| Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
From Bill Restemeyer and the Internet Infidels for The Freethought Web. |
|
Did Jesus Christ Really Live? |
by Marshall J. Gauvin |
Page 12
| The virgin-born,
miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day. That is to say,
he had not yet been invented!
The Christ of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two entirely different beings. The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no miracles. He did no preaching.
"The Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or that he died". "The Christ of early Christianity was not a human being, but an "appearance," an illusion, a character in miracle, not in reality -- a myth.
"The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous." |
Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts.
Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have
made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go
to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never
once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord's Prayer, never
tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the
precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian
centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of to-day continually preaching
about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And o not
these features constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these
things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The
virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day.
That is to say, he had not yet been invented! The Christ of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two entirely different beings. The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no miracles. He did no preaching. The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he was in a vision while on his way to Damascus -- an apparition, a phantom, not a living, human being, who preached and worked among men. This vision-Christ, this ghostly word, was afterwards brought to the earth by those who wrote the Gospels. He was given a Holy Ghost for a father and a virgin for a mother. He was made to preach, to perform astounding miracles, to die a violent death though innocent, and to rise in triumph from the grave and ascend again to heaven. Such is the Christ of the New Testament -- first a spirit, and later a miraculously born, miracle working man, who is master of death and whom death cannot subdue. A large body of opinion in the early church denied the reality of Christ's physical existence. In his "History of Christianity," Dean Milman writes: "The Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or that he died," and Mosheim, Germany's great ecclesiastical historian, says: "The Christ of early Christianity was not a human being, but an "appearance," an illusion, a character in miracle, not in reality -- a myth. Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue. Therefore, documents in which miraculous accounts are interwoven with reputed facts, are untrustworthy, for those who invented the miraculous element might easily have invented the part that was natural. Men are common; Gods are rare; therefore, it is at least as easy to invent the biography of a man as the history of a God. For this reason, the whole story of Christ -- the human element as well as the divine -- is without valid claim to be regarded as true. If miracles are fictions, Christ is a myth. Said Dean Farrar: "If miracles be incredible, Christianity is false." Bishop Westcott wrote: "The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous." Not only are miracles incredible, but the uniformity of nature declares them to be impossible. Miracles have gone: the miraculous Christ cannot remain.
|