AD 2006: An Historical De-Mythologising of Jesus the Christ of Man Kind

I think we can now state, with 110% certainty, Jesus definitely did not exist. Period.

This is what we can surmise even from just a few seconds of historical research: Jesus is a fictional character who, like Harry Potter, was very popular with most kids and some adults at the time.

I know people claim 0AD being the same year Jesus was born is far too much of a coincidence. But historically the BC numbers had run out, and had been running out for many years prior to 0AD, indeed they had been going backwards for at least 6000 years (some say more). Therefore, it was inevitable they would have to start counting forwards. Hence 0AD.

Many consider the simple fact his name exists as proof - why are people called "Jesus" today? A name is usually passed down from a parent or a grandparent, or becomes popular due to the notoriety of someone with the name, they argue. If Jesus didn't exist, where did the name come from?

Again, the answer is simple if, perhaps, unexpected. New linguistic research into ancient writings shows people have been using this term as a swear word for longer than the 2000 years since his supposed birth. The exclaimation, "Oh, f****ng, Jesus Christ!", was found carved into a Roman wax-board, dating to the 3rd century BC. Hence, we can assume the name was initially used in a derogatory way until, gradually, this meaning was lost and the name became popular.

The strongest evidence, though, comes from the many thousands of depictions of Jesus in medieval churches across Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. If Jesus didn't exist, why are there so many paintings of him? We know Winston Churchill existed, yet there are only about 270 realistic paintings of the man. There are over 420 million painted depictions of Jesus, alone, not counting the many sketches, water-colours and novelty figurines also bearing his image.

The answer to this is a little more complex, but no less compelling. We know humans are genetically constructed to enjoy copying each other. This explains why, even today, people will hang the most hideous and tasteless pictures in their houses, just because their friend or their neighbour has the same picture. The picture doesn't even have to make sense - take, for example, the depiction of kittens playfully chainsawing through the legs of paralysed puppies, popular in the mid-80s, but which you can still find hanging in the dinning rooms of council houses across the Midlands, today. Do these pictures provide evidence for the existence of kittens with chainsaws? Perhaps, but there's reasonable doubt.

It seems logical, therefore, to assume someone first bought a picture of a kind-looking bearded man, with thorns for a crown, wearing a sheet and smiling. The neighbours liked it, and decided to get one for their church. Gradually, the craze caught on until you wouldn't been seen dead in a church unless they had the "cool" picture of the nice beardy guy. This would force churches who didn't have the picture to rush out and get one. So, in fact, we can clearly see these pictures were already in place before they became associated with the myth of Jesus.

Thus, by historical fact-study, can the mythologies of Jesus the Christ of Man Kind be debunked, today.