christ myth theory

8/21/2019 Christ Myth Theory

1/151

1

TTTThe Mythical Jesus Christhe Mythical Jesus Christhe Mythical Jesus Christhe Mythical Jesus Christ

An Introduction to Christ Myth Theory

By Derek Murphy


2/151

2

Contents

Introduction The Mythical Christ 3

CHAPTER 1 A Response to Critics 6

CHAPTER 2 On Paradox 12

CHAPTER 3 The Debate 17

CHAPTER 4 Evidence for the Historical Jesus 22

CHAPTER 5 Evidence for the Mythical Christ 32

CHAPTER 6 Diabolical Mimicry 40

CHAPTER 7 Astrological Roots I: The Lion King 48

CHAPTER 8 Astrological Roots II: The Jesus Zodiac 63

CHAPTER 9 Astrological Roots III: Draco 82

CHAPTER 10 Snakes and Ladders 90

CHAPTER 11 The Mystery Cults 100

CHAPTER 12 Pauls Worst Pupils 113

CHAPTER 13 The Promise of the Flesh 127

CHAPTER 14 From Faith to History 135

Conclusion Conclusions and Final Thoughts 144


3/151

3

E :

The following is a collection of web articles concerning Christ Myth Theory; or the idea that

some or all of the gospels accounts of Jesus Christ were taken from per-existing Pagan

mythologies. Ive put them together in PDF form for convenience; however please realize that

they are still unpolished. They were written to expand the ideas I put together in my first book

Dead Little Fish, which Im also giving away now as an ebook on my site

http://www.holyblasphemy.net/

Both Dead Little Fish and these articles share the same errors generalizing, non-specificity, and

lack of explanation. This is because, previously, I tried to take myself out of the text and present

ust the evidence. The problem with this is, without a guide, the evidence means very little. I am

working on a much more in depth book on the same topics, but for now, I offer these two as

introductory reading. While the argumentation may be lacking, the evidence is still fascinating,

exciting, and sometimes unbelievable and, a strong point is being made: that there never was a

historical founder of the Christian movement.

: C

This page is the beginning of a series which argues the case for the mythical Christ; it is our belief that

Jesus Christ never existed as a historical person. We believe this not only because the evidence is

overwhelmingly in favor of it, but also because we find the mythical Christ to be more spiritually

beneficial and less likely to cause the bigotry, small-mindedness and smug superiority which, while

not Christian values, all-too-often result from the belief in a historical Jesus. However, we have found

that everybody vastly and wholly misunderstands our position about the significance of the mythical

Jesus, and so this preface will attempt to clarify, not the evidence for the mythical Jesus, but the

implications of him: what a historical founder of Christianity really means, and what his absence

might offer.

The basic Christ-Myth argument, which is given in careful detail on this website, is that everything


4/151

4

said about Jesus Christ in the gospels had already been said about previous mythological figures.

(That this is true is no longer a question of debate - an abundance of evidence has made it the rational

conclusion of every independent researcher - the only question that remains is, if not the mythological

figure of the gospels, who was Jesus really?) The Christ Myth theory merely points out that if all of

those earlier saviors were spiritual fables, and Jesus was later attributed with their miraculous feats,(some of which include suffering on the cross, and later resurrecting for the sins of the world - in short

the defining characteristics of Christianity), then Jesus was most probably also mythological. This

argument can easily be circumvented through a faith that devalues reason, however, as I will show,

even this kind of faith has its limits.

The assumption made by most people when hearing this argument is that we don't believe in Jesus;

we must be out to get him, or have personal anger issues against organized religion. At the very least,

if we think that the Bible is a copy of Pagan literature and mythology, then we must regard the whole

Christian religion as a sham that we're better off without. In fact, we have nothing against religion.

We're not challenging that Jesus Christ has been a life-changing factor for many people. We're not

questioning whether Jesus Christ has been and is a spiritual presence and comfort to millions of his

followers, and we're not even doubting that some people have had real metaphysical experiences of

him. We're also not trying to disprove God. Some things may really be beyond our ability to

comprehend - but Jesus Christ was either there, historically, or not. This is not one of those

unfathomable mysteries. There isconvincing evidence that Jesus Christ never existed as a historical

person, and it is possible to discover in the history of Christianity the process by which a mythical

figure was accidentally mistaken for a real human being.

Many people think of myth as a lie, a fable, not true and therefore worthless. If we cannot prove

whether or not Jesus existed, they ask, and the mythological Jesus is a non-entity, a nothingness, why

should we care about him? Since Jesus may have been a historical person, shouldn't the only

important questions be, Who exactly might he have been? What kind of life did he live? What type of

man was he? These are the questions that are under heavy academic debate, which makes it appear

that scholars, while disagreeing about every single detail concerning the life of Jesus, are at least

unanimous in supporting his historicity.

To conduct research into the unproved but assumed historical Jesus, scholars take those qualities of

Jesus that they know to be echoes and copies of mythology, and throw them out. (If there was a real

Jesus, then these mythological themes must have been added on to his life after his death.) They strip

him down until there is virtually nothing left except a vague idea of a spiritual teacher, and then try to

build him back up through hypothesis and conjecture. Our question is, what good is this historical

Jesus? Without his miracles, his parables, his moral example, and especially, without his death and


5/151

5

resurrection, what possible interest, other than a simple historical curiosity, can this man have for us?

If Jesus was just a man, then he is worthless. He was not the way, truth and light; he was only a

philosopher and magician. (There are dozens of Greek philosophers whose wisdom, moral guidance

and spiritual eloquence make Jesus look like a charlatan.)

While most Christians accept the Jesus of faith without looking for the Jesus of history, others are

able to seek the historical Jesus without denying any of his mythological qualities. They already know

that December 25th wasn't Jesus' real birthday, that Easter is a Pagan superstition, and that Jesus has

a lot in common with earlier mythology. And although they claim that mythology copied from Jesus

after, or possibly before Jesus came, this only strengthens their belief in God, Jesus and the Bible, by

demonstrating how universalhis plan really is. They see how the Biblical imagery and the gospel

stories are reflected in older religious traditions, found all around the world, and say, See, the Bible is

telling the Truth.

The Bibleistelling The Truth: It is telling the same, universal Truth, that all religions tell. It is not

however, telling the only, need to buy this book or go to Hell, Truth; and just because it is telling a

universal spiritual truth, does not mean that Jesus physically existed as a historical person. How can

we separate the two? The mythology, the spirituality and salvation, the morality, soul, afterlife,

presence of an infinite God, can still be there regardless of whether Jesus existed or not. There is no

evidence that refutes or challenges it, and thus it can easily be continued, as a choice or practice, by

anyone who is interested in believing or accepting that it is beneficial.

The historical Jesus is something very different, because he was either there or he wasn't, regardless

of what we believe. The historical Jesus has given rise to the notion that Christianity is a spiritual

superior, the sole possessor of the "keys to the kingdom", who can only improve the world through

assimilation and evangelization; not to mention the necessity of a Faith over Reason ideology in the

face of preaching the historical Jesus at a disregard for empirical evidence. If Jesus was a

mythological entity, on the other hand, then Christianity has suddenly become the peer, the brother,

of countless other paths to salvation, and can work in harmony towards a better humanity.

Not only is the mythical Jesus better because the evidence supports it and it does not conflict with

reason, evidence, scientists, or other religious traditions, it is also better because it makes available a

higher spiritual maturity, a limitless pathway through which to expand, search and question, without

fear of falling into sin. Furthermore, a myth is much more powerful because it is personally applicable

- we can take the story and apply it to our lives in order to improve ourselves. A historical story about

miracles only generates awe - we say, Sure, he did great things, but he was Jesusfor God's sake. I

can't be like that. I'll just pray for him to save me." Rather than a God who gives us the power to grow,


6/151

6

reach, stretch, improve and mature, we have a God who wants us to cower, hide, fear, and cling onto

the robes of Jesus, so that as he ascends into heaven he'll drag us up with him.

