Christianity is often introduced as historical because of the account of the Crucifixion in the Gospels, but this in itself can be mainly used as the reason for the religion not being historical.
There are several obvious reasons, apart from the obvious fact there is no independent authority for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ other than the Gospels (the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, even in the earliest Christian Literature, is presented in a timeless context, depicted as the atonement of Jesus Christ serving as the reconciliation between God and Man).
1. The claim that the place where Jesus Christ was crucified, namely Golgotha or “place of the skull”, is only found within the Gospels and nowhere in the contemporary Jewish topography of Judea.
2. The claim that the Jewish crowd demanded that Pontius Pilate release the prisoner Barabbas instead of Jesus, is likewise not a practice found within the Passover Festival in Judaism. If Barabbas really existed, what happened to him?
3. The character of Peter in the Gospels is totally different from the character given in the earliest Christian literature; where in the Gospels Peter denies Jesus Christ three times. Had the apostle Paul known about Peter's denial, he would have used it as an example of Peter's treachery against Jesus Christ. Peter's name is given as a translation of “The Rock” – Jesus Christ is depicted as having been buried in his tomb for three days. The origin of the story of Peter's denial seems more to reflect an esoteric and symbolical origin rather than a historical account, transposed into a historical account.
4. The two criminals who were crucified opposite Jesus Christ, they are suddenly introduced into the Gospel story without explanation or reason. Nobody can historically explain their presence within this narrative. They may as well symbolically represent Jachin and Boaz, the twin pillars of the Temple of Jerusalem, with Jesus Christ representing the Holy of Holies. Again, as with the Denial of Peter, this seems to have an original esoteric significance transposed into historical fact.
5. The most obvious thing that stands out in the story of the Trial of Jesus Christ and the Crucifixion is the way that the figure of Pontius Pilate is depicted. Pontius Pilate within secular history is always depicted as a brutal tyrant devoid of showing any mercy – yet within the account of the Gospels he is depicted as “meek as a lamb”, saying he “finds no fault” with the accused and leaving the ultimate verdict of the Trial on the Jewish authorities (Luke 23:4). This sounds very much like the original basis of anti-Semitism and that the Christians had – at the period of time when the Gospels made their first-known appearance during the mid-second century – switched sides into becoming pro-Roman occupation and anti-Semitic (having originally been anti-Roman).
These five reasons give strong reason to believe that the whole account of the crucifixion has a mythic origin without any basis in historical fact.
It seems to be factual that both historians and theologians are engaged in a conspiracy of silence about Christianity. It is inconceivable that they are unaware of the facts just described. When Robert M. Grant's book “Second Century Christianity” was republished, revised and enlarged, in 2003 it omitted the references to the Christian groups that denied the physical substance of Jesus Christ, as found in the original publication of his book in 1946. We cannot ask Robert M. Grant why he did this because he died aged 96 in 2014.
The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a pre-ordained mission giving the atonement – the reconciliation between God and Man – put into the form of a historical story. The account of Jesus Christ's “life” seems to have been fixed on the life of Paul (who told us that the governor of Damascus, under the rule of King Aretas of the Nabateans [Aretas IV Philopatris], who had died in 40, had at one time sought to have him arrested for his Christian activities: 2 Corinthians 11:32).
The theme of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is given in the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac, regarded as a prototype of Christianity. There is therefore absolutely nothing new in this theme. Crucifixion became the ultimate punishment of the Jews in 332 BC, introduced by the Greeks in their conquest of Judea and perpetuated by the Roman Empire in 63 BC; therefore it remained more than obvious that crucifixion would eventually one day serve as the mechanism for the transcendental idea of the atonement.
It is impossible for Historians and Theologians to be ignorant of what has been proposed above and the verdict of their being involved in a conspiracy of silence is GUILTY.
