Rescuing the Bible from Literalism

As you can probably tell, saving Christianity and Christ Consciousness from religion is very important to me. Sometimes it feels like it was my mission before being born. Maybe I was burned as a heretic in a past life…

04

By RICHARD SMOLEY

“The world,” wrote the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, “is the totality of facts, not of things.” So it is, but facts take many forms. The hard-edged events of ordinary reality are only one form, and not always the most important.

This insight can be hard to accept in the positivist world of mainstream Western thought. In these terms, either an event took place or it did not. Truth and falsehood are judged by this criterion alone. And yet such a stance has only a limited value. It is indispensable in history and journalism and perhaps in science (although the anomalous discoveries of twentieth-century physics have blurred the picture somewhat). But in the spiritual dimension, even though there are facts here as well, they are not of this kind. To overlook this truth is to mistake one reality for another.

Conventional Christianity has often made this mistake. Practically from the start, it has presented its case in literalistic terms: the Bible is true; moreover it is literally true. Its facts must be historical facts, and its record of the past must be a true one. At first these claims fostered Christianity’s rapid success in the ancient world. By the early centuries of the Common Era, Greco-Roman civilisation could no longer take its own myths seriously, so it was persuaded to adopt the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians on the grounds that these presented not only sacred truths but an accurate record of the past.

Since the Enlightenment, such claims have been more of an embarrassment than an advertisement for the faith. Over the last 250 years, scholars in many fields have taken Christianity at its word and investigated in great depth just how much the Bible jibes with science and history. The findings have not exactly vindicated the Good Book. Indeed the trend over time has been to call more and more of the Bible into question as a historical record.

From a scientific point of view, the tide began to turn in the early nineteenth century. In 1830–32, the British scientist Charles Lyell published his classic Principles of Geology, arguing that geological changes that are recorded in rocks could not possibly have taken place in the mere 6,000 years that Genesis assigned to the earth’s lifetime, but had occurred over a much longer period. A generation later, another, even more famous scientist, Charles Darwin, suggested that animal species had not been created by the Almighty on a single day of creation in 4004 BCE, but had evolved over much longer periods by what he called “natural selection.” (In fact, when Darwin had finished his magnum opus, The Origin of Species, he sent it to Lyell for comments.)

Historicity of the Bible Questioned

In recent decades, archaeology has cast doubt even on parts of the Bible that had seemed more or less factual, such as the history of Israel in the Old Testament. To take one example, a generation ago most scholars accepted the historicity of the Exodus from Egypt, believing at least that some migration of this kind happened, even if the narrative had to be stripped of its miraculous festoonings. Since then, the picture has changed considerably. Summarising recent findings in their 2001 book The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman contend that the Exodus did not happen in any form that is recognisable from the archaeological record. The first mention of Israel in any known inscription, they note, dates from the reign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah in 1207 BCE. While this is around the time traditionally assigned to the Exodus, the inscription speaks not of a flight of Israelites (or even an expulsion), but of Merneptah’s successful incursion into Canaan, where Israel is reckoned among the peoples subdued. In any case, the Israelites could not have escaped to Canaan out of the hands of the Egyptians, because Canaan was part of Egyptian territory at the time; Merneptah’s invasion would have been to quiet a troublesome province.

Instead, Finkelstein and Silberman suggest that the biblical account of the Exodus is a composite of folk memories of the Hyksos – a Semitic people who ruled Egypt from c.1670 to c.1570 BCE before being expelled by the Egyptians. The Exodus story as we know it was framed in the seventh century BCE, when the national ideology of Jerusalem and the nation of Judah was beginning to crystallise – and Egypt was a powerful and aggressive neighbour.

Other scholars have come up with equally revolutionary insights. In her work The Great Angel, the British biblical scholar Margaret Barker points out that originally the Israelites worshipped a female goddess, known as Asherah (or sometimes as Hokhmah or “Wisdom”), as the consort of Yahweh, alongside El, the Most High God, and Yahweh himself, who was essentially a national deity allocated to Israel alone. Barker suggests that the famous Deuteronomic reform under the Judahite King Josiah – in which Josiah purges the Temple of these other gods and restores the worship of Yahweh alone (2 Kings 22-23) – was not a reform but an innovation, a purge of time-honoured traditions in an attempt to create a “Yahweh-alone movement.” This movement eventually took over Judaism after the Babylonian Exile and imposed its own agenda on the past.

One could make similar points about much of the rest of the Bible. The “quest of the historical Jesus,” as Albert Schweitzer so famously dubbed it, has gone on for over two centuries now without any really conclusive results. Most scholars are convinced that there is some admixture of myth and legend in the life of Christ as portrayed in the New Testament, but they differ enormously about just what was legend and what was not. The panel of liberal New Testament scholars known as the Jesus Seminar has won some notoriety for contending that Jesus neither said nor did most of the things attributed to him in the Gospels. As shocking as some may find this claim, it is hardly new: an array of German New Testament scholars reached much the same conclusions in the nineteenth century. A still more radical view holds that Jesus never existed at all: his story was merely a Jewish equivalent of the numerous death-and-resurrection myths circulating in the ancient world. Since there is no archaeological evidence for Christ’s life, and the textual evidence is elusive (none of the Gospels, canonical or apocryphal, even claims to be an eyewitness account), this position, as extreme as it is, is hard to definitively refute.

Biblical Stories as Allegory, Not History

What, then, are we to do with the Bible as history? Some will no doubt cling to it. The literary critic Harold Bloom has noted that in evangelical Christianity, the “limp leather Bible,” waved at the audience by the preacher, has itself become a totem. But others are unlikely to find refuge in a simplistic bibliolatry. They may be drawn to another approach – one that is equally ancient, and possibly more profound. It is that the Bible is not, and never was, meant to be taken literally, but has deeper meanings that are to be unearthed by those are capable of doing so.

This idea goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity and has always existed side by side with narrow literalism. Ironically, it was a major impetus for the creation of Christianity as a separate religion from Judaism. The nascent Christian movement often had to allegorise the Hebrew Scriptures to make use of them for its own purposes. The Apostle Paul writes about one biblical passage:

It is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all (Gal. 4:22–26).