Finally, the idea of a Just God and a Historical Jesus are absolutely incongruous - the presence of one

logical refutes the other. If Jesus was a historical person, and if Jesus is the best (and possibly only)

way towards eternal salvation, then God has already ambiguously stacked the odds in favor of those

Western countries to whom the message of Jesus has, through imperialism and the slaughter of native

inhabitants, reached. Not everyone will be saved, and those saved have been chosen not by their

works or ethics or actions, but by the happy accident of being born into a Christian family or

community, or being born with a certain temperament or character that is open towards the Christian

message, or to have happened upon certain circumstances which have convinced them to accept Jesus

Christ as their savior. In other words, Christian Salvation is not the result of a rational acceptance of

God's free gift; it is a predetermined set of socio-psychological factors which are ambiguously thrust

upon us.

If Jesus Christ is nonetheless the Way, Truth and Life, it means that God is either oblivious to the

eternal suffering of billions to whom the Christian faith does not come easily, or that he has caused

the separation of peoples on purpose as a revolting display of pre-damnation; in which case, not only

does he fail to live up to those highest ideals which we ascribe to him, but he also appears to be a

meddlesome, revengeful nuisance and plague to human freedom and happiness. If the historical

Jesus existed, then God is an unjust tyrant; and if it is impossible for the True God to be an unjust

tyrant, then it is impossible for Jesus to have been both a historical person and the salvation

Christians claim him to be.

C 1: A C

"The evidence is clear: The Jesus-myth is a groundless speculation, contrary to all evidence, and

totally without basis. Here are our concluding thoughts on the matter: I have personally come to the

conclusion that adherence to the "Jesus-myth" is not the result of careful deliberation of theevidence, but rather, is the product and province of skeptical minds in the grips of an obsession."

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist

The idea that Jesus may not have existed is still very controversial. It is difficult to raise the subject

and present argument and evidence because frankly, few people are willing to listen. Everybody has

always believed in the historical Jesus or No serious scholars doubt that Jesus really lived or how


7/151

7

can so many people be wrong? are usual responses. Therefore, to even begin an argument, we need

to get rid of some common objections. Ive listed a few below, with my retort.

1. There is no evidence for the Christ Myth theory.

The Christ Myth theory is considered groundless speculation because there is no physical evidence

that Jesus Christ did not exist. This is like arguing that, because there is no physical evidence that a

giant purple monsteris not standing on my head, I cannot prove that there is not one there. It is based

on a logical rule that you can't prove a negative, or can't prove something that wasn't there.

The flip-side of this criticism, however, is usually that there is evidence for a historical Jesus. This is

nonsense. If there were such evidence, there would be no controversy - it would be ridiculous to claim

that Jesus Christ was a myth if there were irrefutable evidence that he actually existed. In actuality,

there is no evidence for Jesus whatsoever that is not hotly contested, which only shows that both

theories are equally based on groundless speculation; the Christ Myth theory, however, is able to

explain and answer a great many questions and historical factors which proponents of the historical

Jesus are forced to ignore.

2. The Christ Myth is just a "proof from silence".

A common attack on Christ Myth theory is that it often starts from a "proof from silence" argument.

Many Christ Mythers try to show that there are few historical references to Jesus, and insinuate that,

had Jesus existed, there would have been more. Critics argue that silence alone proves nothing; there

were no TV or news casters in those days, and anyway, Jesus "flew under the radar" by staying mostly

in the countryside. While I agree that the lack of historical references cannot prove anything about

Jesus, I feel that critics miss the overall significance of this point. If there wereany solid historical

references to Jesus, then the Christ Myth theory is obviously untenable.

While Christians have been, for at least 1,000 years, adamantly affirming the historical reliability of a

few selected texts which they claim verify the historical Jesus, a Christ Myther, as well as any historian

or secular scholar, (even those who believe that Jesus was historical,) can point out that these same

historical documents are not reliable; their authorship and genuineness are continuing subjects ofdebate. Therefore, to even begin a Christ Myth hypothesis, it is highly relevant to show (as we have

done in Evidence for the Historical Jesus) that the assumption of Jesus' ministry being the "most

heavily documented event in the history of the world" is blatantly false. Only after we have cleared

away the assumptions surrounding the historical Jesus can we begin to look for the Mythical Jesus.

3. Christ-Mythers are not scholars.


8/151

8

There have been only a small handful of marginally academic writers who have published on the

Christ Myth theory, and critics point out that they are "out of their field." They don't have Ph.D's in

relevant studies, they may not be trained in the rigorous investigation, clear logic and referencing that

is now demanded in intellectual circles, and they may allow their passion for the subject to a) quote

from sources they haven't personally checked or b) make comparisons and assumptions that can't beproved empirically. They may even (heaven forbid!) self-publish, or publish with an ill-reputed

publishing company.

I'll admit, as a "Christ Myther," or someone who doesn't believe in the historical Jesus, I can be

accused of all the same flaws. I'm young, inexperienced, and sometimes don't care enough (at least at

this point in my career, although I sincerely hope to improve) to back up every statement with

irrefutable evidence, because I have seen that there is no evidence that is irrefutable - whoever does

not agree with your conclusions will begin by questioning your research methods, and after that,

attacking your character.

In an attempt to tear apart the Christ Myth theory some critics will demonstrate that all of its

proponents are uneducated attention seekers - and yet, the largest claims of the Christ Myth theory

opens windows into Christian tradition which refuse to be shut again. In the proverbial "finger at the

moon" story, a Zen master points at the moon and says "don't focus on the finger - look at what I'm

pointing to." Criticism based on undermining professional experience simply cuts off the finger,

hoping that without it, the moon will disappear. As more and more people become familiar with the

Christ Myth theory, and recognize in it some questions that cannot be swept away by criticizing the

author's biography, there may eventually be too people looking at the moon to cut off all the fingers.

4. No "real" scholars agree with the Christ Myth.

I find this unfortunate, but can guess several reasons why traditional scholars have not yet supported

the Christ Myth theory. First of all, the tendency of the academia is to focus on and study the specific,

not the general. They may begin with a B.A. in Philosophy, then an M.A. in Religious Literature, and

finally get a Ph.D. in "The Influence of Paul's Theology on the Writing of Mark's Gospel." They may be

the experts of the details, but the Christ Myth theory is really about the big picture - comparing and

making relationships between many historical and literary documents, from many cultures and time

periods, and analyzing their similarities and possible influences.

For example, a scholar might find the remains of a Roman crucifixion, analyze the wood and the nails,

and determine with certainty exactly how the punishment was inflicted; these could be interpreted by

other researchers as applicableto the death of Jesus Christ. The Christ Myther, on the other hand,


9/151

9

will search into mythology and religious traditions to find stories that echo the biblical description of

Christ's passion, and then, finding an underlying spiritual theme, try to interpret the story as a

metaphor and release its original meaning. It is unfair to compare a historian with a Christ Myther

because they aren't really in the same field; Christ Mythers are primarily concerned with textual

analysis and literary criticism. When placed in the field of "World Literature" or "Sociology", theirmethods no longer stand out as being unempirical.

Further, it is ridiculous to dismiss the Christ Myth theory by trying to separate it from the Academic

Community, because almost all scholars do agree that nearly everything in the gospels and in

Christian tradition came from Pagan tradition. All professors of Religion or Theology recognize that

Christianity developed out of previous traditions and that many of its ideas and symbols are not new.

Most scholars also agree that when we cut out all of the Pagan influences, there is virtually nothing

left to be said about the historical Jesus. The only difference between Christ Mythers and the average

scholar is that, faced with a complete lack of evidence concerning the historical Jesus, scholars engage

in sorting through the wreckage, dusting off the pieces, and trying to imagine what the historical

Jesus would have been like. If he was a carpenter, what would his shop have been like? If he was

married, what would his relationship have been like?

