WAS JESUS A REAL PERSON?

by Michael R. Burch

For most of my life, I believed that Jesus was a real person.

I grew up in a devout evangelical christian family with missionaries, pastors, Sunday school teachers (including my mother) and a deacon.

All the adults I knew and trusted believed that Jesus was a real person, that he was “the son of god” and “one with god,” that god and Jesus were “good” (nay, “perfect”), and that the only path to eternal life in heaven was to believe in Jesus.

However, I was a reading prodigy and my very devout parents asked me to read the bible from cover to cover at age 11. But when I did so, it became quickly obvious to me that the biblical god Yahweh was hideously evil, not “good” or “perfect.”

According to the bible, Yahweh was a serial mass-murderer of men, women, children, toddlers, infants, babies, unborns and animals.

If Jesus was “one” with this evil god, as christian theology claims, then Jesus was “all the above.”

So, I had been lied to by my churches and pastors, and my parents and all the adults in my family had been deceived.

I deconverted and became my family’s black sheep. But it never occurred to me that Jesus was not a real person.

Many years later, I decided to do my own independent research and discovered that there is no actual historical evidence that Jesus or any of the apostles were real people.

No one who lived at the time that Jesus allegedly lived, wrote a single word about him, despite his alleged “fame” and “miracles” and being hailed as the “King of the Jews” by cheering Jerusalem crowds. This tells us that we are reading fiction, not history, when we read the hole-y bible.

The blurb in the writings of Josephus, the infamous Testimonium Flavianum, found in the Jewish War, but not until the fourth century, was considered a christian forgery, either largely or entirely, by an astounding 92.4 percent of scholars who expressed opinions on the subject. And why did not a single christian father cite the TF until Eusebius in the fourth century? Some experts believe Eusebius was the forger, since he was known to have created other forgeries.

Tacitus was writing a century after the fact (or fiction) and got Pilate’s job title wrong, telling us that Tacitus was parroting christian propaganda, not consulting Roman archives, where Jesus remains unknown to this dayEtc.

In conclusion, there is no actual evidence that Jesus or any of the apostles were real people.

Dear Michael R. Burch

This is a classic example of the “Christ Myth Theory” (Mythicism). While the author, Michael R. Burch, uses some historical terminology, his thesis contains significant logical gaps and overlooks the consensus of modern secular history.

Here is a deep dive into the analysis of his claims and the “weak link” in his logic.

1. The Logical “Weak Link”: The Category Error

The biggest flaw in Burch’s argument is that he conflates Moral Disgust with Historical Fact.

• The Argument: “I read the Bible, found Yahweh to be ‘hideously evil,’ therefore I was lied to, therefore Jesus didn’t exist.”
• The Flaw: Whether or not the God of the Old Testament is “evil” is a theological/moral question. It has zero bearing on whether a man named Jesus of Nazareth physically walked the earth in 1st-century Judea. By using his personal “deconversion” trauma as the starting point, he colors his historical “investigation” with an emotional bias. A person can be a real historical figure even if the religion built around them makes claims you find morally repellant.

2. Misrepresenting the Scholarly Consensus

Burch claims there is “no actual evidence” for Jesus. This is his most factually vulnerable point.

• The Reality: Outside of a small circle of “Mythicists,” the vast majority of secular and non-Christian historians (e.g., Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Geza Vermes) agree that Jesus was a real person.
• The “Weak Link”: Burch treats “History” as if it only counts if there is a 24-hour news cycle from the year 33 AD. For the ancient world, we have almost no contemporaneous writings for anyone who wasn’t an Emperor or a high-ranking General. The fact that we have any mention of a peasant preacher from a backwater province within 60–100 years of his life is actually considered a “strong” historical trail by ancient history standards.

3. The Josephus & Tacitus Analysis

Burch uses “half-truths” regarding the primary non-Christian sources to make his point.

The Josephus Claim (The Testimonium Flavianum)

• Burch says: 92.4% of scholars say it’s a forgery.
• The Investigation: This statistic is highly misleading. While almost all scholars agree the text was interpolated (meaning Christian monks added “fluffy” phrases like “if it be lawful to call him a man”), the majority consensus is that there is an authentic core. Most historians believe Josephus did mention Jesus, but later scribes “enhanced” it. Burch presents it as “all or nothing” to suit his narrative.

The Tacitus Claim (The “Pilate” Error)

• Burch says: Tacitus got Pilate’s title wrong (calling him “Procurator” instead of “Prefect”), so he was just repeating “propaganda.”
• The Investigation: Tacitus was writing in 116 AD. By that time, the title for that office had officially changed to “Procurator.” Roman historians frequently used contemporary titles for past offices to help their readers understand the role. Using a slightly anachronistic title does not invalidate the entire record of an execution. If Tacitus was “parroting” Christians, he likely would have used their reverent language; instead, he calls Christianity a “mischievous superstition,” showing his source was likely Roman administrative memory, not a Sunday school class.

4. The “Weak Link” Verdict: The Burden of Perfection

Burch’s thesis relies on a “Burden of Perfection.” He argues that if the Bible isn’t 100% morally perfect or historically airtight, then the central figure must be 0% real.

In historical science, we don’t look for “perfect” proof; we look for the “best explanation of the data.” 1. Why did a movement start in the 30s AD centered on a specific man? 2. Why did his followers claim he was executed (a deeply embarrassing and “un-Messiah-like” thing to invent)? 3. Why did his own brother (James) become a leader in the early church?

The Weak Link: Burch ignores the “criterion of embarrassment.” You don’t “invent” a King of the Jews who gets humiliated and executed by the state if you want to win people over in the 1st century. It’s too counter-intuitive to be pure fiction.

Summary of the “Investigation”

Burch is writing a polemic (an aggressive attack on an idea), not a historical peer-reviewed paper. He uses his personal hurt from a devout upbringing to justify a radical historical position that even the most famous atheist historians in the world don’t support.

The post first appeared on Koa Sinag Ministry.