23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Religions.


Jesus Mythicism.

As Dan Brown in his book The Da Vinci Code writes, “Nothing in Christianity is original.”

Much is meant by Brown’s words. It is in recent times that a number of people are claiming that Jesus is simply a rehash of older pagan secretive religions, and of the religions of dying and rising gods. We see this masqueraded as truth in films such as Zeitgeist, The Da Vinci Code and Irreligious which, to the layperson, seem to be factual and convincing. But how factually based are these claims? Surely anyone can misconstrue evidence to suit their biases?

The first step for anyone really seeking to understand these allegations would be to consult the views and opinions of scholars in the relevant and necessary fields of expertise. Sure, scholars differ on many details, but what do they have to say on this specific issue? Is such an issue even on the table of debate nowadays? If so, or if not, then why?

In a nutshell this essay will focus on analyzing these comparisons, the educated opinions of the scholars, and try to show that such pagan parallels are not seen in the historical Jesus of the New Testament.

Who are the mythicists?

Professor Bart Ehrman, arguably the world’s leading skeptical New Testament scholar, asks, “What is driving the mythicist’s agenda? Why do they work so hard at showing that Jesus never really lived? I do not have a definitive answer to that question, but I do have a hunch. It is no accident that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge), are either atheists or agnostics. The ones I know anything about are quite virulently, even militantly atheist.”

Ehrman is correct in his hunch. One of the leading mythicists of today is Richard Carrier, and Carrier happens to be a committed atheist who writes for the Secular Web. Now, one has to really dig deep to find any mythicists with good credentials. Carrier with two or three other proponents are the only few propounding this view with anything to their name (Robert Price being another). What’s more, however, is that none of them, including the credential ones, are actually respected scholars or even scholars in the first place. For example, we find the likes of Bill Maher (Irreligious), Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code), James Coyman (Zeitgeist), and Brian Flemming (The God Who Wasn’t There) proposing this view. The problem is that one is a comedian, another an author, and so on. The point being is that mythicism just has no currency in contemporary scholarship.

Nonetheless, mythicists will argue that Jesus was nothing more than a copy of popular dying and rising fertility gods in various places from around the world. Some of these gods would include Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia Minor, and Horus in Egypt. It has only been in recent times that the mythicist allegations have been revitalized due to the rise of the internet and the mass distribution of information from unaccountable, unreliable sources.

1. Professional scholars unanimously reject the claim that Jesus is a pagan copy.

Today just about every scholar in the relevant historical specializations unanimously rejects the notion that Jesus is a copy of pagan gods. It seems that the available evidence has persuaded them against these alleged parallels. For instance, T.N.D Mettinger of Lund University comments that “There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct…”

Professor Ronald Nash, a prominent philosopher and theologian agrees that the “Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages.” Nash then goes on to say, “Today most Bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue.”

Leading New Testament scholar Professor Craig Keener explains that “When you make the comparisons,” between the historical Jesus and the claims made by mythicists, “you end up with a whole lot more differences than you do similarities.”

Michael Bird, who is on the editorial board for the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, as well is a Fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity, is visibly annoyed by the same recurrent trope saying that “Now I am normally a cordial and collegial chap, but to be honest, I have little time or patience to invest in debunking the wild fantasies of “Jesus mythicists”, as they are known. That is because, to be frank, those of us who work in the academic profession of religion and history simply have a hard time taking them seriously.”

Professor James Dunn in his article on “Myth” writes, “Myth is a term of at least doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels.” Myth in this sense is taken to mean unhistorical.

2. Experts in the field unanimously agree that Jesus lived and that we can know things about him. This is very  unlike the many pagan gods.

The most credible New Testament, Biblical, historical, and early Christianity scholars today, from all backgrounds of belief, agree wholeheartedly that Jesus existed. Of course the debate arises in what we can know about Jesus. Those are good points of discussion though they are detached from this discussion. This very much separates Jesus from many of the dying and rising gods that often have no place in history as historical figures. As the once skeptical and influential professor Bultmann penned, “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 whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”

Paul Maier, a former Professor of Ancient History, likewise agrees. Maier emphasizes the depth of the historical evidence at the historian’s disposal that makes “The total evidence so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence.”

Professor Craig Evans, a widely known and respected academic commentator on his writings on the historical Jesus, says that “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.”

Even Bart Ehrman, no friend of Christianity, compares mythicism to young earth creationism, which he takes both to be absurd, “These views are so extreme [that Jesus did not exist] and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.”

Historian Michael Grant says, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.’

So, if anything, the claim that Jesus never existed as a historical figure is viewed as an absurd position held by those on the outer fringe. According to Richard Burridge there is an obvious absence of mythicism in professional scholarship, “I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that (that Jesus did not exist) anymore.”

3. We actually know very little about these pagan secretive religions.

As a matter of history it seems that these pagan religions were really only known by those in the relevant communities, and most of whom had no intention of sharing it with outsiders. Of course this would leave modern historians in a tricky situation, as we can know only little snippets of who these groups really were, and what their practices were like. As Ehrman writes, “We know very little about mystery religions – the whole point of mystery religions is that they’re secret! So I think it’s crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this.”

C.S Lewis, a former atheist to Christian convert looked into the question himself, and discovered that “The Pagan stories are all about someone dying and rising, either every year, or else nobody knows where and nobody knows when.”

J.Z. Smith, a historian of religion and Hellenistic religious scholar writes that “The idea of dying and rising gods is largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.” They are particularly imaginary because proponents of mythicism need to use imagination to reconstruct largely unknown history.

If we have late and ambiguous texts, a lack of these texts, and many of these texts postdating Christianity (more on this in the following point), then it would be warranted to want to know where mythicists are getting their alleged parallels from? As J.Z. Smith notes above, it comes from highly speculative “imaginative reconstructions” solely in the minds of the mythicists who, as Ehrman noted, are driven by an anti-religious, and anti-Christian agenda.

4. Most of what we know of secretive pagan religions comes after Christianity, not before it.

If it is true that most of what we know of these secretive religions postdates Christianity, then why are mythicists proposing the view that these texts predate Christianity? Why do they claim that the early Christian community copied elements of these secretive religions when they could not have?

Professor Mettinger, alongside academic consensus, hold that there were no dying and rising gods before Jesus, or before the advent of Christianity in the early 1st century: “The consensus among modern scholars — nearly universal — is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century.” Mettinger goes on to say that the particular references to a resurrection of Adonis “have been dated mainly to the Christian Era,” hence could not precede the resurrection of Jesus.

Scholar Edwin Yamauchi writes that “the supposed resurrection of Attis doesn’t appear until after AD 150.” And in the case of Mithra, professor Ronald Nash himself explains that “Mithraism flowered after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism. The timing is all wrong to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity.”

Thus, the alleged copying on the part of the earliest Christians simply could not have occurred.

5. The Jewish were a people who refrained from allowing pagan myths to invade their culture.

Many times in the Old Testament the Jews would reject their one true God, and engage in idolatry. We know of this because it is reported in our biblical texts. However, no evidence suggests that this happened in 1st century Palestine during the time Jesus lived and was crucified. In fact, the New Testament overwhelmingly confirms that the Pharisees were very strict in application of the law. For example, Paul, as a former Pharisee prior to his conversion to Christianity, went to the extent of authorizing the killings of early Christians for their blasphemous claim of a risen Jesus. Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig writes that “For Jesus and his disciples they were first century Palestinian Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood.”

Professor Ben Witherington notes that the claims surrounding the risen Jesus “was not a regular part of the pagan lexicon of the afterlife at all, as even a cursory study of the relevant passages in the Greek and Latin classics shows. Indeed, as Acts 17 suggests, pagans were more likely than not to ridicule such an idea. I can understand the apologetic theory if, and only if, the Gospels were directed largely to Pharisaic Jews or their sympathizers. I know of no scholar, however, who has argued such a case.”

Craig goes on to argue that “The spuriousness of the alleged parallels is just one indication that pagan mythology is the wrong interpretive framework for understanding the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection,” and that “…anyone pressing this objection has a burden of proof to bear. He needs to show that the narratives are parallel and, moreover, that they are causally connected… It boggles the imagination to think that the original disciples would have suddenly and sincerely come to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead just because they had heard of pagan myths about dying and rising seasonal gods.”

Professor E.P. Sanders contends that Jesus is best made sense of within the world of the 1st century Judaism, “the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.” Hence why Martin Hengel wrote that “Hellenistic mystery religions… could gain virtually no influence [in Jewish Palestine].”

6. The New Testament canon is history unlike much of the pagan secretive mysteries.

The gospels and the other literature of the New Testament are our most reliable sources of information we have on the historical Jesus and the early Christian movement. The gospels, for example, are classified as Greco-Roman biography. Graham Stanton of Cambridge University writes that it is no longer “possible to deny that the Gospels are a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of ‘lives,’ that is, biographies.”

Distinguished New Testament scholar Charles Talbert in his book ‘What are the Gospels’ speaks highly of another influential book that influenced scholars of the true genre of the gospels; he claims that “This volume ought to end any legitimate denials of the canonical Gospels’ biographical character.” Likewise David Aune, a prominent specialist in ancient literature, suggests that “while the [Gospel writers] clearly had an important theological agenda, the very fact that they chose to adapt Greco-Roman biographical conventions to tell the story of Jesus indicated that they were centrally concerned to communicate what they thought really happened.”

Understanding the genre of the gospels is important. If the authors intended to write romantic fiction that would be different than if they chose to write historical biography. What further corroborates the fact that the gospels texts are biographical literature is archaeology. As Urban von Wahlde, a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, concluded, archaeology “demonstrates the full extent of the accuracy and the detail of the Evangelist’s knowledge…. The topographical references …. are entirely historical …. some [parts of the gospel] are quite accurate, detailed and historical.”

Drawing from this, Professor Ehrman attempts to emphasize the historical nature of the gospels saying that “If historians want to know what Jesus said and did they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament Gospels as their principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or theological reasons—for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted. It is for historical reasons, pure and simple.”

What this shows is that the gospels are routed in history and that they are inspired by an actual person of history: Jesus of Nazareth.

7. Unlike the pagan secretive religions, Jesus is an ancient figure we can actually know about, what he thought of himself, and what he did as a historical figure of history:

Whether one holds that Jesus was really the Son of Man, thus God himself, or just a religious genius/quack of the 1st century, we can glean facts about his life and ministry. Professor Craig Evans informs us of scholarly consensus saying that “the consensus is, look, Jesus existed, he was Jewish, he wasn’t out to break the law. He was out to fulfil it. Jesus understood himself as the Lord’s anointed, that is as the Messiah.”

Professor Sanders states that: “Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.” Sanders goes on to say explain that miracle healings and exorcisms are part of what we can know about Jesus, “I think we can be fairly certain that initially Jesus’ fame came as a result of healing, especially exorcism.”

Stanton, a former prominent and widely respected New Testament scholar, explained that “Few doubt that Jesus possessed unusual gifts as a healer, though of course varied explanations are offered.” Tomson, a lecturer in New Testament Studies claims that “Although he apparently considered himself the heavenly ‘Son of Man’ and ‘the beloved son’ of God and cherished far-reaching Messianic ambitions, Jesus was equally reticent about these convictions. Even so, the fact that, after his death and resurrection, his disciples proclaimed him as the Messiah can be understood as a direct development from his own teachings.”

Professor Robert Grant suggests that “Jesus introduced a very singular innovation. For he also claimed that he himself could forgive sins… Jesus lived his last days, and died, in the belief that his death was destined to save the human race.” Similarly, late scholar Maurice Casey said that Jesus “believed that his death would fulfill the will of God for the redemption of his people Israel.”