In short, taking the Biblical testimony as a starting ground, they form a hypothesis and then try and

support it through historical research. Allowing that their foundation is nothing more than the

assumed historical Christ, is the Christ Myther any less credible? Lastly, I want to point out that the

academia is not necessarily the best birthing ground for Truth. Being a researcher or a professor at a

University is a public career, and depends on both innovative research and peer review. Backing a

controversial theory is not a good idea for most scholars, who are concerned with career, status and

nice things, just like everyone else.

5. Christ-Mythers make comparisons and connections that cannot be verified.

I find it amazing that Christians can discredit Christ Mythers as fanatics, whose theories are

absolutely without basis, because they see similarities between Jesus and other miraculous, dying and

resurrecting sons of god. Even if we ignore every modern attempt to compare Jesus with other

traditions, it is more than enough to provide just one quote from Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist

who acknowledged the similarities between Jesus and Pagan gods around 1800 years ago.

"When we say that the Word, who is first born 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


10/151

10

(Zeus)." ustin Martyr, First Apology

If, as Justin testifies, Christianity's central articles of faith (crucifixion, resurrection, ascension) are

identical to Pagan mythology, is it any wonder Christ Mythers seek out more similarities, or question

where these similarities came from? And while it is the overwhelming conclusion of modern scholars

that Jesus was a historical person, there is plenty of evidence, especially from the first several

centuries BC, that there has always been a debate over the historical Jesus. There were many

heresies, decades after the alleged death of Jesus, that claimed Jesus had been born in appearance

only, and was never an actual human being. Why should we believe the tradition of our Christian

heritage, rather than investigating the claims of those other communities? Is it irrational, or crazy, to

try to understand history from another point of view? Everyone knows that history is written by the

winners; is there any reason to assume that in this case alone, the history written was absolutely free

from prejudice?

The Christ Myth theory is not a modern idea; it is a revival of a very ancient and very common

criticism of Christianity: that Jesus did and said some things that other, earlier, Pagan god-men did

and said. Critics try to knock down these similarities by either questioning the source, or calling them

"coincidences" by playing up their differences. While Jesus was born of a Virgin, some other savior

was born "without sexual union". While Jesus was crucified on a cross, some other savior was nailed

to a tree, or a rock, or a T-shaped bar, or somewhere in the skies. The problem with focusing on the

differences rather than the similarities is that, while it may work in one or two isolated cases, it cannot

be applied to absolutely every proposed similarity without weakening in effect. And it also doesn't

work on more specific cases; like Jesus was called "son of God", as were others, or born on December

25th, as were others.

In response to these claims, critics will say that many of the so-called similarities really were added on

to the story of Jesus by Pagan influences, but that these don't change the core Christian message. First

off, if you agree that Christianity absorbed some of its symbols from mythological traditions, then you

area Christ Myther. Relegating our position to a simple "Jesus did not exist" is too easy: what we

intend to show is that the person worshiped by Christians, along with all of his miraculous titles and

abilities, is indebted to earlier traditions. It is meaningless to argue that Jesus was a historical person,

but that motifs like his birth date, the virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection, his role as son of god

and savior were added into the tradition (and into the Bible!) by Pagans, and also that Jesus is stillthe

Way, Truth and Life. What good is using this argument against Christ Mythers, and ending up with a

human Jesus with no divine attributes?

Critics will also argue that mythology may have prefigured Jesus in some way, but the things said


11/151

11

about those Pagan gods were just stories, while Jesus was a real, physical human being. This doesn't

answer why there should be any similarities at all. The only argument ever used to explain the

similarities between Jesus and early Pagan saviors, which is continued by Christians in many ways

today, is called "Diabolical Mimicry". This argument can only be accepted through a faith-based

Christian paradigm that believes in a struggle between God and Satan, and for a non-Christian, itdoesn't go far explain how a historical person mistakenly acted out the precise details of hundreds of

diverse cultural mythologies.

6.) Christ-mythers have an agenda:to disprove the existence of Jesus. They already thought o

the end result and take material and twist it to fit into their hypothesis. All historians should know

this is not how research is conducted.

Again, this is an easy way to dismiss Christ myth theory without actually looking at the evidence

it presents. Criticizing the methodology, the intention, and the characters of the people

challenging traditional Christian history is like a magicians sleight of hand great at keeping

your eyes focused on the wrong thing entirely because, if you were to look at the truth, the

illusion would disappear.

In Conclusion

I'm not beyond accepting that the Christ Myth theory may turn out to be wrong. It seems to me, given

the available evidence, to be a very reasonable and highly probable version of Christian history, but I

won't be upset if further evidence later induces me to change my ideas. However, what I find both

disturbing and dangerous, is any attempt to disprove or vilify a hypothesis without referring to the

argument itself or the evidence provided. To assume that the Christ Myth theory is false, because it

wasn't convincing the first time it was given, and that every subsequent version of it is likewise false,

shows an aversion to truth that is difficult to respond to.


12/151

12

C 2:

This article explains that believing in Jesus Christ is very different from believing that Jesus Christ

was historical. Christianitys claim of divine revelation is a claim of intervention into history;

therefore it is not really a place for faith. History really happened, one way, and there is evidence to

discover how it really went down. Christians belief in a fictional history is the weakest part of their

creed, and always has been. It creates much unnecessary conflict between them and anyone interested

in finding the truth.

"The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the

earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church."Ferdinand Magellan

In a recent interview on BBC news, Professor Richard Dawkins, British scientist and author of the

controversial book, The God Delusion, answered a caller's question concerning the fallibility of

logic in the face of a transcendent deity:

Q: Dawkins has lucidly demonstrated the logical inconsistencies of the existence of a deity. The

question I'd like to ask is, why would an omnipotent deity be limited by the man-made invention of

logic."

A: "Well, if he's suggesting that we can't use logic, in order to bring our minds to bear upon the

question of the existence of god, I find that a most incredibly cop-out. It means, in a sense, anything

goes. That way, madness lies - because you could use that argument to demonstrate the existence of

fairies, the flying spaghetti monster, the orbiting tea pot, a million things, golden unicorns - there's no

limit to the number of things you could justify once you abandon logic."

The question put before Dawkins is a common objection of the limitations of reason. The author of

the website,Anti-Itch Meditation,says it this way:"If God is truly above us, I would expect Him to do

things I can't understand and I would expect Him to do things I can't do. But that doesn't mean we

don't have to have an answer ready for every question of our faith."

I like this statement especially because it recognizes the need for dialogue and for developing answers

to defend Christian faith. And I agree in principle: Yes, of course, I would expect God (who by


13/151

13

definition, is infinite) to do things that I can't understand. This is the eternal Mystery of God: He is

transcendent, I am limited. There will most probably always be things about him that while I can

comprehend in theory, I'll never really be able to wrap my brain around and understand completely.

But Mystery is very different from Paradox, and in the search for the historical Jesus, the distinction

between these two concepts is fundamental.

Mysteryis, I can't understand that the universe is infinite. My brain can't grasp infinity. I know it, I

have faith that it is true based on the evidence, but I can't really understand it.

Paradoxis, the Bible says the world was created 6,000 years ago, the world has believed it for 1,000

years, I'm Charles Darwin and research has just convinced me of Evolution. Do I need to continue

believing what the Bible says, despite the evidence? Will God punish me if I don't? In order to

distinguish between the Jesus of History and the Jesus of Myth, we need to begin from the

assumption that there is no such thing as a natural paradox.

A paradox is a logical argument or set of apparent truths which, when taken together, creates an

absurd result. One of the oldest is in ZenosParadox of the Tortoise and Achilles. The tortoise proves

that he will beat Achilles, and the race is conceded before it even begins, even though in actuality,

Achilles could have easily beaten the turtle.

There are also linguistic paradoxes like this one:

The following sentence is true.



The first sentence in this list is false.

In some spiritual traditions, specifically, Zen Buddhism, paradox is a necessary tool to shut down the

rational mind. Transcendental reality cannot be grasped by the human brain, only experienced

through some non-rational part of us. Holy Blasphemy agrees with this use of paradox, and heavily

endorses a non-rational approach to universal Truth, with the understanding that this universal Truth

cannot have anything said about it through language. It cannot be communicated, and so, everyreligious transmission of spiritual knowledge is automatically suspect, at least in principle.