Paul is saying that the real meaning of the story of Abraham and his two sons lies in the relationship of the Jews and the Christians. Ishmael, the older son, born to Hagar (or Agar), “the bondwoman,” is the Jews, who are in “bondage” to the Law of Moses. Isaac, the younger, born to Sarah, the “freewoman,” represents the Christians, who are freed from having to follow the Law. The story is an “allegory.”

The first authority to use the word “allegory” in this sense (the Greek is allegoria) – and the first to expound the Hebrew Bible in this way – was a philosopher who lived at the same time as both Jesus and Paul: Philo of Alexandria (c.20 BCE–c.50 CE). Although there is no reference to Jesus or Paul in his works or to Philo in the New Testament, it would be hard to overstate Philo’s influence on Christianity. To take one example, it was he who first used the Greek word logos (often translated as “word”) to mean the creative, structuring element in consciousness and to contend that this principle had engendered the world. Philo’s view was prevalent in the Judaism of the first century CE, in which the logos was often seen as a kind of deuteros theos or “second god.” The Christians appropriated this theology, especially in the Gospel of John, whose prologue “In the beginning was the Word” etc. is almost a programmatic statement of Philo’s thought. Philo, of course, never equated this logos with Jesus, as the Christians did, and once the Christian view had spread throughout the ancient world, the Jews dropped the concept of the logos entirely.

In any event, Philo viewed the Hebrew Bible through the lens of allegory. Here is Philo on Genesis:

“And on the sixth day God finished his work which he made.” It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed all in time…. But… it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time, but that time had its existence as a consequence of the world….. When, therefore, Moses says, “God completed his works on the sixth day,” we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number.

Philo goes on to explain what he means by a perfect number. Obviously this is a far richer and more sophisticated understanding of a sacred text than the simplistic idea that the world was made in six literal days.

The Christian theologian who is most indebted to Philo was the third-century Church Father Origen. Origen went further than Philo, however, in being much more eager to discard the literal truth of passages that seemed contrary to reason. Here is Origen on Genesis:

Who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, “planted a paradise eastward in Eden,” and set in it a visible and palpable “tree of life,” of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life: and again that one could partake of “good and evil” by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And when God is said to “walk in the paradise in the cool of the day” and Adam to hide himself behind a tree, I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events.

Origen does not spare the Gospels or the writings of the Apostles, “for,” he writes, “the history even of these is not everywhere pure, events being woven together in the bodily sense without having actually happened; nor do the law and the commandments contained therein entirely declare what is reasonable.”

Such an attitude seems strikingly modern – and yet these are the words of a third-century Church Father. Origen spoke of three levels of meaning to Scripture (body, soul, and spirit, in accordance with the tripartite division of human nature accepted by early Christianity). This view would be tremendously influential. The scholar Beryl Smalley has written that “to write a history of Origenist influence on the West would be tantamount to writing a history of Western [biblical] exegesis.”

By the Middle Ages, Origen’s three levels of meaning for Scripture would be expanded to four. They were called the literal, allegorical, moral, and “anagogical” or mystical senses. Dante, writing in the early fourteenth century, refers to them in his Letter to Can Grande, where he says of the Exodus:

If we look at it from the letter alone it means to us the exit of the Children of Israel from Egypt at the time of Moses; if from allegory, it means for us our redemption done by Christ; if from the moral sense, it means to us the conversion of the soul from the struggle and misery of sin to the status of grace; if from the anagogical, it means the leavetaking of the blessed soul from the slavery of this corruption to the freedom of eternal glory. And though these mystical senses are called by various names, in general all can be called allegorical, because they are different from the literal or the historical.

Origen, who is evasive about actually setting out the hidden meaning of Scripture (“it was the method of the Holy Spirit rather to conceal these truths and to hide them deeply,” he writes), makes reference to Egypt as well. He speaks of “the descent of the holy fathers into Egypt, that is, into this world.” For Origen as for Dante, then, the Exodus ultimately presents an allegory of spiritual liberation.

Origen died around 253 CE, crippled by torture during the persecution of the Christians by the Roman Emperor Decius. Since then, Origen has had an ambiguous destiny in the mainstream church. Revered in his own day, in later centuries he fell into disrepute among the orthodox. This happened for a number of reasons, but it was largely because his views on the relationship between the Father and the Son did not jibe with the doctrine of the Trinity as it would evolve in the fourth and fifth centuries. Furthermore, later theologians did not feel entirely comfortable with Origen’s assertion that much of Scripture was not meant to be taken as literally true. Although the churchmen were generally content to accept his idea that there were other meanings in addition to the literal one, they did not like to think the literal sense was wrong or even (as we’ve seen Origen say about the myth of Eden) ridiculous.

Protestantism and Literalism

If the Catholic and Orthodox churches were always comfortable with a symbolic meaning to the Bible, where did today’s excruciating biblical literalism come from? Partly from Protestantism. Catholicism and Orthodoxy always regarded the Bible as an authority, but never as the authority: the teachings and practices of the Church itself were held to be of at least equal weight. The Catholic Church always insisted that the Bible could be easily misunderstood by those who lacked the proper training; this was why the Church discouraged Bible reading by laypeople until comparatively recently.

By the early modern era, however, the Catholic Church had become so corrupt that some Christian leaders (and many of the ordinary faithful) realised that the church was keeping an exclusive monopoly on spiritual power largely to suit its own worldly ends. In breaking with the church, these leaders – the Protestant Reformers – decided to return to the Bible as the only proper authority: sola scriptura, “Scripture only,” as the formula had it.

This in itself might not have been so problematic, but the Protestantism that reached the American frontier in the nineteenth century was dominated by men who had little education and little idea of any other literature than the Bible. Such people have always existed: Thomas Aquinas, the medieval Catholic theologian, was alluding to them when he said, “Timeo hominem unius libri”: “I fear a man of one book.” In the United States, and, I suspect, in much of the rest of the English-speaking world, evangelical Christianity has become co-opted by these “men of one book.” Today in many parts of the US, it is possible to go into people’s houses and see no other book than the Bible. It is this element in Christianity that has made its presence felt in the rise of fundamentalism.