According to Professor Sanders, we can know that Jesus’ post-mortem appearances really convinced his earliest followers of his resurrection: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”

What this shows is that leading experts in the field have no doubts that we can actually know quite a lot about the Jesus of history. In other words the majority consensus of historians is that Jesus actually existed, that we can actually know what he set out to accomplish, and what he seemed to have thought of himself. This is unlike the sketchy traditions we find in the secretive religions.

8. The Jesus of history does not fit the profile of someone that would be a myth.

In many aspects of Jesus’ life he was unique. This was evidently so compelling to those in his day that a number of groups, crowds, and individuals followed him. Many would even follow him even if it led to their deaths and a host of painful suffering. Today scholars continue to be surprised by Jesus, as historian Edwin Judge observes,

“An ancient historian has no problem seeing the phenomenon of Jesus as an historical one. His many surprising aspects only help anchor him in history. Myth and legend would have created a more predictable figure. The writings that sprang up about Jesus also reveal to us a movement of thought and an experience of life so unusual that something much more substantial than the imagination is needed to explain it.”

C.S Lewis, best known for his essays on Christianity and for the fantasy series The Chronicles of Narnia, lends us his expertise as a literary critic saying, “All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian, that’s my job. And I am prepared to say on that basis if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legend or novels, then that person is simply showing his incompetence as a literary critic. I’ve read a great many novels and I know a fair amount about the legends that grew up among early people, and I know perfectly well the Gospels are not that kind of stuff.”

However, at the very center of our gospels we have the activities,  life, ministry, and the person of Jesus. Much of what is recorded in the gospels is concretely based in the historical record.

9. Much of these secretive pagan religions have little to do with concrete history.

Professor Edwin Yamauchi explains that “All of these myths are repetitive, symbolic representations of the death and rebirth of vegetation. These are not historical figures …”

Similarly, Professor and biblical exegete William Lane Craig  writes that: “In fact, most scholars have come to doubt whether, properly speaking, there really were any myths of dying and rising gods at all!”

It would thus prove difficult to draw parallels to Jesus from these pagan myths that had little to do with history in the first place.

10. Evidence of dishonest pseudo-scholar work – Dorothy Murdock:

Though deceased, another widely known mythicist would be that of Dorothy Murdock. Her work, however, has been rightly criticized. For example, there is one lengthy back and forth debate between her and prominent historian Mike Licona. Licona really does a solid job of critiquing Murdock’s work. I have included some of the quotes below that come from Licona’s entry in their interaction. Other quotes come from some of the scholars he consulted in certain relevant fields of expertise that he felt had a more thorough knowledge of the fields.

Critic Bart Ehrman upon review of Murdock’s book, The Christ Conspiracy, went as far to even say that her book “is filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to believe the author is serious.” He goes on to write that “all of Acharya’s major points are in fact wrong”, and that “Mythicists of this ilk should not be surprised that their views are not taken seriously by real scholars, mentioned by experts in the field, or even read by them.”

It is a bad one no doubt when even other mythicists, in this case the atheist historian Robert Price, calls Murdock’s book “sophomoric,” and is little more than “a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney.” Most scholars say the same about Price’s work, however.

In her book, Murdock claims that Jesus was a copy of one the Hindu god, Krishna. However, regarding this point that Krishna was crucified before Jesus, Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism and translator of the Bhagavata-Purana (life of Krishna) responds in no subtle way, “That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion.” Bryant then writes that “She doesn’t know what she’s talking about! Vithoba was a form of Krishna worshipped in the state of Maharashtra. There are absolutely no Indian gods portrayed as crucified.”

And regarding the alleged parallels that Murdock tries to draw between Hinduism and Christianity, Benjamin Walker in his book ‘The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism’ says that: “[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name.” In other words, Christianity could not have done the borrowing.

Murdock further claims that Christianity has failed in India because “the Brahmans have recognized Christianity as a relatively recent imitation of their much older traditions.” To this, Bryant simply commented, “Stupid comment.” Licona goes on to say that “Murdock’s claim that Christianity has borrowed substantially from Hinduism is without merit. Her claims are false, unsupported, and exhibit a lack of understanding of the Hindu faith.”

In addition to Krishna, Murdock cites similarities between the Buddha and Jesus as an example of how Christianity has borrowed from Buddhism. Professor Chun-fang Yu, a specialist in Buddhist studies, comments: “[The woman you speak of] is totally ignorant of Buddhism. It is very dangerous to spread misinformation like this. You should not honor [Ms. Murdock] by engaging in a discussion. Please ask [her] to take a basic course in world religion or Buddhism before uttering another word about things she does not know.”

Subsequently, like it is common within mythicist circles, Murdock tries to downplay one of the two references to Jesus within the work of 1st century historian Josephus Flavius (the passage on John the Baptist & Jesus’ brother James). She writes: “Although much has been made of these ‘references,’ they have been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, ‘brother of Jesus.’” These are obviously false statements on her part. In return Mike Licona comments that,

“Murdock’s claim is grossly naïve as well as false. Josephus’ passage on John the Baptist is regarded as authentic and is hardly disputed by scholars.” Professor Yamauchi would agree saying that “No scholar has questioned the authenticity of this passage, though there are some differences between Josephus’s account and that in the Gospels . . .” New Testament scholar, Robert Van Voorst of Western Theological Seminary likewise comments that the passage by Josephus on John the Baptist is “held to be undoubtedly genuine by most interpreters” and that “scholars also hold [it] to be independent of the New Testament.”

Professor John Meier similarly argues that Josephus’ mentioning of John the Baptist & James is “accepted as authentic by almost all scholars” and that it “is simply inconceivable as the work of a Christian of any period.” Jewish scholar, Louis Feldman of Yeshiva University and perhaps the most prominent expert on Josephus comments on this passage claims that: “There can be little doubt as to the genuineness of Josephus’ passage about John the Baptist.”

Thus, Murdock’s comment that this passage has “been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries” is demonstrably false.”

In her work, Murdock claims that myth enveloped early Christianity due to “the signs or constellations of the zodiac.” In response to this Noel Swerdlow, a Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago argues that:

“…she is saying something that no one would have thought of in antiquity because in which constellation of the fixed stars the vernal equinox was located, was of no significance and is entirely an idea of modern, I believe twentieth-century, astrology.”

Licona thus lays down a challenge, “I challenge Ms. Murdock to name someone other than Jesus who lived in the first century (e.g., Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, etc.), who is mentioned by 17 writers who do not share his convictions, and who write within 150 years of his life. No first century person was as well attested as Jesus.”

Salt is rubbed into the wound when Licona actually researched the sources that Murdock  cited behind her work. Licona discovered that “Practically all of her sources are secondary rather than primary sources. For example, she quotes Adolf Hitler as saying that it was his Christian convictions which led him to attempt to exterminate the Jews. Where did Hitler say this? We cannot know from reading her book, because her source is The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets! On still another point, she quotes Otto Schmiedel. However, when you look at the endnote, you find that her source is Rudolf Steiner, a mystic.”

Murdock’s work, says Licona, “is like someone arguing that terrorism is justified and cites ten terrorists claiming that terrorism is just. However, this does nothing to support their position that terrorism is justified; only that some believe that it is. It also indicates that she has not checked out the claims of her sources, but rather uncritically accepts what they say… in terms of this book being a responsible account of the origin of Christianity, it is unsalvageable.”

11. None of the mythicists are actual scholars in the relevant fields of expertise.

What we find is that no scholar in any of the relevant fields (independent of their personal worldview beliefs) holds to these radical views. Professor of New Testament Studies, Ben Witherington, explains that “Not a single one of these authors and sources are experts in the Bible, Biblical history, the Ancient Near East, Egyptology, or any of the cognate fields…. they are not reliable sources of information about the origins of Christianity, Judaism, or much of anything else of relevance to this discussion.”

John Dickson, a historian of early Christianity and Judaism, says that “anyone who dips into the thousands of secular monographs and journal articles on the historical Jesus will quickly discover that mythicists are regarded by 99.9% of the scholarly community as complete “outliers,” the fringe of the fringe.”

Scholar Michael Bird categorizes mythicists to be no more thab fringe atheists of whom no-one takes seriously, “There is a reason why this view is the sole possession of an energetic bunch of fringe atheists and has never been entertained as a possibility by experienced and respected scholars working in the field of Christian Origins.”

Majority, if not nearly all, of the mythicists are atheists, and especially of the atheist crowd that is vocally anti-religion/Christianity. This makes sense as what better way is there to discredit a religion than to attack the very existence of the person behind it directly? As Professor Mettinger writes, that “From the 1930s… a consensus has developed to the effect that the ‘dying and rising gods’ died but did not return or rise to live again. Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species.”

12. Jesus’ virgin birth is unique.

One of the events Christians celebrate on December 25th is that of Jesus’ birth. Of course no-where in the biblical sources does it allude to this specific date of Jesus’ birth. We simply do not know when Jesus was born. This is an interesting fact in the context of this discussion because the 25th of December has become the home to numerous alleged parallels.

Firstly, in the context of the uniqueness of Mary’s virginal conception the prominent biblical scholar Raymond Brown concludes that “No search for parallels has given us a truly satisfactory explanation of how early Christians happened upon the idea of a virginal conception…”

Second, some have argued that the pagan god Mithra was born of a virgin in the exact same manner as Jesus. However, Professor Manfred Clauss, a scholar of ancient history, explains that “The sequence of images from the mythical account of Mithras’ life and exploits begins, so far as we can make out, with the god’s birth. The literary sources here are few but unmistakable: Mithras was known as the rock-born god.”

Unless rocks count as virgins we do not not have a parallel here. But apparently that’s good enough for mythicists. Historian Louis Sweet is hugely helpful here,

“After a careful, laborious, and occasionally wearisome study of the evidence offered and the analogies urged, I am convinced that heathenism knows nothing of virgin births. Supernatural births it has without number, but never from a virgin in the New Testament sense and never without physical generation, except in a few isolated instances of magical births on the part of women who had not the slightest claim to be called virgins. In all recorded instances which I have been able to examine, if the mother was a virgin before conception took place she could not make that claim afterward.”

Thomas Boslooper agrees, “The literature of the world is prolific with narratives of unusual births, but it contains no precise analogy to the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke. Jesus’ ‘virgin birth’ is not ‘pagan’.” Again, William Craig informs his readers that “The Gospel stories of Jesus’ virginal conception are, in fact, without parallel in the ancient Near East.”

If anything Jesus’ radical virginal birth is rather unique.

13. Jesus’ death had a radical impact on his disciples; a feat that no pagan god can boast.

In an article for the New York Times Peter Steinfels, an American journalist and educator best known for his writings on religious topics, questions what could have drastically changed the lives of so many after Jesus’ death: “Shortly after Jesus was executed, his followers were suddenly galvanized from a baffled and cowering group into people whose message about a living Jesus and a coming kingdom, preached at the risk of their lives, eventually changed an empire. Something happened … But exactly what?”

Even the skeptical New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, notes that “We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead.”

E.P Sanders writes: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact,” though he cannot say “What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences…”

Rudolph Bultmann, known to be a skeptic as well as one of the most influential scholars of the New Testament writes: “All that historical criticism can establish is that the first disciples came to believe the resurrection.”

Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, pens that “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”

What makes this case persuasive is that these very same followers, and the skeptics Paul and James, underwent persecution for this proclamation. Several even went to their deaths as a result. How could a mythological historical Jesus so drastically change the lives of so many men?

14. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is unique.

As an event of history, especially within the context of the 1st century Judaism, the resurrection of Jesus was a unique once off event. Given this the alleged parallels that the mythicists seem to draw between Jesus and the pagan gods are spurious. Ehrman believes that “there’s nothing about them [Hercules and Osiris] dying and rising again.” and “It is true that Osiris “comes back” to earth …. But this is not a resurrection of his body. His body is still dead. He himself is down in Hades, and can come back up to make an appearance on earth on occasion.”

Professor Mettinger concludes similarly that “there were no ideas of resurrection connected with Dumuzi/Tammuz” and “The category of dying and rising deities as propagated by Frazer can no longer be upheld.”

According to Edwin Yamauchi “there’s no resurrection of Marduk or Dionysus …… there was no real resurrection of Tammuz.”

In agreement with these voices Jonathan Smith writes that “There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity.”

Professor Mettinger again says that “While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions.”

Professor Ronald Nash lends us his view on the alleged Mithras Jesus parallel: “Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages.”

Theologian Norman Geisler demonstrates the overt differences between Jesus and other pagan gods, as in the case of Osiris: “The only known account of a god surviving death that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult god Osiris. In this myth, Osiris is cut into fourteen pieces, scattered around Egypt, then reassembled and brought back to life by the goddess Isis. However, Osiris does not actually come back to physical life but becomes a member of a shadowy underworld…This is far different than Jesus’ resurrection account.”

15. The notion that Jesus is a copy parallel of Mithras is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Mithras, they claim in the following comparisons that Mithras was:

1. Mithras sacrificed himself.
2. He was resurrected.
3. He had disciples.
4. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.
5. He was called the Messiah.
6. He was born from a virgin.

Firstly, this is questionable since very little is known about Mithraism because no texts have been found or none exist. What we know comes from archaeology in the form of hundreds of discovered mithraea artefacts, as well as in the writings of Christians and other pagans in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Secondly, scholars have found no clear evidence of Mithraism until the mid to late 1st century, after Christianity was established. Therefore the early Christians could not copy anything, as there was nothing to copy in the first place.

Thirdly, the comparisons are spurious on all levels. As for starters Mithras did not sacrifice himself at all, and no-one actually knows if or how he died. Scholars seem to think that Mithras was killed by a bull. This killing of by the bull seems to be the source of the Mithraic ritual, known as taurobolium, of killing a bull and allowing the blood to drench the worshiper. Now, there may be parallels between this ritual and Jewish animal sacrifice, or the Christian Eucharist, but the earliest reference to the ritual is the middle of the 2nd century – these comparisons, even if accurate, are spurious, and post-date Christianity. As Ronald Nash observes, “Indeed, there is inscriptional evidence from the fourth century A.D. that, far from influencing Christianity, those who used the taurobolium were influenced by Christianity”

As we have no record of Mithras actually dying, there is no record of him being resurrected either, especially not in the way of the claims surrounding Jesus. And the claim that Mithras had disciples is incorrect, there is no evidence that he existed as a historical figure, and there is no evidence that he had any disciples. He was seen as a god, and not as a human.

Fourthly, Mithras was not born of a virgin, unless we count rocks as virgins. As Clauss, a professor of ancient history at the Free University of Berlin, in his book ‘The Roman Cult of Mithras‘ explains: “The sequence of images from the mythical account of Mithras’ life and exploits begins, so far as we can make out, with the god’s birth. The literary sources here are few but unmistakable: Mithras was known as the rock-born god.”

Fifthly, I would encourage anyone to forward primary evidence that Mithras was referred to as the “Messiah”, because there is no evidence of this. As Professor Gary Lease has noted, “After almost 100 years of unremitting labor, the conclusion appears inescapable that neither Mithraism nor Christianity proved to be an obvious and direct influence upon the other”

Professor Edwin Yamauchi concludes, “We don’t know anything about the death of Mithras… We have a lot of monuments, but we have almost no textual evidence, because this was a secret religion. But I know of no references to a supposed death and resurrection.”

16. That Jesus is a copy of Horus is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Horus, they claim in the following comparisons that Horus was:

1. Born on December 25
2. Mary, Jesus’ mother, is a copy of the Horus account.
3. Born of a virgin.
4. Three kings came to adore the new-born “saviour”.
5. Was a saviour.
6. He became a child teacher at the age of 12.
7. Like Jesus, Horus was “baptized”.
8. He had a “ministry”.
9. Had twelve “disciples”
10. Was crucified, was buried for three days, and was resurrected after three days.

Horus was born during month of Khoiak, this would be either October or November, and certainly not December 25 as the mythicist claims. We should also note that we don’t actually know when Jesus was born, and it most likely was not on the 25th of December. This alleged parallel should be rejected.

Secondly, Horus was born to Isis, and there is no mention in history of her being called “Mary” at any time or place, or by anyone. Even worse for those using this as an alleged parallel is that “Mary” is an Anglicized form of her real name which is actually Miryam or Miriam, therefore, “Mary” was not even used in the original biblical manuscripts! Someone is clearly making up nonsense.

Thirdly, Isis was not a virgin. Isis was actually the widow of Osiris and conceived Horus with Osiris. In fact, we read: that “[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [penis] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence [sperm], and she made therefrom an heir [Horus].”(Encyclopaedia Mythica)

Fourthly, there is no record of three kings visiting Horus at his birth. This becomes even more questionable when we find that our gospel accounts don’t even state the actual number of magi that came to see Jesus at his birth. Fifthly, Horus was not even a saviour by any means; he did not even die for anyone like Jesus did.

Sixth, I would challenge anyone to produce a single piece of primary evidence that tells us of Horus being a teacher at the age of 12. There is none that scholars have ever found.

Seventh, Horus was also not “baptized”, at least not like Jesus was at the hands of John the Baptist in the Jordan river. The only account of Horus that involves water is one story where Horus is torn to pieces, with Isis requesting the crocodile god to fish him out of the water. Doesn’t sound much like a baptism.

We have no account of Horus ever having a “ministry”, especially not one like Jesus’.

Horus also did not have 12 disciples. According to data, Horus had four demigods that followed him, and there are some indications of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him.

Subsequently, there are different accounts of how Horus actually died, but none of them ever involves a crucifixion.

Lastly, we have no accounts of Horus even being buried for three days. We have no accounts of Horus being resurrected, and especially not in the bodily form as Jesus was. There is no account of Horus coming out of the grave with the body he went in with. Some accounts have Horus/Osiris being brought back to life by Isis and then becoming the lord of the underworld.

All these alleged parallels are spurious at best.

17. That Jesus was a copy of Dionysus is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Dionysus, they claim in the following comparisons that Dionysus was:

1. Born of a virgin.
2. Born on the 25th of December.
3. Turned water into wine.

Again, point 2 can be dismissed because we don’t know when Jesus was born.

Secondly, there are two common stories of Dionysus’ birth. One story involves the god Zeus, who is his father, either impregnating the mortal woman Semele, or impregnating Persephone (the Greek Queen of the underworld). This has nothing to do with a virgin birth. In the other narrative there is also no virgin birth. However, the second narrative seems to be a copy of the Genesis biblical because it appears to describe what the book of Genesis said thousands of years before. In this narrative of Dionysus’ birth it describes fallen angels, and then impregnating human women. Either way, there’s nothing here to be a parallel of Jesus.

We are all likely familiar with the miracle story of Jesus turning water into wine. But was it a copy from the pagan god Dionysus, as some have alleged? No. Firstly, Dionysus gave King Midas the power to turn whatever he touched into gold. Also, he gave the daughters of King Anius the power to turn whatever they touched into wine, corn, or oil. But this should hardly be surprising as Dionysus was the god of wine. However, there do seem to be stories where Dionysus supernaturally fills empty vessels with wine, but the actual act of turning water into wine does not occur. There’s no parallel here either.

18. That Jesus is a copy of Krishna is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Krishna, they claim in the following comparisons that Krishna was:

1. Born of a virgin.
2. That there was an infant massacre.
3. That there was a star in the East that guided the wise men to his birth.
4. Was crucified.
5. Was resurrected.
6. Krishna’s father was a carpenter, like Jesus’ father.

Firstly, never is a virgin birth attributed to Krishna. In fact, his parents had seven previous children. Some mythicists claim that Krishna was born to the virgin Maia, however what we find is that this is incorrect as according to our Hindu texts Krishna is the eighth son of Princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva.

In the Gospels we read that King Herod felt threatened by Jesus’ birth, and that resorted to killing the infants in Bethlehem. Yet, is this a copy from a narrative concerning Krishna?

Not, it isn’t. Instead what we find is that Devaki’s six previous children were murdered by her cousin, King Kamsa, due to a prophecy foretelling his death at the hands of one of her children. This narrative tells us Kamsa only targeted Devaki’s sons, and never issued a command to kill male infants, unlike the gospel accounts. We read in ‘Bhagavata, Bk 4, XXII:7’ “Thus the six sons were born to Devaki and Kamsa, too, killed those six sons consecutively as they were born.”

Thirdly, what about the star and the wise men? This is a questionable parallel since Krishna was born in a prison and not a stable. Further, his parents bore him in secret.

Some have even alleged that Krishna was crucified like Jesus was, but crucifixion is never once mentioned in any Hindu text. However, we are told how Krishna dies. We read that he was mediating in the woods when he was accidentally shot in the foot by a hunter’s arrow. No crucifixion.

What about a resurrection? Firstly, we have zero evidence that Krishna descended into the grave for three days and appeared to many witnesses like Jesus allegedly did, as the mythicist claims. Instead, the actual account says that Krishna immediately returns to life and speaks only to the hunter where he forgives him of his actions.

Nevertheless, there are obvious differences between the resurrections of Jesus and Krishna’s appearance to the hunter who killed him. These are:

  • Jesus’ resurrection defeated the power of sin and death. Krishna’s resurrection had no real effect on mankind.
  • Jesus appeared to approximately 500 eye witnesses in the New Testament. Krishna appeared only to the hunter.
  • Jesus rose from the dead three days later. Krishna immediately returned to life.
  • Jesus did not ascend into Heaven until after the Great Commission. Krishna immediately “ascended” into the afterlife.
  • Jesus was aware of what was to take place. Krishna had no foreknowledge concerning his death.
  • Jesus ascended into a physical realm (Heaven). Krishna transcended into a mental state (or inconceivable region). The concepts between Heaven (Christianity) and Nirvana (Hinduism) differ greatly.

Lastly, what about Krishna’s father? Was his father, Vasudeva, a carpenter like Jesus’ Earthly father was? It is true that Krishna’s father was also said to be a carpenter, yet this is not suggested anywhere within our actual Hindu texts. What we are told is that Vasudeva was a nobleman in the courts of Mathura as he was married to Princess Devaki. However, when Krishna fled the wrath of Kamsa with his foster parents, we are told his foster-father Nanda was a cow herder: “Thou art the most beloved of Nanda, the Cow-herd” (Bhagavata, Bk 8, I, pg 743).

No parallels.

19. That Jesus was a copy of Attis is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Attis, they claim in the following comparisons that Attis was:

1. Born of a virgin.
2. Born on the 25th of December.
3. Crucified.
4. Was resurrected.

First, we can see that Attis was not born of a virgin. In fact, according to the legend, Agdistis arises from the Earth as a descendant of Zeus. Agdistis gives birth to the Sangarius river which brings forth the nymph, Nana, who either holds an almond to her breast and becomes impregnated by the almond or sits beneath a tree where an almond falls into her lap and impregnates her. Nana later abandons the child who is then raised by a goat. We are left to assume Attis was conceived from an almond seed which fell from a tree as a result of Zeus’ spilled semen. Not a virgin birth.