In the search for the historical Jesus, we need to recognize that paradox is a result of problematic

thought processes. A paradox is not real (inherent to the natural world), because, "nature abhors

paradox." Paradox is an accident that happens when things that we think to be true contradict one


14/151

14

another, and it is always a sign that we need to rethink our assumptions. If you were on a hiking trip

and came up against a giant rock, what would you do? Sit down and try to figure out how to remove it,

or go around? There are many paradoxes that arise in conjunction with the idea of the historical

Jesus. The mythical Jesus is the only way to resolve these paradoxes.

For example, Jesus has a lot in common with Pagan saviors, whose story of life, death and redemption

are based on constellation mythology and stories about the sun. This means that Jesus has a lot in

common earlier, mythological figures and also that the gospels stories reflect astrological events that

can still be seen today. If Jesus was a historical person, he would have had to plan his entire life very

carefully in order to mirror all of these mutual circumstances. And, although some groups recognized

the similarities and were very clear that, unlike the other mythologies, Jesus alone was a real, physical

person, other communities simultaneously continued to worship him as a myth. As the easiest way

around the confusion, the path around the rock, we could accept that these details seem to imply that

Jesus was a mythological character.

The problem in proving Jesus didn't exist lies in the fact that people who believe in the historical

Jesus also believe that natural paradoxes, like miracles, are possible. I have seen Christians absorb all

of these details about Christian history and conclude that it only shows how God already had the plan

of salvation in mind before he created the universe. He knew about the fall before He made the

garden. He'd already decided the punishment, and already planned the redemption, and then, he

made the stars and the moon and the sun, all of which needed to be so perfectly exact as to sustain life

on earth, he made all of this, copying the events from the life and times of Jesus Christ, so that people

could learn about Jesus by looking at the heavens. Once relinquishing some basic protests from

common sense, in favor of the omnipotent, transcendent majesty of God, this viewpoint creates its

own inner consistency and is very difficult to refute.

However, commonly overlooked, is the fact that logical consistency is an absolute necessity for

Christian faith. If God is completely other, completely unknowable, completely transcendental, then

none of us can say anything about him; it is only through revelation that Christians maintain they

have received the "keys to the kingdom". Knowledge of the Truth about God does not come through

faith in Mystery, as many Christians believe, but through His interventionin history, His authorship

of the Bible and His formation of the Church. They have faith that these events have taken place, as

transcribed, and can be proved historically; and yet it is exactly the traditional view of Christian

history, as we shall explore in this investigation, that is so easily refuted. This is a big, big Paradox, a

circular dilemma: Christians can only know about God through revelation, and so revelation must

have really happened, objectively and historically, for their faith to be justified, and yet this revelation


15/151

15

cannot, in itself, be maintained without falling back on the support of faith. Christian faith is not just a

suspension of reason, as is belief in fairies or golden unicorns, which cannot be evaluated or

undermined, but a faith in a history whichmay never have happened.

The great amount of frustration between people who have faith, and those who do not, is a language

barrier. It is no use for me to explain my beliefs when my arguments are based on the assumption that

logic can be used as a compass, when in fact my listeners believe the only compass to be God.

However, the paradox of faith brings up questions that even Christians cannot ignore. For example, is

it really true that, if there is an omnipotent God, He can do or be anything He wants? Can God be

mean, selfish, racist and contradictory? Can he purposely hide the truth and wickedly tempt people

away from it by planting false evidence? I argue that, if He can, then He does not live up to our

conception of Him, and is not worthy of our reverence. I denounce this God. I reject him, as a fraud

and phony. Like a powerful tyrant, He needs to be pulled from his throne.

I hope most people will agree that, if God exists, then he is Good; and therefore these qualities cannot

be assigned to him. But why would a good God, if he wanted us to find Jesus, make him so similar to

so many other mythological saviors? Why tempt us into error, by giving us so many different paths to

follow? The obvious answer is so that we may develop faith, but what good is faith? I have faith that

God is good. That is easy for me. And yet, I'm asked to believe that this good God specifically

challenges those who like to investigate, see patterns, and ask questions. Even if they are searching for

Him, he hides and plants evidence to lead them astray, and then he punishes them for not accepting

on faith what they could not understand through reason. Why?

Another important question is, why did Jesus come down to one corner of the world? Why are 80% of

Christians living in the Americas or Europe? Is God punishing the children of Asia, who didn't choose

the social heritage they were born into? He seems to seek out the innocent, falsely accuse them

through an impossible scheme of redemption, and then say, Sorry, too bad for you, you weren't born

into a nice Christian home. Does God not recognize these problems? Am I then, smarter than God?

Does he not care? Am I then, more loving? Has he no power to improve things in his own creation?

The belief in a good God and the belief in a historical Jesus create a very large paradox. I have enough

faith in God to believe with certainty that he is much more equipped to create a perfect universe than I

am, and if, in my limited intelligence, I can find paradoxes in his work, I have faith enough not to

exempt or remove God from the consequences of his creation by claiming, it's a mystery, but to

instead adapt my own beliefs to encompass all parts of God's work without contradiction. It is my

belief in a good God which causes me to refuse the historical Jesus and accept the mythical Jesus.

Perhaps someone, with more faith than myself, can maintain that even a good, just, infallible God can


16/151

16

make mistakes sometimes.


17/151

17

C 3: D

Before we look at the evidence, it is important to look at the nature of the conflict. People have been

arguing about the historical nature of Jesus since the very beginning of the Christian era. That this

conflict exists at all is a clue that the evidence for the historical Jesus is lacking vitality. In this article

we will briefly explain the "debate" over the historical nature of Jesus Christ, and the reasons why

Jesus historicity begs to be questioned.

The idea of a physical founder of Christianity is so intrinsic to our society that nowadays any opposing

theory is simply discarded. Already in response to this website, I've gotten many emails saying things

like, "Everybody has always believed in the historical Jesus," or "It's ridiculous to consider that

everybody has just been wrong about Jesus for so long." One of the major writers in the field of the

mythical Christ, Earl Doherty, got so much criticism for his book, "The Jesus Puzzle," that he wrote anentire article called,Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case.

Some of the quotes he cites in this article, which is posted on his website, demonstrate that there is a

bias against the idea of a mythical Jesus, which overshadows any research done in the area. He says:

"In my critique of Mike Licona, I reproduced his quotes from 20th century scholars in regard to those

who put forward the mythicist theory. They include:

- Gunther Bornkamm: "to doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all...was reserved for an

unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worthwhile to enter here."

- Rudolf Bultmann: "Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not

worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical

movement."

- Paul Maier: "The total evidence [for the existence of Jesus] is so overpowering, so absolute that only

the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still

parroted by "the village atheist," bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom fromReligion Foundation."

Is the theory of the mythical Jesus really a modern concept? Actually, its as old as Christianity, and

has had plenty of resurgences. In the 19th century, many historical scholars were convinced that Jesus

had never existed and wrote dozens of books to that effect. Just like today, however, the theory was

met with incredulous disdain and scorn. Rev. Robert Taylor, arguing against the historical Jesus in


18/151

18

1829, found himself in much the same position as Earl Doherty: surrounded by critics, who

denounced his findings even while refusing to consider his evidence.

"And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and

emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously

denied. So that though nothing is so convenient to some persons as to assume airs of contempt, and to

cry out that those who deny that such a person as Jesus of Nazareth ever existed, are utterly unworthy

of being answered, and would fly in the face of all historical evidence, the fact of the case is, that the

being of no other individual mentioned in history ever labored under such a deficiency of evidence as

to its reality, or was ever overset by a thousandth part of the weight of proof positive, that it was a

creation of imagination only."Reverend R. Taylor,Diegesis

Today, the debate over whether or not Jesus really existed has been completely ignored for the debate

over Who Jesus Really Was. The controversial website, The Jesus Police, challenges every assumptionabout Jesus Christ and supplants them with new ideas, based on the latest evidence. However, they

over-looked the one, most significant assumption: that Jesus actually lived at all. Not only has his

existence never been proven, but for a guy whose historicity is apparently beyond question, he is

notoriously hard to find. Even Christian scholars will admit that there are virtually no acceptable

references to Jesus outside of the New Testament accounts. On his website, Mark D. Roberts, author

of "Jesus Revealed", examines the evidence for the historical Jesus. He quickly dismisses the main

Jewish and Roman sources used to support the historical Jesus, (as we will do later) and even makes

the early Christian writings dispensable. In the end, he finds in the Bible plenty of evidence for the

historical Jesus.

