JESUS OFFERED NO CREDENTIALS AT ALL NEVER MIND POOR ONES
The Jews once asked Jesus who gave him the authority he claimed and he walked away. For once he did right. He had invalid credentials to claim to be messiah and super-prophet.
Events in the life of Christ were allegedly foretold in the Old
Testament scriptures written before he was born and Jesus himself
stated several times that his death by crucifixion was predicted in
them.
The main events were the virgin birth, the crucifixion and the
resurrection.
The verse that Christians say speaks of the virgin birth has been
taken out of context for it has Isaiah (7:14) telling Ahaz that the
young woman, virgin is a mistranslation, will give birth and bear a
son who will mature as his enemies lose their kingdoms and this will
be a sign for Ahaz. Even if it did say virgin, a girl that was a
virgin at that time could have a baby later when she is not virgin
anymore. So it only means that a girl who is a virgin now will have
a baby later meaning she will not be one then. The text does not say
the birth will be a sign but the birth and its aftermath are all
part of the sign. So you can’t say that he must have meant a virgin
birth for a normal birth is not much of a sign. Besides, even a
virgin birth isn’t much of a sign. Women were known to have got
pregnant without intercourse.
Isaiah 53 supposedly predicts the death of Jesus on the cross for
sinners. But all it says is that somebody who is innocent will be
violently treated and wounded and will die for sins and will be
given a grave among the wicked. It does not even say that the
wounding will be the cause of death or that the man will be killed.
Psalm 22 supposedly describes the crucifixion of Jesus before it
happened. If it were about Jesus then it would have been more
logical for the psalmist not to write as if he were writing about
himself. How are we supposed to know what psalms are about him or
Jesus for he wrote them all as if they were about him. There is a
clue that it is not about Jesus in verse 9. It says the tormentors
were saying of the victim that he relied on God therefore let God
save him. This is thought to predict the Jews mocking Jesus on the
cross. The Jews who nailed Jesus would not have been saying that for
that would have been blasphemous. Also to say Jesus relied on God
contradicted the Jewish consensus that he was a heretic and a
blasphemer not a holy man. It would have been promoting Jesus. The
psalm says the enemies are bullocks who encircle him and attack him
with their open mouths (verse 14) and that they have wounded his
hands and his feet (verse 17). It speaks as if he tried to stop
their biting him by hitting them and kicking them which left him
with their bite marks on his hands and his feet. So the psalm is
using a metaphor for the enemies did not literally bite him. Yet
Christians attempt to pretend that the wounded hands and feet refer
to Jesus who was nailed to the cross by his hands and feet. The New
Testament never actually says that Jesus had any nail wounds. Foot
wounds are not mentioned at all. The mention in John about hand
wounds could be referring to cuts from the ropes if Jesus was tied
to the cross or cuts he had from his work as a builder.
Anybody could be a prophet if that is all it takes to predict. I
have seen fortune-tellers doing better than that. Jesus was an
eccentric fraud because he appealed to these prophecies.
The atonement refers to Jesus paying for our sins to God by dying on
the cross so that we would be forgiven and not have to pay the
penalty for our sins. This arrangement is totally unfair for you can
only pay for your own crimes. The fact that the law lets people pay
your fines does not mean that is fair. It is only tolerated by the
law of the land because letting the person off altogether sends the
wrong message. Christians know this but they still use the example
of the law to pretend that what happened to Jesus was fair. Only the
person who committed the crime can atone. Jesus consenting to pay
makes the doctrine sillier and more unjust and is no improvement
though Christians say it is! It makes Jesus a man who imagined that
his suffering and death could pay for the sins of others, a man who
demeaned himself.
The purpose of justice is to make real laws of laws. A law against
something that does not punish you by paying you back fair and
square for the evil you have done is not a law at all. With this
insight, we clearly perceive that when God made Jesus pay for
breaking the law when he was innocent so that we could get off that
this was not justice but vengeance. The atonement is attractive to
people who wish to believe that they are friends with a vindictive
God.
Jesus was allegedly nailed to the cross to die for our sins and rise
again to show that we could have eternal life. If Jesus showed up
again after his death that would mean the man who died was a
pretender or that it was all a magic trick. No evidence is given in
the gospels that it was really Jesus who was crucified just hearsay.
If we are going to accept hearsay we cannot consider Christianity
worth believing. Jesus had fanatical followers who risked their
lives going after him so any one of them who looked like him could
have taken his place and the gospels do state that people had
problems recognising "Jesus" and nobody who knew him well saw him
close up on the cross. The crucified man could have had a badly
swollen and bloody face meaning it was easy to pass off somebody as
Jesus. The gospels say that Pilate was desperate to prevent Jesus
from going to the cross so a trick might have been employed. The
gospels can be read either as speaking of the risen Jesus as a flesh
and blood man or an apparition. For example, the vanishing of Jesus
at Emmaus doesn’t actually say that he just dissolved into thin air.