Again, as mentioned before, the 25th of December has no significance at all, we don’t know when Jesus was born, therefore, any alleged parallel cannot, logically, be a pagan parallel.

Thirdly, what about a crucifixion? Again, this is clearly questionable. We see that Attis castrates himself beneath a pine tree and thus dies from the bleeding. Attis castrates himself after he is made to go insane before his wedding by Agdistis. Subsequently, his blood flows onto the ground from his severed penis and brings forth a patch of violets. No crucifixion.

Fourthly, was Attis resurrected like Jesus? There are different accounts of this. In one narrative we find that Agdistis is overcome with remorse for what she had done (causing Attis to castrate himself and die because of it), and thus requests for Zeus to preserve the corpse of Attis so that it never decomposes. That is not a resurrection.

In the other account Agdistis and The Great Mother carry the pine tree back to a cave where they both mourn the death of Attis. Any resurrection story doesn’t surface until much later when Attis is transformed into a pine tree. Being transformed into a tree is vastly different from Jesus rising in bodily form from the dead.

20. That Jesus was a copy of the Buddha is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Buddha, they claim in the following comparisons that Buddha was:

1. Born of a virgin.
2. There wise men at Buddha’s birth.
3. Presented with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
4. Born on the 25th of December.
5. Descended from a royal lineage, like did Jesus.
6. Crucified.

First, Gautama was not born of a virgin, he was born to Suddhodana and his wife, Maya, of 20 years. Another reason for rejecting that Maya was a virgin is because she was the king’s favourite wife. The ‘Acts of the Buddha‘ shows us that Maya and her husband Suddhodana having sexual relations (for example, “the two tasted of love’s delight…”).

Secondly, there seems to be no mention of wise men at all in the Buddhist texts. There also seems to be no record of these specific gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. What is, however, mentioned in a writing that post-dates Christianity we are told the gods (not wisemen) gave Gautama sandalwood, rain, water lilies, and lotus flowers for gifts – these are Buddhist symbols, and have nothing to do with Christianity. This is also not surprising as royal births are often celebrated with festivals and gifts in Buddhist culture.

Again, we are not told the birth date of Jesus, so this cannot be a parallel.

Unlike Jesus, Gautama was an immediate royal descendant born into privilege. Jesus was a distant descendant of King David born into poverty. They are basically opposites.

There seems to be no mention of a crucifixion in any Buddhist source. In fact, we are told that Gautama dies of natural causes at the age of 80. His followers accompany him to a river and provide him with a couch: “Be so good as to spread me a couch… I am weary and wish to lie down…’ Then the [Buddha] fell into a deep meditation, and having passed through the four jhanas, entered Nirvana.”

22. That Jesus was a copy parallel of Zoroaster is rejected by scholars.

Some claim that Jesus is a copy of Zoroaster, they claim in the following comparisons that Zoroaster was:

1. Born of a virgin.
2. Tempted in the wilderness.
3. Began his ministry at age 30, like Jesus.
4. Sacrificed for mankind’s sins.

There is no mention of a virgin birth in any Zoroastrian text nor do the events of Zoroaster’s birth seem to have any relation to Jesus. In fact, there are two different accounts of his birth. In one narrative Zoroaster’s parents, Dukdaub and Pourushasp, were a normal married couple who conceived a son through natural means. Zoroaster is described as laughing when he is born as well as having a visible, glowing aura about him:

“[Zoroaster] had come into the posterity…who are Pourushasp, his father, and Dukdaub who is his mother. And also while he is being born and for the duration of life, he produced a radiance, glow, and brilliance from the place of his own abode…” (Denkard, Bk 5 2:1-2)

In the other narrative, which is a later text, an embellishment is added by the Zoroastrian followers. In this narrative we are told that Ahura Mazda (the main deity of Zoroastrianism) implants the soul of Zoroaster into the sacred Haoma plant and through the plant’s milk Zoroaster is born. Nothing here is like a virgin birth.

But was Zoroaster also tempted by an evil spirit to renounce his faith with the promise of receiving power over the nations, like Jesus was?

This story is found in the Vendidad, a Zoroastrian text which lists the laws regarding demons. However, this was written well after the life of Jesus somewhere between 250 – 650 AD. Because of this late date the early Christian scribes could not have copied anything in this text. What we do read, however, sounds strikingly familiar to Jesus’ 40 days in the desert. According to ‘Vendidad Fargad 19:6’: “Again to him said the Maker of the evil world, Angra Mainyu: ‘Do not destroy my creatures, O holy Zarathushtra… Renounce the good Religion of the worshippers of Mazda, and thou shalt gain such a boon as…the ruler of the nations.'”

Like Jesus, Zoroaster was believed to have begun his teachings at the age of 30. Though Zoroaster technically came out of seclusion at the age of 30 to begin his teachings, he was shunned and ignored for 12 years until his religion was accepted by King Vishtaspa. However, the story surrounding Jesus differs greatly. Jesus attracted followers instantly, and Zoroaster was believed to be killed around the age of 77 while Jesus was killed at the age of 33. Any parallels become questionable on the basis that Zoroaster is not mentioned in texts until to around 225 AD; that is almost 200 years after Christianity had already been in circulation.

Lastly, was Zoroaster’s death spiritually significant? It is believed Zoroaster was killed at the age of 77 after being slaughtered on one of his temple altars by Turanian invaders. However this aspect of his life is debated by scholars. Either way, his death was never believed to atone for sin or to hold any other spiritual purposes.

23. Jesus’ crucifixion in comparison to other alleged deities is unique.

Kersey Graves in his book ‘The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors’, names the following as crucified deities, and therefore, the crucifixion of Jesus is a pagan copy. Well, let’s analyze these crucifixions to see if they actually, firstly, are crucifixions:

  • Mithras – Mithras was carried into heaven on a chariot, alive. This is not a crucifixion.
  • Bali – There are various accounts regarding Bali’s death. One says that he was forced down (bodily) into the underworld after being deceived by Vamana, an avatar of Vishnu. In other accounts, Bali is said to have been released and granted kingship. No crucifixion occurs in either story.
  • Romulus – Romulus was not crucified, but rather is said to have been taken up into the heavens while still alive.
  • Quirinus – No accounts seem to indicate him dying.
  • Iao and Wittoba – there seems to be no information regarding the deaths of these two figures in any original sources.
  • Orpheus – He was not crucified, but said to have been killed by Dionysus’ frenzied maenads after refusing to worship any god but Apollo.
  • Bel – He is often associated with Zeus, and no accounts seem to indicate his death.
  • Prometheus – He was chained to a mountain where an eagle ate his liver on a daily basis, as punishment from Zeus. Hercules would later free him. No crucifixion.
  • Indra – There are different accounts of Indra’s death. In one narrative he is swallowed alive by a serpent called Vritra. Vritra then spits him out at the commands of some other gods. Because Indra is saved by the gods there is no death, nor a crucifixion.
  • Dionysus – There is no crucifixion, instead he was eaten alive by Titans during infancy.
  • Esus/Hesus – His followers would participate in human sacrifices by hanging a victim from a tree after disembowelment. There is no mention of a crucifixion.
  • Attis – Attis bled to death after castrating himself below a tree.
  • Alcestis – Alcestis agrees to die for her husband after he makes a deal with the gods. When the time comes, Alcestis is described as being in bed. The gods are touched by her devotion, take pity on her, and reunite her with her husband. No crucifixion is indicated here.
  • Tammuz – He was allegedly killed by demons sent by Ishtar after she found him on her throne. Not a crucifixion.
  • Krishna – Krishna was never crucified as he was shot in the foot with an arrow while he was meditating in a forest.
  • Osiris – Osiris was tricked by Set, then sealed into a chest, and dumped into the Nile. The method of crucifixion was not even invented by this time.
  • Questzalcoatl – Quetzalcoatl is never crucified at all. In one narrative he burns himself alive out of guilt for sleeping with a celibate priestess. In a different narrative we are told he was burnt by fire that was sent by the gods.



  1. Wrong. The nail has not been knocked in at all. In fact some historians are busy forcing the lid off of Pandora’s Box.

    Don’t be at all surprised if the bubble isn’t eventually pricked and your man-god doesn’t turn out to be a complete work of fiction after all.
    And considering how fallacious so much of the bible truly is why is it so difficult to imagine that the character, Jesus of Nazareth was simply a ”vehicle” to drive a plot?

    • Your butt is hurt. need a tissue for your issue? repent or perish, Jesus is real, stop crying, get over it. Accept Jesus as saviour or be cast into the lake of fire.

  2. Proponents of this view, known as mythicists, say that Jesus was nothing more than a copy of popular dying and rising fertility gods in various places from around the world, some of these gods would include Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia Minor, and Horus in Egypt.

    This is one view but by no means the only view.
    Your arguments against could quite easily be used for, by the way, as you have not provided any concrete evidence to dissuade a neutral reader,simply listing reams of rehashed material.
    Why don’t you tackle the issue of mythicism honestly and rather than knock the opposition simply provide conclusive evidence that Yeshua ben Josef existed.

    Start with a list of contemporary evidence.

  3. This is a great article. Denser and pithier writing would help its “distributability”-factor though. Not intending as an insult…really like the contents here and would like to pass along, but the “shell” or rhetoric is lacking. Writing muddles what it intends to clarify. Could you rewrite? Beautiful background too. Lovely, lovely.

  4. […] Now, this would be the central argument in films like Irreligious, Zeitgeist, and the Da Vinci Code. For brevity sake I will include an example or two, as well as what contemporary scholars think on this issue. For instance, Dan Brown in his Da Vinci Code boldly states: “Nothing in Christianity is original.” For a full response to this allegation, please consult my other article. […]

  5. WHen persons styling themselves as “pagans” say that Christ was a combo of several, or even a dozen or more, pagan gods & goddesses, are they intending to compliment those who must have conspired to create such a thing; which is like a mega-pagan super god? It just seems kind of like a backhanded-slap that misses the target & becomes an open-handed slap to the face that is their own.

  6. What strikes me is how we lose ground just by considering these ideas when they are presented by people who are not genuinely considering them but rather are positing these ideas to discredit Christianity.

    If Jesus existed and did the things that the Bible claims that he did, then it does not matter one bit whether or not there was an identical character in some earlier pagan religion.

    Giving into this line of thinking and defending Jesus as being different than pagan stories about mythical beings who were not divine and who, in many cases, never existed is akin to fighting with one hand behind our back.

    Jesus is the genuine article; Not because he is unique but because he is the one and only Son of God.

    I am not saying that it is not worthwhile to understand and be able to debunk false claims by those who are antagonistic to Christianity. My primary point is that we should not unwittingly accept a false premise in our attempt to defend our true religion.

    • Muslims say their religion is true and are willing to kill and die for it. If there was any truth to Christianity or Islam, the respective Gods would have settled this question ages ago. All religions are man made. The religious documents were written by men. It was all conceived in the minds of men. All imaginary notions set to pen and paper, parchment before.