"If all we had were the second-century Christian writings, we'd have a hard time sorting out what

Jesus really did and said. The gulf between orthodox and heterodox treatments of Jesus was wide and

growing wider in this century as Gnostics claimed Jesus as their heavenly redeemer while orthodox

Christians insisted that his ministry included far more than revelation. At its core, they argued, it had

to do with his death and resurrection, something the Gnostics rejected, preferring a revealer who

didn't really suffer. But, I'm glad to say, we don't have only the second-century writings. In fact we

have access to texts from the earliest days of Christian faith, writings which are collected in the New

Testament."Mark D. Roberts, "How can we know anything about Jesus?"

But is the Bible a historical document that can demonstrate the physical reality of Jesus Christ? In

1986, a man named Robert Funk created theWestar Institutewith the aim of exploring this question.

He organized the Jesus Seminar, an inter-disciplinary panel of top scholars, to investigate the

historical accuracy of the New Testament sayings of Jesus. In 1993, the seminar published the


19/151

19

findings of their vote-based investigation, in a work called, "The Five Gospels." Their conclusion?

Only 16% of the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels may have actually been spoken by him.

This may seem like a low number, but as critics of the Jesus Seminar point out, most of the members

of the Jesus Seminars weren't Christian, and disregarded all of the supernatural, miraculous events

because they couldn't have possibly happened. This harsh skepticism was used to remove the veil of

divinity from Jesus Christ and reveal his humanity, but for spiritual persons who believe in the

possibility of miracles, the findings of the Jesus Seminar are worthless as an investigation into the

historical Jesus. After all, if the miracles recorded in the Bible really happened, they would surely be

recorded in eye-witness accounts, which is what the New Testament gospels are believed to be. Just

because they seem unlikely or impossible doesn't mean they didn't happen. (Skeptics will argue with

me on this, but I promise to explain more later.)

Secular researchers who are seeking critical evidence about the historical Jesus come up empty-handed, and those who find plenty of evidence for the historical Christ in the Bible, have to begin

from a point of faith that accepts miraculous events at face value. At this point, many people will say,

"Well, it all happened a long time ago, and I guess there's no proof either way. People will just go on

believing what they will." This is true in one sense: regardless of research, most people will go on

believing what they want to.

However, there is proof in the mythical Jesus. Lots of it - and more is coming to light all the time.

First of all, it is easy to see fromearly Christian writingsthat the controversy over the historical Christ

is very old. Early Christians who believed in a historical Jesus faced two big problems, the first were

the similarities between Jesus and other Pagan gods, who were also born of a virgin, died for the sins

of their followers, (often on a cross), and later rose from the dead. Since these other saviors were

readily identified as mythological beings, everyone assumed that Jesus was just the newest version of

an old story. These similarities were so obvious that Christian fathers never denied them.

"When we say that the Word, who is first born 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

(Zeus)."Justin Martyr,First Apology(Chapter 21)

The second problem was that, for as long as there has been the idea of a historical Jesus, it has been

strenuously contested by others who denied that Jesus Christ had ever physically lived or died as a

real man - and not only by Pagans, but Christian communities as well!


20/151

20

"I have learned that certain ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting

that Jesus was born only in appearance, and was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance."

Iraneaus,Against Valentinus(Chapter 2)

It may be easy to understand how someone could get confused 2,000 years later, but how could the

historical nature of Jesus be doubted so soon after his alleged resurrection? St. Ignatius, writing

around 110AD, was alreadyarguing against those who denied that Jesus really existed. This is within

30 years of the dating of Mark, which Christian tradition holds as the first gospel, written around

70AD. How is it that the Mark, disciple of Jesus, after waiting 40 years to publish his testimonial

about Jesus Christ, finally writes the first account of his savior's words and deeds, and within 30 years

there are people not only denying that Jesus existed, but worshiping that same non-existent Jesus?

Did they read Mark's gospel about the ministry of Jesus, accept Jesus Christ as their savior, and then

suddenly decide he wasn't real? If not from Mark, who wrote the first testimonial, how did they find

out about Jesus? Certainly not from Jesus himself, nor from any eye-witnesses or 2nd or 3rd

references; all of whom would have been sure to tell them of the miraculous deeds recently performed

by the actual, physical Jesus Christ.

When you read through the letters and writings of the Church fathers for the first several centuries of

Christianity, a strong theme emerges, which shows just how large the "heresy" of the mythical Jesus

really was. They all seem to be making the same point, that regardless of what everybody elsewas

saying, Jesus had really existed. Unable to offer their enemies any proof for their faith in the

historical Jesus, many church leaders resorted to name-calling.

"For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is the antichrist; and

whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is a devil, and whosoever perverteth the

oracles of the Lord (to serve) his own lusts, and saith there is neither resurrection nor a judgment, this

man is a first born of Satan."St. Polycarp,Letter to the Philippians(Book 7, Chapter 1)

Who were these other communities, who didn't believe a historical Jesus had physically completed

the central motifs of Christianity? History has labeled them Gnosticsdue to their search for Gnosis, or

Wisdom. After their version of Christianity became heretical, they were systematically exterminated,

and nearly lost to history. In recent times, however, many of their original texts and scriptures have

been recovered, translated and made available to the public. TheNaq Hammadi Libraryalone, found

in 1945, is a collection of Gnostic gospels and letters considerably larger than the New Testament.

Some researchers count as many as 80 Gnostic gospels, and more, such as the Gospel according to

Judas, continue to make headlines. Although Christian scholars argue that the New Testament

gospels are the oldest, even this claim is hotly contested by Gnostic and secular experts.


21/151

21

Do these gospels prove that Jesus didn't exist? Not on the surface. The Gnostic gospels, like the

gospels of the New Testament, were written in a literary style known as Historical Narrative. This

means they were stories which used real places and events to make them seem realistic. This was a

common way of writing in those times, used also frequently in the Old Testament.

"It is sufficient however, to represent in the style of a historical narrative what is intended to convey a

secret meaning in the garb of history, that those who have the capacity may work out for themselves

all that relates to the subject." Origen,Against Celsus(Book 5, Chapter 29)

As time passed, the tradition of interpreting the mythical literature was lost, and communities were

left with the text alone, which, on the surface, appears to be talking about historical events.

"Many were led astray by reading the allegorical contents of the scriptures literally in the method of

the Pharisees and Sadducees."Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (I can no longer find the exact source

or this quote, if anyone knows it please email me).

We have been reading the stories about Jesus Christ literally for so long, it is very difficult to begin to

see them as myths, even when, as is the case with most of the Gnostic gospels, they are overtly

mythical in style and structure. As more of these gospels come to light and researchers slowly lose

their grip on the assumption of a historical Jesus, we will begin to see Jesus in a whole new way.

In the end, we have to acknowledge that the historical Jesus isn't and never has been the foregone

conclusion of every sane researcher. In any just courtroom trial, a case may be opened up for re-

examination whenever new evidence comes to light. Can we remove this standard from our quest for

the historical Jesus, and say, "We've already decided the Truth in this matter, we will not consider any

new evidence."? If you're willing to at least give the mythical Jesus a fair trial, please continue with the

next part of this investigation.


