulfillment of all the law and the prophets from the past. And the rest is history.

Either Option #1 or Option #2 is realistically possible.

What is not possible is that the gospels are actual history when interpreted at face value.