  7. […] man is by no means analogous to Zeus or any other god from Greek/Roman pantheons (see my article: 23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Is Not a Copy of Pagan Religions.) This is where the ignorance of the meme shines most brilliantly. The two other gods depicted in […]

  8. The enemy of souls is a fallen angel, was a “covering” angel, who betrayed all of heaven and earth, is knowledgeable of Scripture, which he used to try to tempt Christ, knew of God’s plan of redemption, and has had his own plans to ruin. satan’s not only a counterfeiter who wants to be “like the Most High” or have His position, he hates us, which is why he deceives us, and leads us to believe he doesn’t exist, depending on which era you live in.. in the days of myth,.. lying wonders, fairies, superstitions reinforced,..Also in satanic worship circles where people are seduced in their desiring power, only to find it is the beginning of the loss of their control and power..hear their testimonies when they’ve escaped the traps, and he is very real to them. He shows himself sometimes when he thinks you’re so far gone, you’ll never return to God. Some of those who have escaped his hold are later, believers, who you can’t tell that there is no spirit world. He can counterfeit before prophesy is fulfilled because he knows it will be fulfilled. He tried to murder Christ before Christ could redeem man, hence the slaughter of the MALE babes in Moses’ time, and in Bethlehem,” Rachel weeping for her children” for they were not’.. after Jesus’ birth was announced. Seeing, and not seeing, hearing, and not hearing. satan will be what you want him to be, until he has you so hardened that the Holy Spirit doesn’t impress the “seared” conscience, and then satan claims authority to destroy you. Some people “cost” a little more, so they’ll be seduced with millions or fame,.. others can be snared for less, or with vices, etc. -Not desirable paths. With God, is freedom. With satan is death and loss, addiction,.. but so many somehow still believe (until their losses), that everyone in control or with God as their guide,.. are those who are “missing out.” he’s the copycat, not Jesus.

    “ the kjv is based off of the masoretic text and until this last century there was no way to prove its authenticity that it aligned with the original text till the discovery of the dead sea scrolls which was 1000 years older than the masoretic text and when the fragments were translated it was proven that the masoretic text perfectly matched the dead sea scrolls” proving that God in fact did preserve the bible. the kjv perfectly matches the masoretic text which perfectly matches the dead sea scrolls proving that God in fact preserved his word in the kjv”
    End Quote

    – God’s signature is everywhere. We inherently can identify truth in simpler things of life,
    sometimes by how it affects us, or others, interestingly. We learn from Scriptures that God often uses concepts simple for us to understand, and refers often to stones when teaching. ”
    Psalms 118:22 and Acts 4:11 (KJV) “… The stone that the builders rejected has now become the cornerstone.” Matthew 3:9 “.. God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Matthew 13:20 ” Some seed fell on the stony ground..” Matthew 7:24 “.. a wise man.. built his house upon a rock.” Luke 19:40 “And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.” ..There are lessons of the heart, there’s agriculture, there’s architecture and engineering.. As God teaches with stones, then and now, and helps scientists learn, and tinker with their experiments and formulas, as they can only describe what happens, but can’t really explain,.. many nonetheless pride themselves, (with His air they breathe), and declare God as opposed to the science of the earth He made in His universe. While many cannot deny that He would have to exist.I

    Truth is resisted by the majority of man.
    The rocks indeed have cried out.. the rocks of excavation. But we don’t need rely on man’s ? science to prove God. Science is used too often to try disprove God. A thing to ponder.. will science one day announce the finding of giant bones, in order to prove some alien theory or other deception, while as for Bible believers, we know that mankind isn’t evolving/improving but that mankind is rather shrinking in the onslaught of sin, and that the Bible tells of giants from Goliath to those spied in Canaan, to the people in Adam and Methuselah’s day.

    With regards to being at odds, were there an equal campaign to dispel beliefs geared toward other religions, by the secular world, as the campaign seems heavily geared toward Christianity, one would not have as much to question. We too frequently hear that science is at odds with God, and Christianity is here to control people,.. while the same voices admire eastern religions for the tranquility they induce… One must pause.

    – God lets us join in His mission, teaches us to Love, give us conviction when we learn, we teach and in turn learn more. He is great! A beautiful statement about His generosity and humility is expressed in the Bible, and in our lives, and as repeated regarding the end of this world, and upon His return, He will reward Us for the wonderful things We did ( rather, that He helped Us accomplish).. if we could only understand what He accomplished, we would understand a great deal.

    “Concerning the Name of THE Creator, is Exodus 3:14 which in the KJV says “And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you”.
    According to Strong’s Concordance, which is actually a concordance of the Babylonian Aramaic Language (when referring to the Old Testament), the words “I AM That I AM” comes from H1961 H1961: “hayah hayah”. However in (paleo)-Hebrew Scriptures, it actually said
    “EHJEH ASHER EHJEH”. (Pronouned I-JE Asher I-JE)

    Source 1. Source 2, Source 3.
    NOT “hayah hayah” and NOT “I Am, I Am”.
    “EHJEH ASHER EHJEH” is hard to translate into just 3 or 4 English words. It means “I am JEH (the h is silent so it’s pronounced JE, the same sound in JEsus) the beginning, currently self-existing, and eternally existing, JEH”. HE was speaking a sentence that basically says “”I am JE the beginning, currently self-existing, and eternally existing, JE”, or in other words, HE was saying I am JE, The Alpha & the Omega, the beginning and the end, the eternal”. He said that HIS Name is JE as in JE-sus, JE with us, GOD with us.”

    “In Greek, the I in Iesous would be pronounced with a J sound. NOT with an i sound. It was the letter called “iota”, which could carry either an i or j or y sound. In the first century A.D. and in the era of the 1611 King James translation, they only had one letter for both the i sound and the j sounds. But later on, people developed a separate letter for each sound. But the J sound did exist in both paleo-Hebrew and Greek during the original writings of the Old and New Testaments. Since paleo-Hebrew and Greek look alike and sound alike, the rules of the true Hebrew language would apply for the name of a Hebrew person. The rule of the true Hebrew language states that if the iota comes directly before a vowel, it must be pronounced with a J sound. Even the word iota was originally pronounced with the j sound. It was called the jota, jot, jod and Jud.

    The modern English spelling and sound of the word iota results from Aramaic influence. Language history is very clear that the word iota had the j sound in Paleo Hebrew and Greek. So when we see the name IESOUS, we therefore would have Jesous.”
    “The Apostles wrote JEH and Iesous. In the New Testament, they wrote Iesous. But the first letter which looks to us as an capital i was called the Jot. It was pronounced with the J sound whenever followed by an vowel such as E. Thus we have Jesous, which we pronounce as Jesus. Thus, the Apostles wrote what was spelled Iesous. It is still Jesus.”

    ” His Names include but not limited to: JEH, JE, JESUS, LORD, GOD, EHJEH, Adonai, EHJEH ASHER EHJEH, Alpha and Omega, The Word of GOD, KING of Kings, LORD of Lords, Emmanuel, GOD with us, Father, Saviour, Messiah, Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Rev.19:12 says He has a name that no man knows! Rev. 19 uses THREE “name”‘s for Him! One is the one that “No man knows”, one is “Word of God” and What name will be written on Him when He returns?
    Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

    God said unto Moses,
    “I AM THAT I AM”

    GOD is not imaginary, nor fabled.
    As we are,…(and it’s wise to speak prudently), to see God, is to die. Isaiah 6:2 Even angels hid their faces before Him, and to forget reverence or be “unworthy” while approaching the very Ark of the Covenant was to die. Matthew 18:3,4 (KJV)3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. Hebrews 12:29 (KJV) “For our God is a consuming fire.” Matthew 28:3,4
    And though both being fallen/evil, when you are upset with someone, do you need time away from them to appease your anger? How much so should it be for heaven seeing evil is rampant? We know the term “stunning beauty”.. have you ever been “stunned” by the sudden visual beauty when encountering another human being? Then try to consider how much more “STUNNING” it would be to behold God in His Eternal Righteousness and Perfect Glory. It was a great act of Love and humility that Christ dwelt and walked among us, as a man, (and God), knowing all He knew and saw of sinfulness, yet while we were yet sinners (enemies), Christ died for us. All that people are when thinking no one is looking, to the change lived when eyes are opened, and upon conversion, and awareness of the heavenly host and His presence; it is evidence, demonstration of a changed heart, and unto salvation. Be glad that God is patient. Do not think that God is mocked. Galatians 6:7(KJV)

    Why is truth lost to so many? Satan was a liar and murderer from the beginning, a counterfeiter, he corrupts. He can use a Nostradamus and help his predictions, (only so much as what God allows,) he can distort accounts of Biblical events, and promote myth by his lying wonders, and sometimes by people choosing to never learn more truth: people are led astray with fables that are passed down…and he can give you all the miracles and proof you need, if he’s your god, and that’s what you seek after. In Eden, Adam turned dominion over to him when he sinned, and by way of Eve’s believing a subtle lie. Then, for redemption, by One, Jesus, came to pay the ransom that won man (many) back to God, that all might be saved if they have faith in Him. There’s a thing called faith; Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)”Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” We also know throughout history and today, people have seen miracles to strengthen their faith, when in good faith, searching. When held on to, faith brings more knowledge. Matthew 6:33 (KJV) “33 … seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” If you can’t discern truth, at least begin by discerning a lie.

    Start with evolution, for example, it is a religion, which takes more faith to believe than Creationism. If you search youtube videos Kent Hovind evolution, (his ideas on mark of the beast, and pre/post rapture etc.-not agreed with) but his evolution stance is noteworthy. There’s also Doug Batchelor and Walter Veith’s videos (on long-known verifiable facts) against the religion of evolution’s ideas. Be surprised to learn what year Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” first came about, and the rest of its title. People are tainted and the spiritual battle for truth is ages old and continues. So if you don’t have faith, at least start with questioning the lies and their agendas, to help find truth. God, our Creator can preserve His truth even where lies make their presence known. Call upon His Name.

    Open the Manual of Life inspired by the Creator.
    Read the KJV Bible, the unprecedented beauty, poetry, truth and
    guidance- the living Word.
    KJV Bible Dramatized Audio- Luke, Matthew, Corinthians, Psalms,
    Proverbs, Hebrews, Genesis, Revelation- youtube

  9. Jesus is not Pagan-
    All things are possibe with God.
    God has, and will preserve His truth for the faithful.

    Did Jesus give any? NO “graven image” to worship, of Himself, (as there is enough evil for the day,) and that would be wrong,..
    is against the Second Commandment, plus, satan corrupts as much as he can. You”d have a problem with the exposes on the images portraying Jesus if you were worshipping the image,.. then so much for satan’s success. Still we know that the majority in heaven was not deceived, but on earth, it will be.