As a result, the Bible’s inner meaning has increasingly become the province of esotericism. Regarding the story of Christ, in her book Esoteric Christianity the Theosophist Annie Besant speaks of “the Christ of the human Spirit, the Christ who is in every one of us, is born and lives, is crucified, rises from the dead, and ascends into heaven, in every suffering and triumphant ‘Son of Man.’” The story of Christ is thus the story of each of us; the Incarnation symbolises our own descent into the world of materiality, where we pass across the stage for a short while before being crucified on the cross of time and space. But this suffering and death is only transitory or even illusory, since the Logos – the principle of consciousness – in ourselves cannot die. It will be resurrected again in other forms, recognisable or otherwise. (In the Gospels the risen Christ is sometimes recognised by his disciples, sometimes not.)

Some may find themselves impatient with these ideas, insisting that they are nothing more than a way of skirting the issue of historical factuality that must supposedly serve as the bedrock of faith. But what, might one ask, is being dismissed as mere allegory? Viewed in the way sketched out above, the stories of the Exodus and the passion of Christ are not mere edifying tales of the past. Nor are they creeds for blind belief or flags around which to rally the faithful. Rather they are deep expressions of what is going on inside us now. To know from inner experience what it is to be spiritually in “the land of Egypt, the house of bondage,” to see the Logos in ourselves crucified on the cross of time and space, is not evasion but among the most profound insights a human being can have.

I would even take the argument a step further. An allegorical reading of the Bible can actually be more demanding than merely dwelling on the meaning of the letter. Acknowledging “Pharaoh,” “Moses,” the “scribes and Pharisees,” even Christ as parts of ourselves can be unsettling. Few are eager to come to grips with their inner tyrants and hypocrites, and there are possibly even fewer who can bear to see their own higher natures. After all, to know that Moses the lawgiver exists in oneself is already a step out of the house of bondage. To see the Christ within is already to experience a resurrection. Such realisations confer a responsibility upon us that we are not always delighted to face.

As a result, it is often easier to keep these things at the safe remove of antiquity – to follow the disputes about who was the Pharaoh of Exodus; to pore over accounts of recent excavations in Biblical Archaeology Review; to thrill over the latest news feature that breathlessly proffers some allegedly new fact about the historical Jesus. In such a way we can keep these issues alive, but at a comfortable distance: they remain ineluctably “other,” about people who lived long ago. I suspect that this dynamic helps explain the unshakable thirst for biblical archaeology among the American public.

All this said, there is admittedly a problem with leaning too heavily on allegorical readings of Scripture. To be no longer able to take one’s own myths literally – even while accepting them in a figurative sense – does strip them of their power. This is due to the limits of our own understanding; we as a civilisation seem unable to hear the message “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believed” (John 20:29). This is not a call to blind, stupid faith; it is an appeal to recognise realities that do not present themselves to our physical eyes and hands – the “evidence of things unseen.” But, trusting as we do in the Gradgrindian world of cold, hard facts, we put more trust in texts than in our own inner experience. We discover that the texts are not telling the exact truth about history, and we lose our faith.

Despite the noise (much of it overstated) about rising fundamentalism in the Western world, this loss of faith is likely to accelerate. What will happen when the news sinks in and we collectively understand that much, perhaps most, of the Bible is not literally true? We may continue to see their beauty and power as myths, just as we do with the tales of the Olympian gods, but they will have lost their numinous force for us. We will see the old gods mocked and derided, as they were in antiquity in the satyr plays of the classical Athenian stage and the satires of Lucian, and as we see today in films like Dogma and Jesus Christ Superstar.

In such instances, new myths, new versions of eternal truths arise. What these will be in the future remains to be seen; it is hard to imagine that they will come from any religion now existing. Of the models of reality now available, it is above all the one provided by science that has most captured the imagination of the thinking public. Like Christianity in ancient times, it seems to offer truth in place of myth, actualities in place of legend. And then we are left with a question that, I suspect, will not be answered in the lifetime of anyone reading these pages now: what will happen when the facts of science, implacably hard and substantial as they now seem, are proved to be myths in turn?

If you appreciated this article, please consider a digital subscription to New Dawn.

Bibliography

Dante Alighieri, Letter to Can Grande della Scala, Translated by James Marchand, http://medieval.ucdavis.edu/20B/Can.Grande.html

Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God, Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1992.

Annie Besant, Esoteric Christianity, or the Lesser Mysteries, Reprint, Wheaton, Ill.: Quest, 2006.

Harold Bloom, The American Religion, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, New York: Touchstone, 2001.

Susan A. Handelman, The Slayers of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in Modern Literary Theory, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982.

Origen, On First Principles, Translated by G.W. Butterworth, Reprint, New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

Philo, The Works of Philo, Translated by C.D. Yonge, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993.

Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, Translated by W. Montgomery, Reprint, New York: Macmillan, 1961.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Translated by D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuinness, 2nd edition, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.

.

RICHARD SMOLEY is author of Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition; Hidden Wisdom: A Guide to the Western Inner Traditions (with Jay Kinney); and The Essential Nostradamus. His latest book is Conscious Love: Insights from Mystical Christianity. He is editor of Quest Books and is executive editor of Quest magazine. His web site is www.innerchristianity.com.

The above article appeared in New Dawn No. 110 (September-October 2008).

© Copyright New Dawn Magazine, http://www.newdawnmagazine.com. Permission granted to freely distribute this article for non-commercial purposes if unedited and copied in full, including this notice.

© Copyright New Dawn Magazine, http://www.newdawnmagazine.com. Permission to re-send, post and place on web sites for non-commercial purposes, and if shown only in its entirety with no changes or additions. This notice must accompany all re-posting.