22/151

22

C 4: E

The road to the mythical Christ leads from an examination of the historical Jesus. As long as there is

sufficiently credible evidence for the historical Christ, then of course the idea of claiming Jesus to

have been a mythological figure is ridiculous. Research into the historical Christ, from a brief internet

search to an in depth comparison of scholarly texts, always brings to light the same handful of

historical passages, which have been used for well over 1,000 years as the definitive proof for the

historical Jesus Christ.Answerbag.com gives this wonderfully short overview of these passages:

The "proof" for the existence of Christ can be found in three main sources. The argument for the

existence of Jesus is strengthened because the person of Jesus Christ is mentioned by independent

Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources. Obviously the person of Jesus is mentioned quite

thoroughly in the New Testament and other early Christian writings but Jesus is also mentioned bythe Jewish historian Josephus.The fact that Josephus, a practicing Jew and a man who was not

actively involved Christian circles and not part of the early church mentions the existence of Jesus of

Nazareth in his writings definitely gives credence to the argument for the existence of Jesus Christ. In

turn, another of the most credible arguments for the existence of Jesus Christ are the writings of the

Roman historian Tacitus. Tacitus was a Roman historian who also mentioned the existence of the

crucifixion of Jesus in his writings. In turn, the writings of Tacitus are viewed by historians as crucial

to not only understanding early Middle Eastern history but also what we know of early Germanic

tribes in Europe. In essence, while the divinity of Jesus is not something that can be proven

historically, the historical community is quite sure that a person named Jesus did live in the Middle

East two thousand years ago and can look to independent historical sources to strengthen their

argument. answerbag.com

This short description makes the claim, as most Christians also do, that Jesus Christ is mentioned by

independent Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources - but then provides only 1 Jewish source, and 1

Roman source, both of which, as we will see, are not accepted as reliable evidence by scholars, and

neither of which were written by contemporaries of Jesus. As the ensuing argument stemming from

the original answerbag passage shows, the verdict is still out on all of these sources.

The three sources listed by Answerbag.com sum up the publicly known historical references to Jesus,

and are the only ones that seem to continue to be used and relied on by Christians in defense of their

faith, however we will add to them Pliny and Suetonius, whose writings are also sometimes used in

divining the historical Jesus. Before we get into them individually, I want to point out, that the heated

debate over even the validity of these passages already calls them into question. There is no other


23/151

23

person in the history of mankind whose historicity has been so hotly contested as Jesus Christ. Not

Caesar, not Buddha, not Mohammed; no other figure in the combined literature of the world has had

so much trouble being accepted as a historical figure. This is because, as we shall see, all of the

evidence in favor of the historical Jesus is so flimsy that it can be contested by those who don't believe

in him. Rather than irrefutable proof, what we are left with is a collected body of historical referenceswhose authenticity can only be believed in by those who want to believe in them.

The Bible

The Bible is the main text used by Christians as proof that Jesus was real. It is taken as a collection of

four separate eye witness accounts, as well as other early Christian literature and letters, which

demonstrate the founding of the early Church. The earliest copies of these documents were written in

stylistic Greek literature, using many of the same terms as contemporary Greek philosophers,

including concepts such as, soul, heaven, son of God, sin, redemption and salvation. The idea of theWord, or Logosof God, in particular, (who was with the father in the beginning, and created the

world in his outpouring of creative energy,) began with the Greek philosopher Heraclitus about 5

centuries before the beginning of Christianity. The apostles of Jesus, on the other hand, were mostly

poor, Jewish fisherman. Some may have been educated, some may have even learned Greek, but to

write an entire book full of Greek philosophy, mythology, and even stories about other Pagan saviors,

seems a little beyond their abilities.

Even if these texts were inspired; why the similarities? As we will see in Diabolical Mimicry, there is

nothing that Jesus said or did in the canonical gospels that were not previously done by other

mythological figures. So we have to ask, did Jesus copy, either on purpose or accidentally, plot events

from Pagan mythology? Or is it more likely that they were written in by the authors of the gospels in

order to elevate him to divine status?

As eye-witness accounts, the four gospels are horribly lacking - There aren't even any I's in them!

Unlike Revelations, which is clearly a 1st person narrative, Then, in myvision, Isaw a door open in

heaven... (Rev. 4), the gospels are all in 3rd person. Instead of, I saw Jesus perform a miracle and

was amazed, they say, The disciples saw Jesus perform a miracle, and they were afraid. This why

sound like nominal semantics, but think of those people who walk around talking about themselves in

3rd person. Isn't it strange? Isn't it unusual? Why would anyone write a whole story like that, as if

they werepretending not to be there.

They are also, for eye-witness accounts, tremendously impersonal. As a small group of disciples that

traveled with Jesus they should have become very close to him, and each other. But they tell no


24/151

24

stories, share no opinions, and ignore their own personal experiences. There are no anecdotes, there

is no spice of personality, and they never hint of even one private conversation between themselves

and Jesus. They also never claim to be eye-witness accounts; unlike the letters of Paul, which say

emphatically, "I, Paul, wrote this with my own hand. See, this is my own handwriting," the gospels

have no authors attributed to them. It is only because the names of the gospels themselves, whichwere chosen later, match the names of the disciples listed in the text itself, has tradition assigned

them to actual disciples of Christ.

When we compare the three synoptic gospels, it becomes even clearer that they are not eye-witness

accounts. Due to their similarity, scholars agree that Mark, the briefest of them, came first, and the

other two synoptics, Matthew and Luke, copied from him, and added their own material. Why would

an eye-witness account copy from another eye-witness account? Having the gospel of Mark in hand,

wouldn't they have been more likely to provide details that Mark had missed, rather than merely

collaborate his story?

Many Christians are excited by historical research that has uncovered many of the people and places

mentioned in the gospels, because these seem to support the bible's historicity. Actually, many

scholars think that the earliestChristian documents were a simple collection of Jesus sayings, like a

list of quotations, and that names, places and dates, all the physical details, were added in later. (And

even this is only if we skip over the first documents used by the early church, like the Shepherd of

Hermas,which doesn't mention Jesus at all.) We can see this progression in comparing Mark, which

is sparse in historical detail, to Luke and Matthew, who add in lots of detail; although sometimes with

contradictory results. It should also be understood that the gospels were written in a literary style

known as Historical Narrative; they were stories about Jesus which included historical details in order

to appear historical. How do we know? Historical Narrative is simply the literary style of the Bible -

this was well known to thechurch fathers, the majority of whom, for at least the first 5 or 6 centuries

of Christianity, taught that scripture was metaphorical and needed to be interpreted.

"It is sufficient however, to represent in the style of a historical narrative what is intended to convey a

secret meaning in the garb of history, that those who have the capacity may work out for themselves

all that relates to the subject." Origen, Against Celsus(Book 5, Chapter 29)

On top of this, due to the early controversy concerning Jesus' historical nature, passages were written

into the gospels specifically to prove his physical nature. To the already realistic style of historical

narrative, scribes added in specific details, names, dates, as well as more and more examples of the

physical Jesus interacting bodily with the world. Scholars can recognize these passages by changes in

handwriting, spelling, grammar or style. This means that those passages which seem most useful as


25/151

25

proofs for the historical Jesus, such as doubting Thomas sticking his finger into the wounds of Christ,

or the resurrected Jesus eating fish, or Christ appearing to a large number of disciples, are actually the

least reliable - because they were inserted precisely in order to be used as evidence that Jesus had

been a real, physical person.

The strongest evidence against the Bible as a historical text is the fact that all of the stories, parables,

and actions of Jesus, as well as the language used to describe him, have corresponding passages in

pre-Christian literature. This is, in fact, the main reason that most scholars have completely given up

on the Bible as a historical document. The other reason, of course, is that those who do not come to

Bible with a faith in the miraculous abilities of Jesus will read the gospel stories as obvious fiction. It

takes a suspension of Newtonian laws, which in all other circumstances appear to govern our

existence, even to consider that the gospels are historical. If we try to use the Bible as a historical

document by removing all of those things that challenge logic, such as the miracles, the similarities

between other traditions, and the phrases that literary critics don't believe Jesus really said, then we

might get a figure similar to the 30 year study of theWestar Institute, which concluded that only 16%

of the Bible might possibly be true.