    I could not fully appreciate Dr. Walter Veith’s Total Onslaught series enough until recently learning of the Total onslaught of not only Jesus Christ and His rightful place in the universe, but on His Name, the Bible, but also on our ability to worship happily. This is not of God. God desires that we know Him better, change our hearts, daily, as described in Corinthians 13:1-13, not doubt Him. I have, in research that Luke was raised as a Greek and that Greek was a language commonly spoken among the people at the time, is closer to Paleo-Hebrew than Aramic or Modern Hebrew, and was the language of text Jesus read often from. Whatever Jesus and the apostles did, is what I’ll go by. Jesus reminds repeatedly that the object of His mission was to fulfill and save, not destroy, that goes for people and the law. Also, the Samaritans would not have accepted the gospel in the traditional language of those they thought hated them. I’ve read that Jesus spoke the word “Amen” after His model prayer, that Paul never said to be an even moderate alcohol drinker or eat pork, but that he referred to the eating of meats devoted or that gave hommage to idols, and that to consider always the weaker brother, ( and also, grapejuice, (translated wine) was sometimes used as medicine, and not the potent manufactured wine we have today) that the TEN COMMANDMENT Sabbath!, (not feasts or other frequent sabbath days), was not done away with, think,, it’s part of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE IMMUTABLE LAW, that even the secular world agrees with on points, so why get rid of the one God told us to Remember, and keep the nine? “Under grace, not under the law”, does not mean lawlessness, which God is not of, and if it could be changed, He would have done that than for Jesus to die to redeem us. Under grace means you love the law, and by His power seek to keep it all the better); and thus, to continue,… whether in respect of select ancient Bibles,… (the more reliable today, the King James Version)- its poetry and multi-faceted meaning not lost or watered down as many versions, and it vital truths preserved…
    oh it goes on…
    We are mankind and our failings do not negate our Lord God, also both fine to say. All should search Scripture for themselves. It is reverse to what we are being led to believe. Jesus is the Rock and He thought of us long ago. All we need do is have faith and live it. He did the rest.When searching don’t necessarily look up “Is.. Pagan?” Look up the word as “.. is not of Pagan origin” (to the exception of words like halloween and/or other holiday-related error, things that aren’t foundational). One great example was the word God.Right now we say people have other gods, “such as money,”.does that have anything to do with the living God we serve? Or words that are in two different languages, but have no relation, though one is positive and another negative. Also, with a simple bing or google images search, you can look up “charts comparing Paleo-Hebrew to Ancient Greek”

    The Scripture of Love:
    1 Corinthians 13: 1-13 King James Version (KJV)
    “13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
    2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
    3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
    4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
    5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
    6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
    7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
    8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
    9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
    10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
    11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
    12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
    13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”

    John 6:37King James Version (KJV)
    “37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

    Jeremiah 31:3King James Version (KJV)
    “3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.”

    John 16:33King James Version (KJV)
    “33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”


    Matthew 16: 15-17King James Version (KJV)
    “15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
    16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
    17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

    Romans 10:13King James Version (KJV)
    “13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
    All we are given is truly sufficient. Call upon His Name, search the Scriptures, worship on the day He kept, follow, as did the apostles, worship as they worshipped, and call upon Whom they called upon, whether in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic.

    “The Greek translation was called the Septuagint (abbreviated as “LXX” because LXX is the Roman number for 70, which reflected the Hebrew belief that 70 men translated it). The simplest way to verify this is to visit http://www.unboundbible.org You can have it print out Joshua 1:1 (or any other verse that mentions Joshua) with the English next to the OT Greek. It is obvious the Hebrews chose “Iesous” for “Joshua/Yeshua.” That was Greek spelling that to them sounded most like the Hebrew “Yeshua,” The Greek alphabet does not have either a “Y” or a “J,” nor does it have a “sh” sound, so they could not have spelled it either “Yeshua” or “Jesus.” You can also find “Septuagint” in Webster’s dictionary (maybe not a pocket size, but the desk size will have it)… The Hebrew world chose to use the word “Christ,” not the Greeks This translation was widely in use among Hebrews in the first century, so many Jews called the Messiah “Christ.” The “ous” ending on “Jesus/Iesous.. put there in the LXX, as noted above, because of how the Greek language works… English is a word order language in which nouns and names are always spelled the same, and you understand what they mean by where they fall in the sentence. It makes a big difference whether you say “Jeff went to the store” or “The store went to Jeff.”
    Greek is not that way. Greek changes how the names are spelled to help you understand what they mean. This is called “declining” words and giving the nouns “case.” You can find definitions of these words in Webster, too. For instance, if the name “Jeff” was used in ancient (and modern) Greek, it would be spelled different ways depending on their use. A sentence would say “Jeffous (the subject of the sentence) sent Jeffov (the object of the sentence) to get the book of Jeffou (“Possessive”- Jeff’s book).” You’ll notice that “Jeff” always has an ending added to it. It has to have an ending, or the readers wouldn’t understand the sentence, because word order means nothing.
    The same thing happened with the name Yeshua/Joshua. Hebrews took the root of the name, “Yes” transliterated it to Greek letters “Ies” and added the case endings so that the name was spelled “Iesous,” “Iesou” or “Iesov” depending on its use in the sentence. This wasn’t an option. Greek speakers did this with every name and nouns, whether it was Simon, house, cow, table- whatever. The “ous” (or other word endings) weren’t added because they indicated Greek gods. They were a natural part of talking Greek.
    English does not decline nouns, except for the pronoun “he.” We say, “He (nominative) drove him (accusative) to the store in his (genitive) car.” It wouldn’t make sense to us to instead say “He drove he to the store in he car,” because you have to decline the word for it to make any sense. In the same way, Greek had to decline nouns in order for them to make any sense.
    Adding “s” to the end of Christ (or Messiah) was necessary when the words were used by Greek speakers. Nouns in Greek (and some other languages, but not English) must be “declinable.” That means that the last couple letters of the noun change with how they are used in the sentence. When “Christ” or “Messiah” is used as the subject, it is spelled with an “s” at the end (e.g.: Messias). When the noun is used as a genitive (as in “followers of Messiah”) it is spelled with a “u” at the end (e.g.: Christou). English shortens it to the root, “Christ,” because English doesn’t decline nouns. Regardless of exactly how different languages spell it- as Messias, Messiah, Mashiyach, Christ, Christos,.. etc, it is the same name or title.”
    — “The “s” ending was applied to literally all masculine nouns… Plus, names were actually spelled with “u” and “n” endings, too, depending on the case (as noted above)… But check this out for yourself by looking at any Greek grammar…
    — The Greeks never used the word “Christ” for their gods, or in any sacred context, or as any kind of title of honor at all. The verb form of the word meant “to rub lightly, spread.”
    On the surface, it may seem odd to some people that such a “secular” word as christos would be used for anointing Messiah, which people see as a very spiritual use. But the noun Messiah, also has a verb form, messah. Some of the Prophets use the verb in everyday ways- to rub (messah) a shield with oil (Isaiah 21:5), to paint (messah) a house (Jeremiah 22:14), and apply oil (messah) to a body (Amos 6:6). You can verify that the verb massah is used in these verses by checking a Hebrew text or Strong’s concordance. This shows that the verb form of Messiah is sometimes used in the same nonreligious ways that the verb form of christos was used by the Greeks. This made christos a good match for translators to use, since they were looking for a Greek root that had both verb and noun forms which were used in much the same ways as the Hebrew words. Messah was used more often to describe anointing kings, prophets and priests, but it was clearly used in both secular and religious ways.

    — The Hebrews, chose to use the word “Christ(os)” and “Messiah” interchangeably. The Hebrews themselves translated the Old Testament into Greek in about 150 B.C. in what is called the Septuagint They say that the High Priest himself chose 72 elders from Judea who were experienced in the law, beliefs and customs of the Torah and were able to translate from Hebrew to Greek. This means they were fluent in both languages, and used both Messiah and Christos, Throughout the LXX, “Christ” is used for the Anointed One, such as in Psalm 2:2. You can check this for yourself by looking it up in the Septuagint online at http://www.unboundbible.org or in a paper copy at a library.
    The Apostle John himself used both words when he wrote, “(Andrew said,) we have found the Messiah, that is the Christ” (John 1:42), and “The woman said, ‘I know that Messiah, called Christ, is coming” (John 4:24). John considered “Christ” and “Messiah” to be synonymous, and used Christ when speaking to Greek speakers, and Messiah when speaking to Hebrew speakers. (This article follows the Gospel’s practice of using Messiah and Christ interchangeably, too.)