Advertisements

Christ Myth

what-if-jesus-was-fake-and-god-is-real-thumb

I found the following in my notes. I cannot source any of it, I just found it and decided to put it on my blog. I encourage open minded investigation into the well proven and sensible fact that Jesus never existed as anything more than a religious mythical idea, an energy if you will,  but not a person in history. It’s very important to realize this fact in order to grow spiritually. The “Jesus As History” has become a religion unto itself, it is a doctrine of men, and not very good men at that. Myth doesn’t mean lie. It is a way of teaching something that is other wise beyond words. It’s Jewish Midrash and like all religions is based on Astrotheology (The Holy Science of ‘As Above, So Below’). The fact is that Rome actually did take the writings and artifacts from the earlier Jewish Gnostic Christian sect in 325CE and had a new story written and the original stories destroyed. It was a clever political move, however it’s very cleverness depended on the stupidity of the masses. Then as now, the stupidity of the masses is solid and reliable. Ignorant people are easy to control. It was a Roman legal maxim that read: “Let he who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.” My love of the bible and the mystical teachings of Christianity (and other religions) is not in question. I am not an Atheist. I am a Free-Thinker, a Mythicist, and a modern Gnostic. I see symbolism and allegory everywhere, and the biblical allegories and symbolism is amazing if read with the spiritual eye, which resides in the right side of the brain. ”Cast your net to the right side and catch more fish.” Part the Red Sea and enter the right brain. Meditate and activate the Single Eye, the Pineal gland and release the Christified Light from the kingdom of heaven. Where is this kingdom? ”The kingdom of heaven is within you.” Myth teaches spiritual truths, history is a whole other subject.

The idea that Jesus may not have existed is still very controversial. It is difficult to raise the subject and present argument and evidence because frankly, few people are willing to listen. ・Everybody has always believed in the historical Jesus・ or ・No serious scholars doubt that Jesus really lived・ or ・how can so many people be wrong?・ are usual responses.

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

The Christ Myth theory is considered groundless speculation because there is no physical evidence that Jesus Christ did not exist. This is like arguing that, because there is no physical evidence that a giant purple monster is not standing on my head, I cannot prove that there is not one there. It is based on a logical rule that you can’t prove a negative, or can’t prove something that wasn’t there.

The flip-side of this criticism, however, is usually that there is evidence for a historical Jesus. This is nonsense. If there were such evidence, there would be no controversy – it would be ridiculous to claim that Jesus Christ was a myth if there were irrefutable evidence that he actually existed. In actuality, there is no evidence for Jesus whatsoever that is not hotly contested, which only shows that both theories are equally based on groundless speculation; the Christ Myth theory, however, is able to explain and answer a great many questions and historical factors which proponents of the historical Jesus are forced to ignore.

2. The Christ Myth is just a “proof from silence”.

A common attack on Christ Myth theory is that it often starts from a “proof from silence” argument. Many Christ Mythers try to show that there are few historical references to Jesus, and insinuate that,had Jesus existed, there would have been more. Critics argue that silence alone proves nothing; there were no TV or news casters in those days, and anyway, Jesus “flew under the radar” by staying mostlyin the countryside. While I agree that the lack of historical references cannot prove anything about Jesus, I feel that critics miss the overall significance of this point. If there were any solid historical references to Jesus, then the Christ Myth theory is obviously untenable.While Christians have been, for at least 1,000 years, adamantly affirming the historical reliability of a few selected texts which they claim verify the historical Jesus, a Christ Myther, as well as any historianor secular scholar, (even those who believe that Jesus was historical,) can point out that these same historical documents are not reliable; their authorship and genuineness are continuing subjects of debate. Therefore, to even begin a Christ Myth hypothesis, it is highly relevant to show that the assumption of Jesus’ ministry being the “mostheavily documented event in the history of the world” is blatantly false. Only after we have cleared away the assumptions surrounding the historical Jesus can we begin to look for the Mythical Jesus.

3. Christ-Mythers are not scholars.

There have been only a small handful of marginally academic writers who have published on the Christ Myth theory, and critics point out that they are “out of their field.” They don’t have Ph.D’s inrelevant studies, they may not be trained in the rigorous investigation, clear logic and referencing that is now demanded in intellectual circles, and they may allow their passion for the subject to a) quote from sources they haven’t personally checked or b) make comparisons and assumptions that can’t beproved empirically. They may even (heaven forbid!) self-publish, or publish with an ill-reputed publishing company.

I’ll admit, as a “Christ Myther,” or someone who doesn’t believe in the historical Jesus, I can be accused of all the same flaws. I’m inexperienced, and sometimes don’t care enough to back up every statement with irrefutable evidence, because I have seen that there is no evidence that is irrefutable – whoever does not agree with your conclusions will begin by questioning your research methods, and after that, attacking your character.

In an attempt to tear apart the Christ Myth theory some critics will demonstrate that all of its proponents are uneducated attention seekers – and yet, the largest claims of the Christ Myth theory opens windows into Christian tradition which refuse to be shut again. In the proverbial “finger at the moon” story, a Zen master points at the moon and says “don’t focus on the finger – look at what I’m pointing to.”  Criticism based on undermining professional experience simply cuts off the finger, hoping that without it, the moon will disappear. As more and more people become familiar with the Christ Myth theory, and recognize in it some questions that cannot be swept away by criticizing the author’s biography, there may eventually be too many people looking at the moon to cut off all the fingers.

4. No “real” scholars agree with the Christ Myth.

I find this unfortunate, but can guess several reasons why traditional scholars have not yet supported the Christ Myth theory. First of all, the tendency of the academia is to focus on and study the specific, not the general. They may begin with a B.A. in Philosophy, then an M.A. in Religious Literature, and finally get a Ph.D. in “The Influence of Paul’s Theology on the Writing of Mark’s Gospel.” They may be the experts of the details, but the Christ Myth theory is really about the big picture – comparing and making relationships between many historical and literary documents, from many cultures and time periods, and analyzing their similarities and possible influences.

For example, a scholar might find the remains of a Roman crucifixion, analyze the wood and the nails,and determine with certainty exactly how the punishment was inflicted; these could be interpreted by other researchers as applicable to the death of Jesus Christ. The Christ Myther, on the other hand, will search into mythology and religious traditions to find stories that echo the biblical description of Christ’s passion, and then, finding an underlying spiritual theme, try to interpret the story as a metaphor and release its original meaning.  It is unfair to compare a historian with a Christ Myther because they aren’t really in the same field; Christ Mythers are primarily concerned with textual analysis and literary criticism. When placed in the field of “World Literature” or “Sociology”, their methods no longer stand out as being unempirical.