He could have gone when they were not looking. That would be natural
and would still be vanishing. The apostles didn’t speak of these
appearances for forty days after which they never saw Jesus again so
Jesus could have gotten away with a hoax. Some of them are down to
mistaken identity.
The tomb of Jesus was found empty on the third day after his
crucifixion according to the four gospels.
Christians try to refute the possibility that somebody stole the
body of Jesus for they want people to think he rose bodily from the
dead. Their proofs that nobody stole the body are just speculation.
The Matthew gospel alone says that there were guards at the tomb. It
says they were scared by an angel that appeared and it made them
faint. They could have been scared by a trickster who pretended to
be the angel. Perhaps the body was stolen in the confusion or after
they ran off. The Matthew Gospel says the Jews bribed them to say
that the body was stolen by Jesus' disciples as they slept on duty.
Maybe they really did really did sleep on duty and it was not a
faint. Some say the penalties for sleeping on duty were severe so
the guards were probably telling the truth!
Perhaps they were drugged by those who were endeavouring to fake a
miracle.
The Gospel of Matthew admits that the soldiers were amenable to
bribes. Jesus could have got plenty of donations through the years
that he said nothing about. Those funds could have been used to
bribe the soldiers to let his henchmen who need not necessarily have
been among the apostles steal the body.
The guards are so unreliable and unprofessional that it is stupid to
think that they could be trusted to care for Jesus' tomb.
All the sources say that the women were there alone and when the
tomb was open. Nothing says the body was gone then. Maybe they stole
the body and lied about visions of Jesus and angels?
We have no reason to think they couldn’t have managed to move the
stone which might have been a small slab.
The gospels say they wondered who was going to open the tomb for
them indicating that the guards story is lies. Had there been guards
there they would have expected them to open the tomb for them. If
the women couldn’t open the tomb themselves then why didn’t they
take men with them? Did they just go ahead to the tomb in the hope
that they might be able to move the stone themselves?
The burial might have been a trick. There is no reason stopping you
from believing that the buriers of Jesus only pretended to bury
Jesus and fooled the witnesses who were in a distracted distressed
state. Maybe the body was never buried in the first place. The
gospels merely say that Jesus' burial was witnessed but they do not
go into detail. They do not say the witnesses kept their eyes on the
tomb like detectives would.
The Christians expect us to believe that all the possible
explanations for the empty tomb and appearances of Jesus to the
apostles take too much faith and it is easier to believe simply that
Jesus rose by a miracle. That is appalling logic. Natural
explanations, however bizarre, must always be preferred to
supernatural ones and the supernatural explanation with the least
miracles in it must be preferred if a natural one will not do. A
supernatural explanation is never ever necessary. After all, aliens
could be doing the miracles with their super-science. Then in that
case they merely look like miracles but are not miracles at all. If
a man came to the world as it is today from the Middle Ages he would
think that televisions are supernatural. That would in fact be
irrational of him. He should instead think that it is something to
do with nature that he doesn’t understand. The idea that demons made
people forget the real location of the body is a better one than
that it rose from the dead. It involves assuming less miracle.
Assuming it is rational to say miracle is possible, we must assume
as few miracles as possible.
God the Son allegedly became man, later named as Jesus, in the womb
of the Virgin Mary. This is referred to as the incarnation. Jesus
once lied that he and the Father witnessing to his being the Son of
God fulfilled the divine law in the books of Moses that two
witnesses were necessary before a claim could be believed. The claim
that somebody testifying to himself was any good plainly contradicts
the rule. And Jesus is clearly trying to distort the rule. God would
not need to lie at all never mind call on the Father to make a liar
of himself by defending his lie so the incarnation doctrine is
untrue.
Jesus and God were guilty of the hypocrisy of recognising the Law of
Moses as the infallible word of God when there was no eyewitness
testimony that it was written exactly as God had laid it out. There
is no eyewitness testimony that says the four gospels were not
selective in what they said about Jesus. Being selective is the best
way to give a misleading impression. It is good if you wish to
create a better image of some idol than he or she really was. Had
God really written them as the Church says, we would have the
testimony. The Church will answer that many will still not believe.
Maybe, but that is no excuse for God making a poor effort to back up
the scriptures.
Jesus failed to mirror the best in human nature and cannot be
considered divine in any sense. God did not become that man.
John is the only gospel of the four that we have got that says that
Jesus claimed to be the only way to God. Strangely the others did
not think this claim important when they forgot about it or
deliberately omitted it. Its unreliability is proven by the absurd
reasoning its mad Jesus uses. For instance, he says to the Jews that
the Law of Moses correctly needs two witnesses to establish claims
as true. Jesus then says he is his own witness and God is the other!
(John 8:17, 18). Any crank could make claims like that. The law
meant two witnesses apart from yourself.
The evidence against Jesus being authentic is clearly valid and
settles the story. He was not and is not who he was claimed to be
and who he is claimed to be.