But isn't it enough that these gospels were written? Even if mostly false, don't they have to be

grounded on a historical root that inspired the disciples? If there were no other evidence, then yes,

even after proving that there are no plausible historical records for Jesus, I would still admit that he

had to be someone, somewhere, because there were a lot of people talking about him. But in light of

much more evidence than is generally recognized, we have discovered that Jesus was a

mythological figure, just like Santa Claus. (The reason this evidence is not as well known as the

"evidence" for the historical Jesus, is that virtually nobody is lookingfor the mythological Jesus. Once

you have the idea of him, and you do research with him in mind, you soon get inundated with more

evidence than you can handle!)

Everybody talks about Santa Claus. He is mentioned in thousands of books, he is well known by

millions of people. We know where he came from and what he does every year, the names of his

reindeer, even his favorite food! Facts and details were added to make the story of Santa Claus to

make it interesting and realistic. It is only our understanding of Santa as a myth that keeps him a

myth - if someone were given The Night Before Christmasand told This really happened!, it would

assume a cult status overnight, with people waiting, watching, for the return of Santa. A long time

ago, everybody saw Jesus Christ in the same way that we see Santa Claus: as a story.

I will leave the Bible alone for now because it will be dealt with in more detail later. We will see that,

even if the Bible is historically accurate, and Jesus did physically complete all those miraculous events


26/151

26

that had already been ascribed to earlier mythological saviors, it only opens an even larger can of

worms. Did Jesus copy intentionally or accidentally? Was he a fake, or an idiot? Did the devil make all

of the copies first to throw doubt on Jesus when he came? Why would the Devil have had that much

power over God's only plan of salvation?

To carry on then, the first and most widely quoted non-Christian reference to Jesus comes from a

historian named Josephus, in his book, The Antiquities of the Jews. It is called the Testimoniam

Flavianum.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer

of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him

both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the

suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at

the first ceased not, for he appeared to them thereafter again the third day, as the divine prophetsforetold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And even now the tribe of

Christians so named from him is not extinct." wikipedia.org

Wow! Great passage, right? Except Josephus is not Christian, but Jewish, and remained so all his life.

He would never have called Jesus, "The Christ," which means Messiah. Origen, whose extensive

writings quote Josephus many times, knows nothing about this passage, even though he would have

seized upon it as evidence. Some scholars argue that at least some of this passage is genuine, but the

majority see it as an inserted Christian passage. (It fits poorly into the surrounding text, and the style

stands out as being dissimilar.) That means, rather than an unbiased Jewish source, it is most likely a

Christian deception, possibly written by Emperor Constantine's church historian, Eusebius, who was

also the first to quote from it. And while Christians today continue to use it as a proof for their faith, it

was questioned as early as 1770 by Bishop Warburton of Gloucester, who called it a"rank forgery, and

a stupid one, too." Over a hundred years ago it was discarded in more depth, by a book called

Christian Mythology Unveiled, written by Mitchell Logan in 1842.

"The famous passage which we find in Josephus, about Jesus Christ, was never mentioned nor

alluded to in any way whatever by any of the fathers of the first, second, or third centuries; nor until

the time of Eusebius, when it was first quoted by himself. The truth is, none of these fathers could

quote or allude to a passage which did not exist in their times; but was to all points short of absolute

certainty, forged and interpolated by Eusebius." Christian Mythology Unveiled, pg. 79

For die-hard supporters of this passage, we will recreate the Dr. Larner's more exhaustive effort, first

published in 1760, and reprinted in T.W. Doane's 1882 book, Bible Myths and their Parallels in other


27/151

27

Religions. (Appendix D: Jesus Never Existed.)

1. It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors beforeEusebius.2. Josephus has nowhere else mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works,except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother.

3. It interrupts the narrative.4. The language is quite Christian.5. It is notquoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could nothave omitted quoting it, had it been then, in the text.

6. It is notquoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.7. Under the article Justus of Tiberius, this author (Photius) expressly states that thishistorian (Josephus), being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

8. Neither Justin, in his dialogue with Typho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, whomade so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have even mentioned this

testimony.

9. But, on the contrary, Origen openly affirms (ch. xxiv., bk. i, against Celsus), thatJosephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ.

Moving on to the passage from Tacitus:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor

all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of

being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he

falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities.

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator o

Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out

again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also,

where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become

popular." wikipedia.org

Incidentally, this passage shows how disliked Christians were in the Roman world. They were hideous

and shameful, mischievous, haters of mankind, and hated for their many blasphemies. The passage

from Tacitus is often used to show that even a non-Christian believed in the historical Jesus, and

knew certain details about him. Some consider it a forgery, like the passage in Josephus, others argue

that Tacitus was only writing down what he knew about Jesus based on what he'd heard Christians

themselves say of him. And while it is true that Christians believed Jesus to have been put to death

under Pontius, this doesn't mean that it really happened. How reliable is this passage? Let's turn back


28/151

28

to Larner and Doane, who also regard this passage as a forgery:

10. This passage, which would have served the purpose of Christian quotation better thanany other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the

Christian Fathers.

11. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes the works ofTacitus.

12. And though his argument immediately called for the use of this quotation with so louda voice (Apol. ch. v.), that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounts to a violent

improbability.

13. This Father has spoken of Tacitus in a way that it is absolutely impossible that heshould have spoken of him, had his writings contained such a passage.

14. It is not quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, who set himself entirely to the work oadducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which Pagan authors had made

of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.

15. It has been nowhere stumbled upon by the laborious and all-seeking Eusebius, whocould by no possibility have overlooked it, and whom it would have saved from the labor of forging the

passage in Josephus; of adducing the correspondence of Christ Jesus and Abgarus, and the Sibylline

verses; of forging a divine revelation from the god Apollo, in attestation of Christ Jesus' ascension into

heaven; and innumerable other of his pious and holy cheats.

16. Tacitus has in no other part of his writings made the least allusion to "Christ" or"Christians."

17. The use of this passage as part of the evidences of the Christian religion, is absolutelymodern.

18. There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15thcentury

19. No reference whatever is made to this passage by any writer or historian, monkish orotherwise, before that time, which, to say the least, is very singular, considering that after that time it

is quoted, or referred to, in an endless list of works, which by itself is all but conclusive that it was not

in existence till the fifteenth century, which was an age of imposture and of credulity so immoderate

that people were easily imposed upon, believing, as they did, without sufficient evidence, whatever

was foisted upon them.

20. The interpolator of the passage makes Tacitus speak of "Christ," not of Jesus theChrist, showing thatlike the passage in Josephusit is, comparatively, a modern interpolation, for

21. The word "Christ"is not a name, but a title; it being simply the Greek for the Hebrewword "Messiah."Therefore,


29/151

29

22. When Tacitus is made to speak of Jesus as "Christ," it is equivalent to my speaking ofTacitus as "Historian," or George Washington as "General," or of any individual as "Mister," without

adding a nameby which either could be distinguished. And therefore,

23. It has no sense or meaning as he is said to have used it.24. Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians had their denomination from Christ,

which would apply to any other of the so-called Christswho were put to death in Judea, as well as to

Christ Jesus. And

25. "The disciples were calledChristians first at Antioch" (Acts xi. 26), not because theywere followers of a certain Jesus who claimed to be the Christ, but because "Christian" or "Chrstian,"

was a name applied, at that time, to any good man. And,

26. The worshipers of the Sun-god, Serapis, were also called "Christians," and hisdisciples "Bishops of Christ."

"So much, then, for the celebrated passage in Tacitus."

David W. Heley, whose homepage is a wealth of historical and religious trivia, adds this insightful

description of the history of Tacitus' famous passage:

"The original MSS. containing the "Annals of Tacitus" were "discovered" in the fifteenth century.

