Everyone thinks they know Jesus. They speak his name, they repeat his teachings. They draw his face. Yet despite all this familiarity, the truth is far more disturbing. In reality, we know almost nothing.
Yes, we have gospels. Yes, we have churches. And yes, we have a religion that reshaped half the world. But no, we do not have facts. The story of Jesus, as most people know it, is not based on verifiable evidence. It is built on repetition, imagination, and faith.
And yet, facts matter
We are told that Jesus is the most influential human being in history. Billions follow him. Empires have invoked him. Morality has been shaped around him. But when we finally stop and ask, “What do we actually know?”, the answer is shockingly little.
Jesus: To begin with, there are no contemporary sources
Not a single one. Jesus supposedly lived in the early first century CE, in a Roman province tightly controlled and well documented. And yet, during his lifetime, no one wrote about him. No Roman official mentioned him. No historian saw fit to record his actions. Not one witness left behind a document.
Even worse, Jesus himself left behind nothing. No writings, no letters, no signature. Despite being remembered as a teacher, he never recorded a single teaching. Meanwhile, those around him—his followers, his family, his enemies—left no accounts either.
And the silence does not end there
There were dozens of writers in and around Judea. Philo of Alexandria lived during Jesus’s alleged lifetime. He wrote extensively about religious life, Jewish sects, Roman politics, and spiritual thought. He wrote about the temple, about uprisings, and about figures of controversy. But he never mentioned Jesus.
Similarly, other major figures of the time—Seneca, Petronius, Pliny the Elder—wrote about strange cults and local superstitions. They commented on popular movements. But Jesus? Nothing. He is invisible to every contemporary chronicler.
Did he exist? Only later do we hear his name
And even then, the sources are questionable. The first full accounts of Jesus’ life come from the four canonical Gospels. But those were not written during his lifetime. In fact, they were composed 40 to 70 years after his alleged death—long after any eyewitnesses would be alive.
Worse still, the Gospels were written in Greek, not the Aramaic spoken in Galilee. Their authors do not identify themselves. Their names—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were attached long after the texts were written. And even more importantly, the Gospels do not agree with each other. Far from it.
In fact, they contradict each other frequently
Matthew and Luke cannot agree on Jesus’ genealogy. One traces his lineage through David via Solomon; the other goes through Nathan. Their accounts of Jesus’ birth do not match. Matthew places him in Bethlehem because of prophecy. Luke invents a Roman census to get him there. Mark says nothing about a virgin birth at all. John omits the birth narrative entirely.
And then comes the resurrection. Who went to the tomb? Was it empty? Did angels appear or did Jesus show himself in Galilee or Jerusalem? Did he ascend on the same day or weeks later? The Gospels offer different answers, with conflicting timelines and incompatible details.
So while they may provide spiritual inspiration, they do not provide reliable history.
And before the Gospels, there was Paul
His letters are the earliest Christian documents. He wrote decades before the Gospels, around 50 CE. But Paul never met Jesus. He admits that clearly. His knowledge comes from visions. Mystical experiences. A voice on the road to Damascus.
So even here, even in the earliest Christian text, we are left without historical data.
Later Roman writers did mention Jesus – but only much later
Josephus, writing in the 90s CE, mentions “Jesus called Christ.” But most scholars agree that this passage was altered by Christian scribes. The wording includes phrases Josephus never used elsewhere. When cleaned up, the mention becomes vague—possibly referring to a general teacher or movement.
Tacitus, around 115 CE, also mentions Christ being executed under Pilate. But again, this is not a contemporary source. Tacitus was born after Jesus allegedly died. He is likely repeating what Christians told him.
None of these references offer independent verification. They simply confirm that by the late first century, people were talking about someone named Jesus.
Meanwhile, the myth grows stronger
The stories of Jesus are filled with elements that mirror older religious myths. A divine son born of a virgin. A miraculous healer. A teacher of wisdom. A man who dies, is buried, and returns to life. These motifs existed long before Jesus.
Mithras, Dionysus, Osiris—all had followers who believed in resurrection, divine birth, and sacred meals. The Gospel writers were not inventing from nothing. They were composing within a framework of myth already familiar to the ancient world.
Even the idea of the suffering savior was known. The narrative structure—birth, mission, betrayal, death, return—is a common religious pattern. It appeals to the human psyche. But it does not confirm historical truth.
The motives behind the texts matter deeply
Each Gospel serves a purpose. Matthew writes to connect Jesus to Jewish prophecy. Luke focuses on moral teaching and social concern. John creates a cosmic figure, turning Jesus into the divine Logos—eternal, outside of time, the voice of God.
These writers were not documenting what happened. They were shaping what should be believed. Their priority was not accuracy. It was conviction. They wrote theology, not history.
