Jesus of Nazareth never existed

Bertrand Russell said, "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him." Roderic Dunkerley mirrored this sentiment: "In none of these various testimonies to the fact of Christ is there any slightest hint or idea that he was not a real historical person." In fact, the events of verifiable, documented history can be better accounted for without a real, breathing Jesus. Shocking? Indeed. We know that powerful beliefs can create self-fulfilling prophesies. People in history wanted a messiah, a savior from the tyrannical Romans, and managed to create one out of thin air. The historical record is conspicuously lacking any real support for the notion of a historical Jesus: artifacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, all missing. All claims about Jesus ultimately reduce to the writings of others, and there has never been any Roman record of Pontius Pilate executing the fringe radical Jew named Jesus. Devastating to historians, for whom the existence of Jesus Christ is curiously indisputable, there has never been a single piece of contemporary writing ever discovered that mentions Jesus or a related figure. All documents relating to the savior were written at least decades after the alleged life of Jesus. These writings invariably break down into three separate categories: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or apocryphal, allegorical writings. Fortunately, courts of law do not allow hearsay to serve as proof in a case. The same is true with honest scholarship. Hearsay cannot function as evidence because there is no way of verifying what the person has said is actually true, or is based on bias or misconception. Hearsay cannot, by definition, be evidence. The most trusted accounts of Jesus as a human person emerge from the four canonical Gospels. The reason only these four Gospels in particular remain is that St. Irenaeus considered for mystical reasons only some of the many heretical gospels that existed at the time. Four Gospels became the pillars of orthodox faith. Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met a human Jesus. Additionally, none of the original gospel manuscripts exist. Apologists will point to non-Christian authors that exist outside of Christianity as proof of an historical Jesus. However, none of these sources represents first-hand experiences of Jesus, for all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Viewed this way, these accounts are hearsay accounts and therefore cannot serve as evidence. Apologists will continue to embarrass their disregard for the rules of historiography as they use after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. These authors omit sources for their commentaries on Jesus. This may be because not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him. It indeed seems strange that if on one hand the Gospels portray Jesus as a famous healer and prophet, with a wide following and sense of notoriety (especially with the Jewish high priests and Roman authorities), would not have a single record of his existence during his lifetime. Since the poor, the rich, the rulers, the priests, and the scribes all knew about the human Jesus, why does he not exist in historical accounts from that time? Two questions immediately come to mind: (1) Why were there no writings by the 42 historians living around the region of Judea between the years 1 and 35 A.D.? Jesus was supposedly a miracle man and even if he disappeared until he was thirty there should have been much written, especially after his resurrection which was supposedly witnessed by hundreds or thousands. (2) Why did it take so long for someone to write something? A multitude has been written about the historical Jesus from 60 A.D. on, but absolutely nothing before that. To use an analogy for this absence, imagine going through the vastness of eighteenth century literature and finding nothing about George Washington. George Washington, a prominent figure in the push for American independence, gained no mention in the annals of history. Then, in nineteenth century literature, one finds suddenly a wealth of information about George Washington, as if people had suddenly remembered the commander of the Continental Army. Yet Christians deal precisely with this absurdity. Despite a clear lack of evidence, apologists and historians push hearsay evidence as proof of an alleged life of Jesus Christ. Consequently, despite being omnipotent, the Creator of the Universe makes a rather embarrassing case for his existence. Simply put, faith cannot yield historical fact. Claims coming from hearsay cannot equal an adequate attempt to find the truth. Unfortunately, belief frequently substitutes as infallible knowledge; thus, not even direct evidence can prove it wrong. There are indeed many myths, stories, and beliefs about Jesus. Nevertheless, if one wishes to arrive at the facts of history, one cannot even begin to construct a testable account in the absence of reliable eyewitnesses. In the absence of real evidence for Jesus Christ, there is no room for probabilities in the matter. Just as in a court of law, there is no "75% guilty." We are not obligated to entertain arbitrary claims, and so the burden of proof lies on those who believe Jesus existed as a real person.