Further, it is ridiculous to dismiss the Christ Myth theory by trying to separate it from the Academic Community, because almost all scholars do agree that nearly everything in the gospels and in Christian tradition came from Pagan tradition. All professors of Religion or Theology recognize that Christianity developed out of previous traditions and that many of its ideas and symbols are not new.

Most scholars also agree that when we cut out all of the Pagan influences, there is virtually nothing left to be said about the historical Jesus. The only difference between Christ Mythers and the average scholar is that, faced with a complete lack of evidence concerning the historical Jesus, scholars engage in sorting through the wreckage, dusting off the pieces, and trying to imagine what the historical Jesus would have been like. If he was a carpenter, what would his shop have been like? If he was married, what would his relationship have been like?

In short, taking the Biblical testimony as a starting ground, they form a hypothesis and then try and support it through historical research. Allowing that their foundation is nothing more than the assumed historical Christ, is the Christ Myther any less credible? Lastly, I want to point out that the academia is not necessarily the best birthing ground for Truth. Being a researcher or a professor at a University is a public career, and depends on both innovative research and peer review. Backing a controversial theory is not a good idea for most scholars, who are concerned with career, status and nice things, just like everyone else.

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

I find it amazing that Christians can discredit Christ Mythers as fanatics, whose theories are absolutely without basis, because they see similarities between Jesus and other miraculous, dying and resurrecting sons of god. Even if we ignore every modern attempt to compare Jesus with other traditions, it is more than enough to provide just one quote from Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist who acknowledged the similarities between Jesus and Pagan gods around 1800 years ago.

“When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter(Zeus).” Justin Martyr, First Apology

If, as Justin testifies, Christianity’s central articles of faith (crucifixion, resurrection, ascension) areidentical to Pagan mythology, is it any wonder Christ Mythers seek out more similarities, or questionwhere these similarities came from? And while it is the overwhelming conclusion of modern scholars that Jesus was a historical person, there is plenty of evidence, especially from the first several centuries BC, that there has always been a debate over the historical Jesus. There were many heresies, decades after the alleged death of Jesus, that claimed Jesus had been born in appearanceonly, and was never an actual human being. Why should we believe the tradition of our Christian heritage, rather than investigating the claims of those other communities? Is it irrational, or crazy, to try to understand history from another point of view? Everyone knows that history is written by the winners; is there any reason to assume that in this case alone, the history written was absolutely free from prejudice?

The Christ Myth theory is not a modern idea; it is a revival of a very ancient and very common criticism of Christianity: that Jesus did and said some things that other, earlier, Pagan god-men didand said. Critics try to knock down these similarities by either questioning the source, or calling them “coincidences” by playing up their differences. While Jesus was born of a Virgin, some other savior was born “without sexual union”.  While Jesus was crucified on a cross, some other savior was nailed to a tree, or a rock, or a T-shaped bar, or somewhere in the skies. The problem with focusing on the differences rather than the similarities is that, while it may work in one or two isolated cases, it cannot be applied to absolutely every proposed similarity without weakening in effect. And it also doesn’t work on more specific cases; like Jesus was called “son of God”, as were others, or born on December25th, as were others.

In response to these claims, critics will say that many of the so-called similarities really were added onto the story of Jesus by Pagan influences, but that these don’t change the core Christian message. Firstoff, if you agree that Christianity absorbed some of its symbols from mythological traditions, then you are a Christ Myther. Relegating our position to a simple “Jesus did not exist” is too easy:  what we intend to show is that the person worshiped by Christians, along with all of his miraculous titles and abilities, is indebted to earlier traditions. It is meaningless to argue that Jesus was a historical person, but that motifs like his birth date, the virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection, his role as son of god and savior were added into the tradition (and into the Bible!) by Pagans, and also that Jesus is still the Way, Truth and Life. What good is using this argument against Christ Mythers, and ending up with a human Jesus with no divine attributes?

Critics will also argue that mythology may have prefigured Jesus in some way, but the things said about those Pagan gods were just stories, while Jesus was a real, physical human being. This doesn’t answer why there should be any similarities at all. The only argument ever used to explain the similarities between Jesus and early Pagan saviors, which is continued by Christians in many ways today,  is called “Diabolical Mimicry”. This argument can only be accepted through a faith-based Christian paradigm that believes in a struggle between God and Satan, and for a non-Christian, it doesn’t go far explain how a historical person mistakenly acted out the precise details of hundreds of diverse cultural mythologies.

6.) Christ mythers have an agenda: to disprove the existence of Jesus. They already thought of the end result and take material and twist it to fit into their hypothesis. All historians should know this is not how research is conducted. Again, this is an easy way to dismiss Christ myth theory without actually looking at the evidence it presents. Criticizing the methodology, the intention, and the characters of the people challenging traditional Christian history is like a magician’s sleight of hand – great at keeping your eyes focused on the wrong thing entirely because, if you were to look at the truth, the illusion would disappear.

I’m not beyond accepting that the Christ Myth theory may turn out to be wrong. It seems to me, given the available evidence, to be a very reasonable and highly probable version of Christian history, but I won’t be upset if further evidence later induces me to change my ideas. However, what I find both disturbing and dangerous, is any attempt to disprove or vilify a hypothesis without referring to the argument itself or the evidence provided. To assume that the Christ Myth theory is false, because it wasn’t convincing the first time it was given, and that every subsequent version of it is likewise false, shows an aversion to truth that is difficult to respond to.

This is not an attemptat trying to disprove God. Some things may really be beyond our ability to comprehend – but Jesus Christ was either there, historically, or not. This is not one of those unfathomable mysteries. There is convincing evidence that Jesus Christ never existed as a historical person, and it is possible to discover in the history of Christianity the process by which a mythical figure was accidentally mistaken for a real human being. Or perhaps, worse, intentional literalizing of gnostic Christian science.