Their existence cannot be traced back further than that time. And as it was an age of imposture, some

persons are disposed to believe that not only portions of the Annals, but the whole work, was forged

at that time. Mr. J. W. Ross, in an elaborate work published in London some years ago, contended

that the Annals were forged by Poggio Bracciolini, their professed discoverer. At the time of

Bracciolini the temptation was great to palm off literary forgeries, especially of the chief writers of

antiquity, on account of the Popes, in their efforts to revive learning, giving money rewards and

indulgences to those who should procure MS. copies of any of the ancient Greek or Roman authors.

Manuscripts turned up as if by magic, in every direction; from libraries of monasteries, obscure as

well as famous; the most out-of-the-way places,the bottom of exhausted wells, besmeared by snails,

as the History of Velleius Paterculus, or from garrets, where they had been contending with cobwebs

and dust, as the poems of Catullus."David W. Heley

Not mentioned at answerbag.comare Pliny the younger, who asked emperor Trajan what to do about

the Christian problem in 100AD, and Suetonius, who, writing around 120AD, announces that the

Jews were being expelled from Rome, for stirring up trouble under the direction of their leader,

Chrestus. Neither of these say anything about Jesus himself, but only agree with Tacitus that

Christianity was a thorn in the side of Roman authority. The early Christian church, it may be noted,

was not meek, nor pacifistic. The Christian religion was called strange and unlawful by a


30/151

30

senatorial degree of the year 35. Tacitus called it deadly and hateful, while Suetonius said it was

new and harmful; pretty harsh reviews from the same men whose references to Jesus are used as

proof in his existence!

At any rate, there are the sources used to justify the historical Christ. As we have seen, none of them

can be accepted at face value as hard evidence, or even asgenuine. Looking at the big picture, we have

to be aware of something else: all of these few sources (including the gospels,) were written after

Jesus' death. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus of any kind - including the gospels, which

at the very earliest were written several decades after the supposed death of Jesus - and as Kersey

Gravespointed out in 1875, this is a big, big problem!

"The fact that no history, sacred or profane,that not one of the three hundred histories of that age,

makes the slightest allusion to Christ, or any of the miraculous incidents ingrafted into his life,

certainly proves, with a cogency that no logic can overthrow, no sophistry can contradict, and nohonest skepticism can resist, that there never was such a miraculously endowed being as his many

orthodox disciples claim him to have been. The fact that Christ finds no place in the history of the era

in which he lived,that not one event of his life is recorded by anybody but his own interested and

prejudiced biographers,settles the conclusion, beyond cavil or criticism, that the godlike

achievements ascribed to him are naught but fable or fiction. It not only proves he was not

miraculously endowed, but proves he was not even naturally endowed to such an extraordinary

degree as to make him an object of general attention. It would be a historical anomaly without a

precedent, that Christ should have performed any of the extraordinary acts attributed to him in the

Gospels, and no Roman or Grecian historian, and neither Philo nor Josephus, both writing in that

age, and both living almost on the spot where they are said to have been witnessed, and both

recording minutely all the religious events of that age and country, make the slightest mention of one

of them, nor their reputed authors. Such a historical fact banishes the last shadow of faith in their

reality."Kersey Graves, "All History Ignores Him."

I'm not trying to prove, through only an evidence from silence type of argument, that Jesus didn't

exist. Of course, silence alone can not show whether or not Jesus existed. But once we do admit the

silence surrounding Jesus, we have lost all claims to the evidence of an overwhelming impact that

Jesus was supposed to have made. The gospel story makes it seem like everybodywas talking about

him. What the silence does show is that the idea of mountains of physical, irrefutable evidence,

sometimes claimed by Christians, is a fabrication. Instead there are, at most, 5 or 6 references to him

in historical documents, which most scholars see as obvious forgeries.

Let's go back to the passage from Answerbag.com, which I used at the beginning of this essay. In


31/151

31

essence, while the divinity of Jesus is not something that can be proven historically, the historical

community is quite sure that a person named Jesus did live in the Middle East two thousand years

ago and can look to independent historical sources to strengthen their argument. I think the author

of this passage may, unfortunately, be right. Although the historical community, as in the scholars

who actively conduct historical research in Christianity, have found not one iota of proof for thehistorical Jesus, most of them are still confident that there was one. Based largely on assumption and

a refusal to consider any new ideas, there is an overwhelming scholarly bias to consider Jesus as a

historical figure. And it is also true that the lack of evidence, or absence of proof about Jesus, cannot

begin to scratch this large shield of righteous indignation the historical Jesus has built up around him.

But I will be content, if readers of this essay will leave it with one idea: that there are no historical

documents which refer to Jesus Christ which can be accepted without first investing them with a

powerful faith. After critically examining all the sources and historical texts, the Jesus of history

becomes less than a shadow, and the continued search for him is likewise is a matter of faith. I cannot

challenge faith; it is a self-sustained, non-rational system, and is beyond my powers to question. But

the statement, I believe in Jesus Christ is very different from, I believe that there are historical

documents which prove that Jesus actually lived on earth 2,000 years ago. Christians (and many

scholars) have faith in documents that don't exist concerning a history that didn't happen. Because I

see danger in the acceptance of this fabricated history, it is my right and duty to intervene.

This part of the essay has been about the historical references used to prove the physical Jesus Christ,

and I hope I've shown that, at the very least, they are not universally accepted as evidence. While this

process is important in leaving the idea of the historical Jesus behind (for if he was historical, he

almost certainly would have had more references than these, short, highly contested few!) we haven't

gotten any closer to the idea of the mythical Christ, which is absolutely necessary to answer all of the

questions that come up when we remove the idea of the historical Jesus. Proving that Jesus didn't

exist, and only that, digs and abandons a big, gaping hole. If he didn't exist, where did the crazy idea

of him come from? It must have come from somewhere - it didn't materialize out of thin air! The way

to smooth the ground is to see that Jesus was first a mythology, who later become mistaken for a

historical figure. But to begin with, I want to spend some time going over the proofs for the mythical

Jesus, or the strongest evidences we have for believing that Jesus was mythological. That way, we cansee the evidence for both interpretations of Jesus, side by side, and choose the most reasonable.


32/151

32

C 5: E C

"To the question, then, On what grounds do you deny that such a person as Jesus Christ existed as a

man? the proper answer is, Because his existence as a man has, from the earliest day on which it can

be shown to have been asserted, been as earnestly and strenuously denied, and that, not by enemies of

the Christian name, or unbelievers of the Christian faith, but by the most intelligent, most learned,

most sincere of the Christian name, whoever left the world proofs of their intelligence and learning in

their writings, and of their sincerity in their sufferings; And because the existence of no individual of

the human race, that was real and positive, was ever, by a like conflict of jarring evidence, rendered

equivocal and uncertain."Rev. Robert Taylor (1829)

The majority of the articles on this website explain just how deeply Christianity is indebted to

Paganism and Mythology, and as we will see, there is no way to remove the features Christianityshares with these traditions without cutting out the heart of the Jesus movement. However, there is

even stronger evidence for the mythological Jesus, which we want to discuss at length before we get

into the specifics of comparative mythology; details and quotes from the earliest stages of Christianity

which are no less than mind-boggling, and lucidly cut through the assumption of Christian history as

we know it.

A brief introduction to the early literature of the Church fathers, shows clearly that early Christianity

was full of disagreement and controversy. Letters between Christians say very little about their own

religious beliefs, but focus on condemning and warning against all of the heresies, or those other

communities who also worshiped Jesus, but whose beliefs were different from the author's. The most

controversial issue for Christians of the first three centuries was or not Jesus was a physical human

being. Was he a real man, or just a spirit? Did he bodily resurrect, or resurrect in appearance only?

Did he, in fact, even exist as a historical person? There were many who didn't believe so.

I have learned that certain ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting

that Jesus was born only in appearance, and was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance.

Iraneaus, Against Valentinius

Irenaeus wrote his Adversus Haereses around 180ad, but Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the

Smyrnaeans between 105ad and 115ad, is also familiar with those who refused the historical Jesus

Christ.

"For He suffered all these things for our sakes [that we might be saved]; and He suffered truly, as also


33/151

33

He raised Himself truly; not as certain unbelievers say, that He suffered in sembla

christ myth theory

Documents