    — …The only ancient author to suggest that any part of the NT was authored in Aramaic or Hebrew is Papias, and he said only that Matthew was, not the rest of the NT. Some writers claim that many ancient authors claimed the NT was written in Aramaic, but that is entirely false. I challenge you to find the name, book title, and chapter of even one ancient author or church leader (other than Papias) that said so. They absolutely do not exist.
    — Many Hebrews of the first century B.C. who strictly observed the Torah spoke and wrote in Greek, not Hebrew.” end quote
    -See the videos “The 7000 Year Pattern” and
    “Who is Jesus?” by Doug Batchelor.
    Discover the multiple prophecies that predicted JESUS’ birth, life, mission, and death, to the letter. So many prophecies, and how many texts and true prophets agreed and were in harmony over centuries.
    The book of Acts and the epistles were all written in Greek. Almost all the conversations in the book of Acts had to have taken place in Greek, not Hebrew. Think about it.
    Luke, the author of Acts, was a Greek and he addressed it to another Greek, Theophilus (both names are Greek). Saul (Paul) and Luke accordingly used the Greek form Christos,” because the vast majority of their hearers would have understood that, but would not have understood “Messiah,” because they did not know Hebrew. Acts 6 mentions the large body of Greek-speaking Hebrews in Jerusalem, the heart of Hebrew country (6:1). Phillip preached to the Samaritans, and surely used Greek or Aramaic (Acts 8). The Gentile centurion Cornelius, some of his soldiers, and his whole household could not have understood Hebrew, yet understood Peter preaching- no doubt in Greek (Acts 10).
    Paul, Barnabas and others taught the many Greeks who came to faith at Antioch (Acts 11,13). Paul persuaded the Roman proconsul on Cyprus, Sergius Paulus to believe (Acts 13:6-12)… Acts never mentions a synagogue in most of the cities Paul visited. Paul could not have communicated in Hebrew to his own coworkers such as Timothy and Titus, who were raised as Greeks. In fact, most of Paul’s coworkers had Greek names- Titus, Timothy, Apollos and Dionysius (names of Greek gods), Eutychus, the seven (Acts 6:6), the teachers at Antioch (Acts 13) and the long list of saints in Romans 16. Some names were Hebrew, such as Barnabas, which indicates that Luke wasn’t trying to expunge everything Hebrew and replace everything with Greek- he was just factually reporting the prevalence of both Hebrew and especially Greek in the early church.
    Paul spoke with the judges and jailer at Philippi, a Roman colony, though they surely did not know Hebrew. Paul’s message to the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17), and his defense when on trial before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18) were in Greek. The idolmakers in Ephesus (Acts 19) surely didn’t riot in Hebrew. Paul spoke Greek to the Roman commander and centurion who arrested him in the temple (Acts 21:37, 22:25), as did Paul’s nephew (23:19-21). Paul didn’t need a translator. Paul made his own defense when on trial before Governors Felix (Acts 24) and Festus (Acts 25-26). Paul surely spoke Greek to the captain and everyone on the ship on his voyage to Rome (Acts 27) and to the superstitious islanders on Malta (Acts 28). Since Paul spoke Greek to them, he always had to use “Iesous Christos” with the Greek endings on the name in order to be understood.
    — An Aramaic NT did not have to exist in order for the Greek NT to transliterate “Yeshua” into “Iesous.” As I mentioned above, Paul and others spoke to many groups of people in Greek, using the “declined” word forms in order to be understood. Luke was quoting him.
    — The New Testament sometimes uses a variety of spellings for names. The Greek form “Iesous” is used for Jesus in the NT, and is used for Joshua in the OT (you can check this in the Septuagint, as I mentioned above.) So every translator who sees “Iesous” in Hebrews has to guess by the context whether it refers to Jesus or Joshua, as in Hebrews 4. It’s a fluke that people commonly translate the Iesous as either Joshua or Jesus. But it is not uncommon to have different spellings for the same name. For instance, Jude, Judah and Judas are all exactly the same name, and are spelled the same in Greek.. You can check this yourself by calling up Mat 1:2, 26:47 and Jude 1 in Greek at http://www.unboundbible.org . Matthew and Matthias are the same Greek name.
    Why is the same Greek sometimes transliterated in different ways? It wouldn’t have to be. But it saves some explaining- you don’t have to tell every child, “no, Judas the betrayer didn’t write a book of the Bible.” Sometimes translators chop off the Greek “s” ending (like in Jude, Herod, etc) and other times leave it on (as in Judas, Jesus).
    — When people translate the Greek New Testament into English (and other languages), why don’t the translators convert Greek forms of names like Iesous into Hebrew forms such as Yeshua? There are a few reasons for this. First, the Greek does not read Yeshua, it reads Iesous. Is it sound translation to write in sounds that don’t actually exist in the Greek original? Second, in conversations recorded in the second half of the book of Acts, such as Paul’s conversations in Ephesus, Philippi, etc, the speakers certainly used the Greek forms of the names (as noted above). To replace words that apostles actually said with Hebrew forms that they did not use is a stretch that translators think would be inappropriate or misleading.”
    ”In Acts 9: 13-18 the sons of Scheva, exorcists, though they knew the name of Jesus, and how to pronounce it, did not prevail against the evil spirit because they did not know Him as their Lord… Paul understood God’s character and could cast out demons by the name of Jesus. The demons obeyed because of Paul’s faith and the authority and the power of Christ’s name. “[Paul] turned and said to the spirit, ‘I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.’ And he came out that very hour… and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.”
    “When people are “[settled] into the truth,” both intellectually and spiritually,” faith has reached its goal. Genuine faith joins the head with the heart, not just information alone and not just emotional feeling. These last-day Christians have discovered the validating assurance of the Holy Spirit in their lives, and they live in accordance with His guidance. Their intellectual grasp of the truth has reached its transforming purpose; these are men and women who have developed characters that will vindicate God’s wisdom and patience, contradicting Satan’s lies that God’s will is impossible for humanity…
    The book of Hebrews quotes a prophecy from the book of Isaiah: “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them” (Hebrews 10:16). The results of this promise will be the “settling into the truth, both intellectually and spiritually, so they cannot be moved.” To have God’s name means having His law—not just the written words of the Ten Commandments, but its spirit—written in our hearts. A Name We Can Trust”
    “Pray in What Name?
    Yet while God’s name is the holiest of names, He is also our friend. Following a bloody Civil War battle, Jack kneeled by a mortally wounded soldier on the field. He could see that Bill, his best friend, was dying. Bill also knew he was dying, so with trembling fingers he reached into his blood-stained pocket and handed a letter to his comrade. “Jack,” Bill said in a raspy tone, “I didn’t have time to mail this letter. I know you don’t have much family or money. If you live through this war, take this letter to my folks in Connecticut. I told them all about you and what close friends we are. They’ll take good care of you, and anything that was mine is yours.” Moments later, Bill breathed his last.
    Jack did survive the war, but times were tough. For months, he and other war veterans would ride the trains looking for some farm work hoeing weeds in exchange for a hot meal. They came to be known as “hoe boys,” later called “hobos.”
    In the course of his wanderings, Jack eventually found himself in Connecticut. He made his way to the address on the letter Bill had given him so many years before and found there a large New England home. Jack timidly walked up the steps and hesitated. He looked down at his torn, ragged clothes and dirty hands. He mustered the courage and knocked on the great oak door. When the door opened, there stood a dignified grey-haired gentleman and his wife. But before Jack could speak, the man said in sympathetic tones. “I’m sorry, young man. These are hard times, and we just can’t feed and clothe every hoe boy who knocks.” Dejected, Jack turned away, but then he remembered the letter. “I have a letter from Bill.”
    “You knew our son?” The woman asked.
    “My name is Jack; we were best friends.” With that, Jack handed the blood-stained envelope to the surprised couple. With tears welling up in their eyes, the couple read the last letter from their beloved son. When they recovered their composure, they pulled Jack into the house, saying, “Anything that was his is now yours.”
    What made the difference? The name of their beloved son opened the door. Jesus promises that when we come to the Father in His name, we will have the same reception. “Most assuredly, … whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. … Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full” (John 16:23, 24).
    However, always remember that “to pray in the name of Jesus is something more than a mere mention of that name at the beginning and the ending of a prayer. It is to pray in the mind and spirit of Jesus, while we believe His promises, rely upon His grace, and work His works.”
    Controversial Subject Matter
    The subject of God’s name remains one of the most confusing and disputed issues in Christianity. This is partly because God has many names in Scripture. But each name that God reveals serves as an important key in disclosing His power, holiness, and desired relationship with His people. His names provide a composite picture revealing different facets of His awesome character.”

    Whom do we say that He is?
    Truth answers beautifully.

    The Disciple of Trials C D Brooks
    The New Testament Sabbath C D Brooks
    The 6th Seal and the San Andreas Fault Ben Anathoth
    Final Events Part 1 Doug Batchelor
    Final Events part 2 Doug Batchelor
    The Witch of Endor Doug Batchelor
    KJV Bible Dramatized Audio- Luke, Matthew
    Proverbs, Psalms, Hebrews, Corinthians, Revelation…

  10. Everyone who lives(ed) on this earth, we can believe, God is aware of the
    approval they would give to know existence. Luke 1:41 “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit..” We can know we are in His reality; not robots, our free will is active; We are made in His image; we create and destroy,
    even with our words. So then, it is God who gives power to trust, free will to distrust, and even to love, which is not of ourselves. His patience worketh repentance. Romans 2:4(KJV)
    “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of god leadeth thee to repentance?”
    then much of the remaining questions, we know will be revealed, as we are able, by His grace to count the rest to faith; unless we think ourselves more righteous than God; or unless some who will not do the minimum, would like more required, as they have worked harder for far less, considering how much time God is given. We are not absent of thorough thought, considering that in all walks of life, even in (vital, not incidental, facets in Some Bibles newer than KJV, (of which truth we have sufficiency in, and no man can rob the faithful of, or has yet to match)…(see Walter Veith’s Battle of the Bibles)… that there are in all walks of life, infiltrations, pretenders, the insincere, the ignorant, and then there are the faithful. We trust. He reveals. Daily should there be prayerful thanks that Christ succeeded on the cross, for God forbid we should be so completely subject to man or satan, as to Him, the Omnipotent One, in Whom we trust, and Whom we love. When this life is over, farther along, everything that lives will trust and praise Him, and sin will never be in existence again.
    Phillipians 2:10-11 “10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under earth; 11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”
    commentary-“A Greek speaking person …technical… will call him “Yeasoo”. (a short study of greek proves that no Greek speaking person in the first century called him yeazeus. The last letter of his name in Greek (S in English) is silent and only points out the masculine form of his name. The Greek language to this day still does not have a spelling for the “sh” sound so it is easy to understand why it got dropped over time through transliteration…
    First there is no “sh” sound in Greek.
    The final sigma (V) or “s” on the end is part of the standard transliteration from other languages to Greek. Greek nouns and names almost always have case endings, so the sigma (V) or “s” is added at the end of the word to distinguish that the name is the masculine form, and also makes it declinable.
    What we end up with is the name Iesou(IhsouV), pronounced Ee-ay-soo or Yaysoo. The Greek Iesous then got transliterated into Latin as Iesu[s], and then into Old English as Jesus, but initially the J was at that time, still pronounced like the German J, which was pronounced with more of a ‘Y’ sound (think Jägermeister). This is the way that it still is spoken in Germany today. Over time, the J sound eventually began to harden into sounding more like the French J which is where the Modern English J originated from. The end result is the current English pronunciation of Jesus.”
    – cited Scripture:
    “Judges 12:5 The men of Gilead captured the places where people cross the Jordan River. Those places led to the country of Ephraim. Any time a survivor from Ephraim came to the river and said, “Let me cross,” the men of Gilead would ask him, “Are you from Ephraim?” If he said, “No,” 6 they would say, “Say the word ‘Shibboleth.’” The men of Ephraim could not say that word correctly. They pronounced the word “Sibboleth.” So if the man said, “Sibboleth,” then the men of Gilead knew he was from Ephraim. Matthew 5:6,7″

    – commentary:”I’ve caught a lot of fish through the years, but I’ve never caught a filet. ”
    “He instructs us to catch them. He will clean them.”
    Jesus said, “I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19)
    -“Should the gospel be excluded from even those who can’t say “Shibboleth”?
    -“And remember, God is the one who created the kaleidoscope of different languages at the tower of Babel (Genesis 11). -”

    “2Kings 6:10-22
    10 And the king of Israel sent to the place which the man of God told him and warned him of, and saved himself there, not once nor twice.
    11 Therefore the heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled for this thing; and he called his servants, and said unto them, Will ye not shew me which of us is for the king of Israel?
    12 And one of his servants said, None, my lord, O king: but Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber.
    13 And he said, Go and spy where he is, that I may send and fetch him. And it was told him, saying, Behold, he is in Dothan.
    14 Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about.
    15 And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?
    16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
    17 And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
    18 And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed unto the Lord, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha.
    19 And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city: follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom ye seek. But he led them to Samaria.
    20 And it came to pass, when they were come into Samaria, that Elisha said, Lord, open the eyes of these men, that they may see. And the Lord opened their eyes, and they saw; and, behold, they were in the midst of Samaria.
    21 And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them?
    22 And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them: wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master.”

    God would win battles such as when Jericho’s walls fell by the march and the trumpet, but according to their faith, He still made his people triumphant.

    -Much is wrong with individuals, not with our Savior and Lord.

    Matthew 11:4-6, 13-14, 18-19, 25-28
    “4 Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see:
    5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
    6 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me…13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come…18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. 19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children… 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Matthew 5:6,7 “6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.”

    “By faith…” Hebrews 11:8…

  11. Matthew 5:6,7,8 (KJV)
    “6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
    7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
    8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.”
    Hebrews 4:2-9,15-16 (KJV) King James Version
    “2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
    4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
    8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
    9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God…15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”
    Hebrews 8:1,2 “1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
    2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.”

    Total Onslaught:
    – interesting texts:

    Bible Translations:
    [–Quote from: Wally on December 29, 2007,01:29:52 PM —Have you seen “The Battle of the Bibles,” and “Changing the Word?” Both are part of Dr. Walter Veith’s Total Onslaught series. The give a very interesting perspective regarding the various translations of the Bible.
    — End quote —-

    Quote from: Wally on December 29, 2007, 01:29:52 PM —Most of them use the KJV now, not because I talked them into it, but because they have found it to be more reliable.
    – End quote — —
    Quote from: Dora on December 27, 2007, 08:22:47 PM
    —We just watched a video of Veith’s “Changing the Word,” and though I had heard and read some things about the changes, I was truly shocked when I watched his presentation. He had three people come up and compare texts from three versions. They read from the KJV first, then from the other two versions, the RSV and the NIV, the last two people would say, “That verse is just not here.” The only way one could grasp it all (or even most of it) would be to pause the DVD and write it all down.

    Yes, it was amazing!!

    — End quote –
    Yes, it is, Dora. Get this:

    Romans 8:1 KJV: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

    NKJV: There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

    NEB: The conclusion of the matter is this: there is no condemnation for those who are united with Christ Jesus.

    NIV: Therefore, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

    RSV: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

    “it does show how many who use other versions on this particular text could be taught “just believe on Jesus and be saved” as well as “saved in their sins” teaching. These are rampant among most churches…”

    The Veith DVD (thank you, Dora) on this subject is incredibly enlightening.

    He points out the systematic downplaying of Jesus’ divinity in most all modern translations; the atonement; Jesus’ High Priesthood and many other things relative to salvation – but primarily taking Jesus out of the spotlight of being Savior, Redeemer, in the flesh, High Priest and Advocate, Judge.

