My message is that Jesus did not exist but was a 4th century literary fabrication



I have had an interesting career (see below) and presently find myself

researching the field of ancient history with a view to present a

revisionist history of the 4th century of our "common era".


My position can be most appropriately summarised by quoting the

opening lines from the three books which Emperor Julian authored

c.361 CE "Against the Christians".

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind

the reasons by which I was convinced that

the fabrication of the Christians

is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

  • Though it has in it nothing divine,

    by making full use of that part of the soul

    which loves fable and is childish and foolish,

    it has induced men to believe

    that the monstrous tale is truth.

I have researched this material now for over five years

and am happy to attempt the answer of any questions

any skeptical people may ask here, or elsewhere, on this




My message that Jesus did not exist but was a 4th century

literary invention may at first sound impossible and counter-

intuitive, however if people are interested and willing to ask

critical and skeptical questions about the reasons why I

believe that the historical truth is best explained in this manner,

then I will be happy to do my best to answer these questions.






Finally, I wish to state that I feel that I am acting and researching

this material out of a desire to establish the ancient historical truth

of "christian origins" -- what really happened in the 4th century?


Best wishes to one and all.




Kookaburra Jack




Views: 1442

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Get testy when you got nothing huh.......keep going OP the Christ Cryers will evenually began to whine louder..............Little Red Riding Hood existed I know because the book says so............

You should probably start by learning to construct an actual English sentence. After that you could move on to all the areas that you're totally ignorant about; for now I've identified the use of analogies and the basics of historical analysis as focus points.

Good luck. I'm sure you'll learn a lot here.

What have you identified? Other than insults. Present your evidence to counter the OP or bow out of the thread.....Only thing worse than a know it all is some one who claims they are smarter than everyone else. You must be a Christian. I bet you know a lot about circular arguments and most likely your only a kid still in high school. 

Present your evidence to counter the OP or bow out of the thread.....

That would imply that the OP has actually offered any evidence. He's claiming that the first four centuries of ALL documents pertaining to Christianity (that includes all its detractors, all the evidence of their early schisms and strives and conflict between early Christian communities, as well as all the regular documents and the theological ones) were forged by the (apparently rather brilliant) following of a single man.


Which is, essentially, a paranoid conspiracy theory. He has absolutely no evidence for this except that he imagines that it could happen and so it must have. Sadly for him, all the documents he cites are of course dated to long before his alleged date of forgery by every single scholar on the face of the Earth (and that's not an exagerration, that is a fact). And no amount of "Well all the evidence was erased!!" counts as a substitute for an argument.


You're actually going to defend this? You want to paint yourself in the kookiest and smallest corner of the conspiracy-theory-room you can possibly find?


Only thing worse than a know it all is some one who claims they are smarter than everyone else.

Not smarter. Just someone with the benefit of actually having studied the subject.

You must be a Christian.

That's considered an insult around here. Careful if you want to last here for more than a week.

Yeah you have studied it alright.....master of insults and jack of nothing.....Your worse than those christian whiners who think because they see some historian mention "christian" that means he was referring to a jesus.

You should really watch that language of yours if you're planning to stay here much longer.

Alternatively you could try to actually defend one of Kookaburra's points that I've comprehensively trashed. That would be very amusing indeed.

Your simply amazing and the reason Atheists have such a bad name. You present no counter argument and respond with the insult "bigot".

Hold on there Matt VDB, steady on!
Kookaburra Jack may or may not be correct in his theory. In fairness, you seem to give a good counter-arguement. However, while I have no problem with ideas and theorys being tested and if necessary being de-bunked, common manners should prevent anyone from attacking the person who presents the idea. That's the very way in which the theists keep control. To call Kookaburra Jack "delusional" in the manner you did and the personal tone of your post seems pretty harsh to me.
Perhaps elevating an unorthodox theory that puts contemporary knowledge of history completely on it's head above something more than a suspicion or hypothesis and then stating you believe it to be historical truth suggests delusion? It certainly bears the scent of denialism. Such a radical idea demands radical evidence. I will be interested to see what evidence is presented.
I agree. It is a theory, and if someone is willing to put time into investigating the theory, even against previous historical understandings, all the power to them. You never know what type of information may come out of it, even if it doesn't support his theory.
There's nothing wrong with reexamining what's been established and exploring alternative ideas, but to step forward and claim you know it's truth and everybody else is wrong is unnecessarily bold. It suggests denialism. I think that is the heart of Matt's objection, Kook's claim that his idea is the true idea. We atheists especially should be wary of that when addressing this subject, because it appeals to our bias.
Hey, I am nowhere claiming any form of infallibility here.

I have a number of hypotheses in the field of ancient history which are falsifiable, and which can be refuted by the provision of appropriate citations to evidence in the field of ancient history.

My arguments rise and fall with the evidence, they are NOT infallible.

BTW thanks for those respondents who at least for now are prepared to ask me questions and consider my responses with regard to the ancient historical evidence which I have examined in great detail for many years. I suggest we wait and see how my detractors respond to my replies.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service