What's So Special About "Jesus"? Nothing. Everything supposedly attributed
to "Jesus" and everything that Christians tout as special and unique about
him had already been done many times before.

- He rose from the dead ~ big deal, so had others before him.
- He performed miracles ~ nothing new in that, it had already been done by
many others.
- He raised people from the dead ~ so what, so had some of the Old Testament
prophets.
- He healed ~ that's old news and had been accomplished by so many others.
- He was said to be the "Son of God" ~ just like so many others claimed to
be.
- He was "born of a virgin" ~ just like so many others.
- He was reported crucified ~ just like so many others.

What makes "Jesus" stand out from the crowd of other godmen, saviours and
messiahs? Many have claimed to be the savior but if this one really was the
"one and only" where are the concrete, testable proofs that substantiate his
credentials? Christian assertions, wishful thinking and subjective
experiences prove nothing unless you wish to believe. Anyone can claim to be
the Messiah, and many have.

"Jesus" said little that was new or worthwhile. He introduced no new
concepts to ethics apart from hell. He instituted no social programmes
although if, as many of his followers believe, he was the "Son of God" or
"God made flesh" and not just an invented character, he would have known
much more about science, biology or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of
such things.

"When we say that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced
without sexual union, and that He, "Jesus Christ", our Teacher, was
crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound
nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons
of Jupiter." Apology 21 by Justin Martyr

He did not leave behind any writings, nor did any of his contemporaries. All
claims of "Jesus" derive from hearsay accounts and there is no physical
evidence to support the claim of a historical Jesus; no artifacts or self
written documents.

There are no contemporary Roman records to prove that Pontius Pilate
executed a man named "Jesus". Unfortunately for the Christian faith there is
not even a single contemporary writing that mentions "Jesus".

All the documents pertaining to him were written at least 30 years the death
of the alleged "Jesus" and are from either unknown authors, people who had
never met the earthly "Jesus", or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical
writings. Many have been proven to be outright fabrications, pious frauds or
interpolations derived from hearsay accounts and can not possibly serve as
reliable evidence for a historical "Jesus".

Even the sparse and contradictory histories and genealogies of "Jesus"
contradict each other and themselves in many places.

- The birth of "Jesus" is depicted as having taken place at different times.
- Mark does not mention his birth or childhood.
- Matthew and Luke claim that he was "born of a virgin," his lineage is
traced to the House of David through Joseph, such that he may "fulfill
prophecy", but the genealogies in Mark and Luke contradict each other.
- He is said in the first three gospels to have taught for one year before
his death, while John says three years.
- Matthew reports that "The Sermon on the Mount" was given by "Jesus" to
"the multitudes". Luke contradicts this by saying that it was a private talk
given only to the disciples.
- The accounts of his Passion and Resurrection differ utterly from each
other, and no one states how old he was when he died.
- Paul never knew "Jesus" and has almost nothing to say about the historical
Jesus ~ he's all about the risen Christ.
- Paul fails to mention Jesus' sayings and doings even when doing so would
boost his arguments
- Most Gospel stories are copied from Pagan myths and are standard for
aspiring god-men.
- Virgin birth, resurrection, changing water into wine, healing the sick,
raising the dead, etc. pre-date Christianity by centuries.

You would think that such an important event as the birth of "The Messiah",
"The Son of God", "The Saviour of Mankind", etc. would be recorded in
exacting detail with his life and times noted with meticulous detail.

Could it be that the confusion exists because over the centuries Christians
plagiarists were attempting to boost the importance of their beliefs by
combining practically every myth, fairytale, legend, or bit of wisdom they
could steal from innumerable different mystery religions that were competing
for converts? In the process they stole, adapted, re-interpreted, changed,
amalgamated, forged, interpolated, mutilated and rewrote these texts for
centuries.

There are no first hand non-biblical references to "Jesus".

Flavius Josephus's Antiquities is a favourite source that many Christians
quote to prove the historical existance of "Jesus" because in his
Antiquities there are two references to Jesus.
He was only reporting the second hand myths and legends as told by
Christians. There are no original manuscripts of Josepheus' writings
remaining. The copies that do remain were made by Christian monks. Perhaps
they were offended because there was no mention of "Jesus" and decided to
add the references in order to validate their belief.

The apparently admirable comments of Josephus concerning "Jesus" are so out
of character with the rest his writings and it seems quite obvious from from
the general tone of the rest of his work that he was not a Christian, and
had little or no sympathy for the Christian world view.
Many serious scholars hold the opinion that Josepheus's writings have been
embellished to boost the Christians claims about "Jesus", leading some
scholars to question whether this passage from Josepheus was totally
fabricated by the copyists.

It seems very odd that an event of such significence and so important to the
destiny of mankind was not recorded by any of the writers living during the
time it supposedly occurred.
There is nothing in any of the works of the writers that were around at the
time, or just after, "Jesus" allegedly was born, preached, was crucified and
resurrected.

It seems very odd that an event of such significence and so important to the
destiny of mankind was not recorded by a single writer living during the
time it occurred.

http://www.worldzone.net/family/johnanderson/indexz31.shtml