Bipolar Christianity: How Torturing “Sinful” Children Produced Holy Wars

01sungodmanmyth

Who would not shudder if he were given the choice of eternal death or life again as a child? Who would not choose to die?”
– St. Augustine

THE SOURCE OF KILLER MOTHERHOOD IN CHRISTIAN MISOGYNY
That all human sin and misery came into the world through the first woman, Eve, is the founding belief of both Judaism and Christianity, and the origin of the most severely misogynistic cultures in history. When a girl was born, said early Hebrews, “the walls wept.” Girls were everywhere considered “not worth raising” since they would not carry on the family name, and so infanticide of girls by Killer Mothers by strangling, drowning, exposure and sending to wet-nurses was so common among Christians that high sex ratios (up to 400 boys to 100 girls and higher) were common even among the rich.1 Coleman found boys outnumbering girls up to two to one in a 9th century French tax record, and concluded higher infanticide of girls was the cause.2 Newborn girls, like Eve, “were considered as full of dangerous pollution…and were therefore more often killed, exposed, abandoned, malnourished, raped, and neglected than boys. Everyone agreed girls should be fed less than boys; as Jerome put it, ‘Let her meals always leave her hungry.’”3 Of the 600 families in Delphic inscription records, just one percent reared two daughters.4 Children watched their parents kill their newborn siblings and learned the first rules of misogyny: females are murderous and baby girls worthless, so boys had better not seem “female” (weak) or they too might be killed by their mothers.

As Christian girls grew up, they were constantly told of their worthlessness and sinful lustfulness. Women, said Tertullian, were “irrational, more prone to lust than men, and at every turn waiting to seduce men,” so husbands had to beat them all the time to keep them from sinning.5 “A good woman and a bad one equally require the stick” ran a Florentine saying, and medieval laws concluded: “Provided he neither kills nor maims her, it is legal for a man to beat his wife…”6 St. Paul said that women had to cover their heads in church because otherwise “lice-like demons would leap like sparks from female hair and poison the church.”7 Plus, of course, women were liable to turn into witches at any time and remove a man’s penis; as John Chrysostom maintained, “All witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which in women is insatiable.”8 Parents in early Christian families routinely beat their little girls badly from early infancy in order to punish their lustfulness. The historical records contain hundreds of descriptions of beating girls “to discipline them, as with this father who punished a little girl for four hours: ‘the little girl in the diapers would not receive her discipline. She cried and cried and he kept hitting her…He told me, you spank her till she breaks…But she didn’t break and, after four hours, he couldn’t continue.’”9 Teaching girls in schools was not allowed, Aelred said (1170), because the teacher might be tempted to show them affection. Teachers, he said, were “angry one minute and smiling the next, now threatening, now flattering, kissing one child and smacking another. When she sees one of them crying after being smacked she calls her close, strokes her cheek, puts her arms around her neck and holds her tight,” 10 producing a moment of forbidden closeness. Christian priests and nuns backed bloody beatings as necessary to punish the child’s endless sins, since, as Augustine put it, “If the infant is left to do what he wants, there is no crime it will not plunge into.”11 “Better that you should beat a child within an inch of its life than that they would be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity.”12

The constant sinfulness of all Christian children demands the maximum torture or even death as punishment. Moses told the Israelites that “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother…all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.”13 Little changed in the next 1600 years of Christianity, as John Calvin decreed: “Those children who violate parental authority are monsters. Therefore the Lord commands all those who are disobedient to their parents to be put to death.”14 If a young woman should simply speak to someone who was not approved by her father, that was enough of a sin for Constantine, the first Christian emperor, to decree a penalty of “death by having molten lead poured down her throat.”15 It was in fact sometimes a practice during the Middle Ages to “bury an un-baptized infant with a stake through its heart so that it would not arise and injure many,” so full of sin it was at birth.16

Much more to read here Chapter 9: Bipolar Christianity: How Torturing \”Sinful\” Children Produced Holy Wars. Absolutely shocking true history of Christianity and war, which seems to go hand in hand. What happened to mankind? Religion happened! Literalistic, fundamental, orthodox religion that produced psychotic humans in a state of PTSD after 1,500 years of Dark Ages, Inquisition, Torture, ritual child abuse and more. Christianity wasn’t accepted by humans, it was beat into them over many years. Go this  website for more Psychohistory: http://www.psychohistory.com/

Constantine’s Cult of Christianity was stolen from Gnostic spiritual Jews (and Eastern religions as well) and turned into a history. Jesus is the sun. It’s Astrotheology. There was no man named Jesus, or King David, or Solomon, Abraham, Moses, etc. Those that knew were called heretics and killed. Rome’s new Mind Control religion was FORCED on mankind for political reasons, entire cultures wiped out, millions of books burned. There was nothing good or enlightening being spread over the earth by this cult! They removed reincarnation and took away our Divine Goddess and rewrote a book of dogma. No thing on earth has caused as much harm to the entire human race than this religion and it’s branches. They are the scribes and Pharisees described in the bible as a brood of vipers. The bible is a beautiful book of stories that need to be  understood in the correct way. I know I sound angry, and I am angry at the religious institutions and their cult members. I’ve had enough arguments with the brainwashed followers of Constantine to last the rest of my life. Their NEED to believe in the bible as history is ego based, not spirit based. They are willfully blind to the damage  their cult has done. I liken them to people insisting Humpty Dumpty was real. They miss the point of the story and worship it’s historical nature. This church has lied and invented false history to literalize spiritual mythology. It’s more than misguided, it’s evil. Yes, I am angry, but hopefully not coming across as hateful. It’s the cult members who are hateful, this is my reaction at this moment in time. My reaction to their wars, their stubbornness, their burning at the stake my brothers and sisters as Gnostics and witches. My sadness over Hypatia’s brutal skinning alive by a Christian mob that went on to burn the Library of Alexandria, destroying millions of books of ancient Egyptian knowledge setting back mankind a thousand years!  There are still Gnostic truths hidden throughout the bible, despite their re-editing over the years. Let those who have ears, hear, and those that have eyes, see those hidden nuggets of mystical Truths embodied in the mythical story of Jesus the Sun of god. Sophia and Lilith were removed from the Christian story and a patriarch put in place that exists to this day. The beauty I see in my daughter and granddaughters is pure, and what this sickened world might do to their innocent beauty pisses me off. Christianity is the lie upon which all other lies have been built. Well hey, it felt good to get that off my chest. I dedicate this anger to every comment troll, xtian apologist and stubborn cult of christ member I’ve ever had the bad time of meeting.