    James 5:16 – changes “faults to one another” to “sins to one another” Makes man a confessor to man

    Luke 9:55, 56 – left off majority of verses – Jesus not to destroy but to save•

    Rev 22:14 – “wash their robes” vs. “do His commandments”

    Hebrews 7:21 – “after the order of Melchisedec” is missing. Denying Jesus’ higher priesthood
    1844 & The Final Onslaught/Total Onslaught
    Inside God’s Temple- A Study of the Sanctuary- Doug Batchelor
    Why the Sabbath? Doug Batchelor

  12. The problem with your ideas is that a great many in history have indeed seen parallels between the Jesus of Catholicism and their pagan gods. (not the Jesus of the bible, but the Catholic one).

    This is what C.S.Lewis meant when he said that “Jesus is the fulfilment of mythology”! Then he went and began the process of joining the Roman Catholic Church!

    There certainly are parallels between Semiramis and the Catholic version of Mary. It really looks like you are ignoring the fact that the Catholic Mary and the Catholic Jesus are NOT the characters of the bible. They have been modified to fit the pagan myths!

    • Would you care to list the differences between the “Biblical Jesus” and “Catholic Jesus”? I’m honestly curious.

  13. I KNOW that Jesus Christ did not exist as an historical figure, but was the Inner Christ of the first Christians, the Gnostics. I have investigate this thoroughly. I do not have a shallow intellect – please do not be insulting. Just because loads of people think he existed, does not make this true.

    There were dying and resurrecting gods long before Christianity. What about Osiris, for example? Of course the stories are not exactly the same. Why would they be? And the Gods were by DEFINITION mythical, subjective, and on the Inner Planes of the mind.

    You need to do further research. Then prove your points properly. Start by reading “The Jesus Mysteries”. That proves my point.

    • Julia, fortunately there is a great deal of evidence the prove the contrary. To speak specifically to the historical Jesus, please watch this video and let me know your thoughts. https://youtu.be/4bLlpiWh9-k

      I will also look for the book you recommended and maybe we can speak more about both.

  14. I was raised Catholic. As a teen, I began to question the Church’s teachings, and discovered that what I had been told was “God’s Law” dated from Medieval econo-politics. When I got to college I tossed the baby out with the bathwater. I was able to construct elaborate arguments about how the Bible was wrong, Christianity a hoax, etc. It’s easy if you make certain assumptions, such as assuming that the Bible is wrong and Christianity is a hoax.

    I investigated a lot of different religions and worldviews to see what made sense. Judaism was really complicated. Way too many rules to follow. Islam was interesting (this was in the early 80s); there didn’t seem to be nearly as many hypocrites – these people really lived their faith. But the more I learned about how Mohammed got the ball rolling, the shadier the whole deal sounded. Mormonism? Science fiction. Hinduism? Your basic Animism, not too different from Native American beliefs, dressed up with a couple of thousand years of post-stone-age civilization, literacy, and culture.

    I even tried being atheist for a couple of weeks. I didn’t have enough faith. I mean, how likely is it that there can possibly exist no thing, no state of being, that our puny, fragile, finite, fallible electrochemical-jelly brains can’t wrap themselves around? So I figured SOME belief system had to be True. And if there was indeed Truth “out there” I wanted to know what it was.

    Still, I scoffed at Christianity. Dead guy coming back to life? Pull the other one. But still…. Just to keep an open mind…. suppose that the God of the Old Testament really did exist? Fat chance, but… You have to admit that a God who spoke the Universe into existence would also be able to bring a dead guy back to life, especially if it was to prove a point. Besides, this was low-hanging fruit for the process of elimination.

    Now, I’ve always loved stories, and I’m a storyteller as well as an amateur historian. So I figured, what’s the central pillar of Christianity – the one that if I can pull it down, the whole tent collapses? That has to be the story of the Resurrection.

    That’s when it hit me – Christianity is the only major religion that’s founded on an historical claim rather than some guy’s ideas. Hm.

    But on to the origin of the story. I did a lot of thinking, and a lot of research. I came to the conclusion that there were five possible ways the story got started.

    1. Hogwash – the whole thing was made up. Fiction.
    2. Hallucination – the disciples only *thought* they saw Jesus.
    3. Hoax – the disciples conspired to concoct the tale and spread it
    4. Healing – Jesus revived in the coolness of the tomb. He was only “mostly dead” when they brought him down
    5. History – it really happened. The least likely explanation, I thought, but let’s keep an open mind, right? That way when I debunk the tale I can state that I was being intellectually honest.

    The more I learned, the more those alternative explanations withered and died.
    1. If the Gospels are fiction, they’re worse than most science fiction / fantasy fan-fic. The climax of the story – the moment of resurrection itself – and there are no witnesses other than a couple of dazed and confused Roman guards, who don’t even get any dialog. And the first person to actually see the Risen Jesus is a woman with a questionable background. She would not have been allowed to testify in court!

    2. There are well-documented cases of group hysterical hallucination. But they don’t fit the scene of those disciples huddling, fearful back in that upper room. No pounding music or drums, no expectations of a miracle. They were fearing for their lives. And remember, right to the last they didn’t understand when Jesus told them that he would die and rise again on the third day.

    3. The greatest conspiracy of all time. Perpetrated by a guy whose nickname was “Blockhead,” who had a serious problem with impulse control and follow-through. And EVERYONE bought it, and stuck with the story through persecution, torture, and execution? It’s easier to believe that a dead guy came back to life.

    4. This theory is DOA. Jesus was professionally executed by professional soldiers, who got handed death-watch duty on a regular basis. Put yourself in that centurion’s dusty sandals. You’re in the armpit of the Empire (could be worse – could be Britain), and you’ve got this crap job once more. The guy in the middle gives up pretty quickly – most victims take days to die – and the word comes to make sure he’s dead.
    Now, you *could* pick up that big mallet and break his shins – that’s what you’re going to do to the other two before sundown anyway. But you can tell a dead body when you see one. So just to make sure, you take your razor-sharp leaf-bladed spear and slip it between the ribs just SO. Blood and what looks like water comes out. (The “water” is likely serum fluid that collects in the pericardium under extreme trauma.) Now, there is NO theological significance to that. But it’s an eyewitness detail that confirms that the heart was pierced. A Level One trauma team wouldn’t have been able to save him.

    5. A.C. Doyle put these words in Sherlock’s mouth: “When all other avenues have been exhausted, what remains, no matter how unlikely, but be the truth.”

    • The Jesus mysteries never proves anything,the shroud of Turin is the burial cloth and proves his existence scientifically and cannot be disproven!

    • @BrendantheBard,

      I found your personal story fascinating. You made an excellent case for the resurrection as well. I am curious as to whether Christianity was a choice you returned to. It seems easy to speculate that you did.

      • For Jews a day ended at the sunset.
        Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon.
        The first day ended at friday evening,the second day started at friday evening and ended at saturday evening,the third day started at saturday evening and ended at sunday evening, Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday.
        So he rosed on the 3rd day.

    • Right, you stick to the story to persecution of crucifixion, boiling oil, torture. And mass hallucination??? Yes this just happens all the time. Reject it if you will on basis of ignorance, you know the consequences, you have been taught.

  15. Zeitgeist is poorly supported by the evidence, although it does make many valid criticisms of monotheism. Maher’s film is “Religulous”, not “Irreligious”.…and “The Da Vinci Code” is a work of fiction.

    The rest of this article is so poorly written and unsupported by evidence that I’d wager Dr Ehrman would pass it back to you for a rewrite.

    And for the record, I accept what scholarship opines about the existence of an itinerant deluded preacher like Yeshua of Nazareth, although there are significant questions about the evidence.

    Your problem is that you can’t support your claims of his divinity, which scholarship rejects whole cloth.

  16. I have a difficult time with you referring to the Holy Land as “First Century Palestine”. During the time of Jesus, there was no such place as “Palestine”. That name was given to the region in AD 135 by Emperor Hadrian.

  17. I have a hard time with you referring to the Holy Land as “First Century Palestine”. No such place existed in the first century. The region’s name was changed by Emperor Hadrian in AD 135.

  18. Ladies and gentlemen,
    If Jesus truly existed, then the Romans would have to have made an example of him; a political prisoner, not some common rabble (oh right, he was supposedly a carpenter).

    Aside from ONE text, Jesus would have been a popular man and he would be written about often; yet only one text mentions him. If anything, if you read the gospels carefully, he sounds more like a hippie from Woodstock in the 1970s.

    Besides, the “mythicists” have said that there are strange parallels to Jesus. They would say it would be possible that Jesus would have been a made up out of conglomerate myths. After all, the “commandments and laws” in the Old Testament have strong connections to the law codes of Babylonia and Sumeria.

    In summary, I leave some text from one of the most hilarious religious jokes ever said about Jesus.

    “Of course, Jesus was Jewish. Thirty years old, living at home with his parents, come on. Working in his father’s business, his mother thought he was God’s gift; he’s Jewish, give it up!”
    — Robin Williams “Live on Broadway”

    • They DID make an example of him. It really doesn’t get much harsher than a public execution.

      Jesus was a popular man among the Jews, who were a marginal group in the Roman Empire. Most of that group was illiterate, except for the Jewish religious scholars, among whom Jesus was NOT popular.

      The fact that we have have four gospels – which are SEPARATE texts, only later put together in an anthology of texts that is known as ‘the Bible’ (which literally means ‘the books’ in Latin, check for yourself) – another text known as Gospel of Thomas, as well as three mentions by Roman historians (Tacitus, Suetonius and Pilny the Younger) and one mention from a Jewish historian (Josephus) as well as seven letters from a ‘disciple’ to several different communities of followers, all written mere 20 years after Jesus’ death is actually quite astounding.

      Much more than you should expect, considering the circumstances. Many unquestionably historical figures of that time are only known by ONE source. Check up how many people wrote about Socrates, besides Plato.

      As for the “strange parallels”, here’s the academic stance on that:


      I personally think that Johnatan Z. Smith (check hm on wikipedia) is a better authority on this topic than Robin Williams.

  19. […] 23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Religions by James Bishop “It is in recent times that a great number of people are claiming that Jesus is simply a rehash of older pagan secretive religions, and of the religions of dying and rising gods. We see this masqueraded as truth in films such as Zeitgeist, The Da Vinci Code and Irreligious which, to the layperson, seem to be factual and convincing. But how factually based are these claims? Surely anyone can misconstrue evidence to suit their presuppositional biases, especially if they don’t want to believe something. The first step for anyone really seeking to understand these allegations would be to consult the scholars in the relevant and necessary fields of expertise. What do they have to say? Is such an issue even on the table of debate nowadays? If so, or if not, then why?” […]

  20. Regarding jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure: Yes. historical methodology is always based on probability in light of existing historical sources as well as principles such as: multiple independent attestation — whether multiple historical sources and witnesses (which are not dependent on one another but independent) attest to an event or person. This can be said about Jesus of Nazareth (though there are some who deny the criterion of “independent’ attestation). More than such historical methods, however, there are literary criteria, also, indicating historicity. Take clear examples, where something is entirely fictional (made up), whether that be an ideology or a character. Consider forgeries. How do you know they are forgeries? usually there are signs. Then ask about our sources re: Jesus of Nazareth. Are such signs of forgery present? Or other thorough-going fictionalizing features? Answer: NO, there are signs of historicity all over the place. It would be way more improbable that all of it could be made up than the contrary.

  21. Thank you for writing this article. There is a need for this information. I read it often. You are extremely intelligent.

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s