And that matters—because it explains the contradictions, the exaggerations, and the miraculous flourishes. They were not trying to inform skeptics. They were persuading believers.
Jesus and his existence: So what might be true?
Possibly, there was a preacher. A man who challenged authority. Someone who spoke in parables and gained followers. Someone who offended temple elites and got crucified by Rome, like so many others.
But that figure—if he existed—has vanished behind layers of theology. We do not know what he looked like, we do not know what he said. And we do not know when or where he was born. We do not even know his name for certain. The name “Jesus” (Yeshua) was extremely common.
And without any primary sources, without reliable records, and without contemporary witnesses, everything else is guesswork.
Yet people still act as if it is proven
They build cathedrals, they create laws, they go to war. They defend ideologies. All based on the assumption that the story of Jesus is historical. But it is not. It is legendary. It is shaped by belief, not confirmed by evidence.
Even historians who argue for a historical Jesus admit the details are beyond recovery. The real person—if there was one—is gone. Replaced by a symbol. A composite. A theological construction passed through centuries of repetition.
This confusion between faith and fact is dangerous
Because people who believe something as fact are willing to kill and die for it. They impose it on others. They judge, they ban, they punish—all in the name of a man no one truly knows.
Religion can offer comfort. Faith can inspire moral action. But when faith replaces evidence, we lose the ability to question. We lose intellectual honesty. And we lose contact with what really happened.
Was he a real person?
Was Jesus a real person? Possibly. But we cannot confirm it. The historical evidence is thin, late, and shaped by faith. There are no contemporary records. No Roman official mentions Jesus during his lifetime. Not one document from Judea reports his preaching, his trial, or his death. Even Jesus himself wrote nothing. His followers left no letters, no testimonies, no trace while he lived. The silence is total.
The first Christian writings come from Paul. But Paul never met Jesus. He never quotes him, he never describes what he looked like. He never mentions Bethlehem, Mary, or the miracles. For Paul, Jesus was a heavenly savior, not a human teacher. His Jesus appears in visions, not in history.
Then came the Gospels—written decades later. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were all composed between 70 and 100 CE. That is at least 40 years after the alleged crucifixion. Their authors remain unknown. Their accounts often contradict each other. Birthplace, family tree, resurrection timeline—none of it matches. These texts were not written to record events. They were written to preach faith.
Mentioning Jesus, after a long time
Later, Roman writers like Josephus and Tacitus mention Jesus. But their references came much too late. Josephus wrote in the 90s CE, and his Jesus passage was clearly edited by Christians. Tacitus, writing around 115 CE, repeated what Christians were already saying. Neither offers independent, contemporary evidence.
Meanwhile, the shape of the Jesus story follows older myths. Virgin birth, divine father, miracle-working, resurrection—these were common religious patterns. Osiris, Mithras, and Dionysus followed similar arcs. The Jesus narrative fits a known formula. It was not unique. It was expected.
So was there a man behind it all? Maybe. A preacher. A rebel. Someone executed by Rome, like many others. But even if he existed, we know nothing reliable about him. No verified quotes, no eyewitness memory. No confirmed facts.
What survives is theology. A layered myth. A religious symbol shaped over time. The real Jesus—if he ever lived—is gone. We are left with belief. Not proof.
Scholars agree he was real with evidence lacking
Most scholars—especially Christian ones—say Jesus probably existed. But when you look closer, that claim rests on assumptions, not evidence. They do not point to a document from his lifetime; they do not cite an eyewitness. They simply argue: someone must have started the movement. Christianity did not appear from nowhere. Therefore, probably, there was a man behind it. A preacher. A crucified rebel. That is the logic.
But assumptions are not facts. And most of these scholars admit that we cannot know what this Jesus actually said or did. The Gospels are too late. The contradictions too many. The miracles too convenient. The theology too strong. All they claim is that someone—somewhere—existed.
Even critical secular scholars like Bart Ehrman say: yes, there was probably a man named Jesus. But even he admits we cannot confirm any specific detail. Not his birth, not his teachings. Not his trial. And not even the crucifixion itself. Just a vague figure—likely a preacher—who was mythologized after death.
So yes, the majority say he existed. But no, they cannot prove it. It is a scholarly guess. A cautious default position. Not a demonstrated fact. And no amount of repetition will change that.
In the end, we must face the silence
We want to know who Jesus was. But the trail is empty. The records are gone. The words are missing. The man is blurred. What remains is not memory. It is myth.
And myth may have beauty. But it is not proof.
So next time someone says we know Jesus, ask them how. Ask for the documents. Ask for the quotes, ask for the photos, the court records, the independent confirmation. There is none. There never was.
And that silence still echoes.
This article was published on janbryxi.com and freethinkersinternational.net
Leave a Reply