I have yet to talk about my personal spiritual experience while reading the bible in 1988 after being bedridden after a car wreck. I love the bible, the Nag Hammadi Gnostic scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls and their mystical teachings. I love the Gita, Buddhism, quantum physics and most of all I dig LOVE. I want to live again in the Golden Age. Are we there yet? Raise vibes, not flags :)

Imagine no religion, no borders, no war, and John Lennon’s big ole smiling face.

The Forged Origins of The New Testament

                                                                                    Extracted from Nexus Magazine

Volume 14, Number 4 (June – July 2007)

from NexusMagazine Website

In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine united all religious factions under one composite deity, and ordered the compilation of new and old writings into a uniform collection that became the New Testament.

.

What the Church doesn’t want you to know


It has often been emphasized that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities.

The Church agrees, saying:

“Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted.”
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings,

“the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled” (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels “do not go back to the first century of the Christian era”

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ.

In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that,

“the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD”

(Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.

It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorized the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament. After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire. Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him. In truth, one of Constantine’s main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods.


The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine’s efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called “Church Fathers” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1). They were “maddened”, he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467).

The “peculiar type of oratory” expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians.

In reality, they were:

“…the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses … they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets … they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables … and still the less do they understand … and they write nonsense on vellum … and still be doing, never done.”
(Contra Celsum [“Against Celsus”], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)

Clusters of presbyters had developed “many gods and many lords” (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and “altar was set against altar” in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century). From Constantine’s point of view, there were several factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilizing religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine’s problems.

The smooth generalization, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine “embraced the Christian religion” and subsequently granted “official toleration”, is “contrary to historical fact” and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim). Simply put, there was no Christian religion at Constantine’s time, and the Church acknowledges that the tale of his “conversion” and “baptism” are “entirely legendary” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).


Constantine “never acquired a solid theological knowledge” and “depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions” (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim). According to Eusebeius (260-339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions “strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state”, but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned him that the presbyters’ religions were “destitute of foundation” and needed official stabilization (ibid.).


Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of Córdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates “be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea” in the Roman province of Bithynia in Asia Minor.

They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, “bound in leather” for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917, “Council of Nicaea” entry).

Their writings totaled,

“in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviors, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them”

(Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).


The First Council of Nicaea and the “missing records”


Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate.

About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was “held in a hall in Osius’s palace” (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).

In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said,

“Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing”

(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as “a set of gibbering idiots” (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, “On Councils” entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that “the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations” (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.).

It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.


The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are “strangely absent from the canons” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius “occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor’s behalf” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620).

There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. “Seventy Eastern bishops” represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage traveled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 “bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists” gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of “wild texts” (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, “Gospel and Gospels”) circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses:

Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes

(God’s Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).

Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods -Apollo and Zeus- but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanized version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as “the Divine Julius”. The word “Savior” was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being “one who sows the seed”, i.e., he was a phallic god.

Julius Caesar was hailed as, “God made manifest and universal Savior of human life”, and his successor Augustus was called the “ancestral God and Savior of the whole human race”

(Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952).

Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalized on his coins as the “Savior of mankind” (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Savior and “Father of the Empire” was considered “God” among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters’ texts, but was not recognized in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine’s intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.

“As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter… For one year and five months the balloting lasted…”

(God’s Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire’s translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects:

  1. Caesar

  2. Krishna

  3. Mithra

  4. Horus

  5. Zeus

    (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).

Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Savior-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god.

A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and “officially” ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite.

That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire’s new religion; and because there was no letter “J” in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into “Jesus Christ”.


How the Gospels were created


Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.

His instructions were:

“Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions’ sake.”
(God’s Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

“Make them to astonish” said Constantine, and “the books were written accordingly”

(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).

Eusebius amalgamated the “legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one”, using the standard god-myths from the presbyters’ manuscripts as his exemplars.

Merging the supernatural “god” stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together “to form a new universal belief” (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.

Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce,

“fifty sumptuous copies … to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art”

(ibid.).

“These orders,” said Eusebius, “were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself … we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms”

(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36).

They were the “New Testimonies”, and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.


With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the “word of the Roman Savior God” (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council “burnt” and declared that “any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders” (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.


Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church. Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended “for four years and seven months” from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title “Great and Holy Synod”, assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century.

Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.

The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as,

“a synod of fools and madmen” and sought to annul “decisions passed by men with troubled brains”

(History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871).

If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to “affrighted bishops” and the “soldiery” needed to “quell proceedings”, the “fools and madmen” declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.


Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him “the great champion of Christianity” which he gave,

“legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire”

(Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86).

Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was “self-interest” that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn’t called “Christianity” until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).


Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine’s New Testimonies were expanded upon, “interpolations” were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John “golden-mouthed” Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).

The Latinized name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius’s personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying,

“put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven”

(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).

The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying,

“Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors”

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645).

Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also “falsely written” (“The Letters of Jerome”, Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).


The shock discovery of an ancient Bible


The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church claimed it recorded the intervention of a divine Jesus Christ into Earthly affairs. However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, themselves only an “assemblage of legendary tales” (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759).

On 4 February 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine’s monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Along with other old codices, it was scheduled to be burned in the kilns to provide winter warmth for the inhabitants of the monastery. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380.

It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, the Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology who devoted his entire life to the study of New Testament origins, and his desire to read all the ancient Christian texts led him on the long, camel-mounted journey to St Catherine’s Monastery.


During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the Alexandrian (or Alexandrinus) Bible, believed to be the second oldest Bible in the world. It was so named because in 1627 it was taken from Alexandria to Britain and gifted to King Charles I (1600-49). Today it is displayed alongside the world’s oldest known Bible, the Sinaiticus, in the British Library in London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library).

It was locked away in the Vatican’s inner library. Tischendorf asked if he could extract handwritten notes, but his request was declined. However, when his guard took refreshment breaks, Tischendorf wrote comparative narratives on the palm of his hand and sometimes on his fingernails (“Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?”, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library).

Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.


A shudder of apprehension echoed through Christendom in the last quarter of the 19th century when English-language versions of the Sinai Bible were published. Recorded within these pages is information that disputes Christianity’s claim of historicity. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of willful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible’s New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that challenged its very existence.

In a series of articles published in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack the Sinaiticus’ earlier and opposing story of Jesus Christ, saying that,

“…without a particle of hesitation, the Sinaiticus is scandalously corrupt … exhibiting the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God”.

Dean Burgon’s concerns mirror opposing aspects of Gospel stories then current, having by now evolved to a new stage through centuries of tampering with the fabric of an already unhistorical document.


The revelations of ultraviolet light testing


In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and “few scholars had set eyes on it” (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as “the oldest Bible in the world” (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.


Before I summarize its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors.

Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).


Forgery in the Gospels


When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognized by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible’s version of the New Testament, not modern editions.


Of importance is the fact that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels since rejected:

  1. the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius)

  2. the Missive of Barnabas

  3. the Odes of Solomon

Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations.


Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions, and disputes rage between translators over variant interpretations of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what is not written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions.

One glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying:

“The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour”.

That is because there never was a virgin birth.


It is apparent that when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was “the first Gospel written” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today. The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).

Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the “first” story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus “at about the age of thirty” (Mark 1:9), and doesn’t know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as “the son of God” do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today’s editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a “messianic bloodline” back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called “messianic prophecies” (51 in total).

The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the “raising of Lazarus”, and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).


Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of “resurrection” appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story. Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named “K” by analysts. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth-century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles. However, some 12th-century Gospels have the now-known resurrection verses written within asterisks-marks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.

The Church claims that “the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non (“without which, nothing”) of Christianity (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul:

“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain”

(1 Cor. 5:17).

The resurrection verses in today’s Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying,

“the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine … almost the entire section is a later compilation”

(Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading “The Evidence of its Spuriousness”; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading “Canons”).

Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.


The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus‘ resurrection to his disciples.

The Church admits:

“The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel”

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), “Gospel of John”, p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).


“The Great Insertion” and “The Great Omission”


Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of those words say of Jesus “and was carried up into heaven”, but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today (“Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels“, F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113). Ancient versions do not verify modern-day accounts of an ascension of Jesus Christ, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive.


Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes “The Great Insertion”, an extraordinary 15th-century addition totaling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51-18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said:

“The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences”

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407).

Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as “The Great Omission”, a total of 1,547 words. In today’s versions, that hole has been “plugged up” with passages plagiarized from other Gospels. Dr Tischendorf found that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke’s version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated “word of God” (“Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?”, op. cit.)


The “Expurgatory Index”


As was the case with the New Testament, so also were damaging writings of early “Church Fathers” modified in centuries of copying, and many of their records were intentionally rewritten or suppressed.


Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Church subsequently extended the process of erasure and ordered the preparation of a special list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings (Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, New York, 1842, p. 89; also, The Vatican Censors, Professor Peter Elmsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a).


In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of “erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers” that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine.


When Vatican archivists came across,

“genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index”

(Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings, ed., Dublin, 1837; The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, Joseph Mendham, J. Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed., 1840; The Vatican Censors, op. cit., p. 328).

This Church record provides researchers with,

“grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released to the public”

(The Propaganda Press of Rome, Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London, 1942, p. 182).

Important for our story is the fact that the Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: “Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released”. It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the Secret Archives (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287). Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote How The Great Pan Died.

In a chapter titled “The Whole of Church History is Nothing but a Retroactive Fabrication“, he said this (in part):

“The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contained the final expression of her history … her technique was to make it appear that much later works written by Church writers were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first, second or third centuries.”
(How The Great Pan Died, op. cit., p. 46)

Supporting Professor Bordeaux’s findings is the fact that, in 1587, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words,

“Church history will be now be established … we shall seek to print our own account”

(Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759).

Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a “New Learning” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, p. 442, vol. xv, p. 376). The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in Diderot’s Encyclopédie, and it reveals the reason why Pope Clement XIII (1758-69) ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in 1759.


Gospel authors exposed as imposters


There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously:

“It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves … they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings.”

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

The Church maintains that “the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship”, adding that “the headings … were affixed to them” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written “according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John”, as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church’s shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith.

The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious.


After years of dedicated New Testament research, Dr Tischendorf expressed dismay at the differences between the oldest and newest Gospels, and had trouble understanding…

“…how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one.”
(Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London)

After years of validating the fabricated nature of the New Testament, a disillusioned Dr Tischendorf confessed that modern-day editions have “been altered in many places” and are “not to be accepted as true” (When Were Our Gospels Written?, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1865, British Library, London).


Just what is Christianity?


The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?


Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that,

“it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions”.

This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.


Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the “seven wise men” of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.


Tischendorf‘s conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux‘s Vatican findings that reveal the allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought “gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh” (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century.


Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism – a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries.


Christianity is an adaptation of,

  • Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees

  • some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis)

  • Greek philosophy

  • various aspects of Hinduism


Why there are no records of Jesus Christ


It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:

“It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind … there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels.”
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:

“We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century.”
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:

the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a “fable”

(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters…, op. cit.).

About the Author


Tony Bushby, an Australian, became a businessman and entrepreneur early in his adult life. He established a magazine-publishing business and spent 20 years researching, writing and publishing his own magazines, primarily for the Australian and New Zealand markets.


With strong spiritual beliefs and an interest in metaphysical subjects, Tony has developed long relationships with many associations and societies throughout the world that have assisted his research by making their archives available. He is the author of The Bible Fraud (2001; reviewed in NEXUS 8/06 with extracts in NEXUS 9/01—03), The Secret in the Bible (2003; reviewed in 11/02, with extract, “Ancient Cities under the Sands of Giza”, in 11/03) and The Crucifixion of Truth (2005; reviewed in 12/02) and The Twin Deception (2007; reviewed 14/03).

Copies of these books are available from the NEXUS website and the Joshua Books website http://www.joshuabooks.com


As Tony Bushby vigorously protects his privacy, any correspondence should be sent to him care of NEXUS Magazine, PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560, Australia, fax +61 (0) 7 5442 9381.

via The Forged Origins of The New Testament.