THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT AND THE HISTORICAL JESUS: SEPARATING

FACT FROM FICTION

by
Michael Sturgulewski

Copyright © 2009 by Michael Sturgulewski.

First Printing: November, 2009.

Published by Light and Life Graphics, Endicott, NY

Light and Life Graphics is TM 2008 Michael Sturgulewski.

Printed in the U.S.A.

Terms of Use: This work may be reproduced, unaltered and in its entirety, and distributed
freely without the author’s express permission. Any such distribution must strictly be for
educational and non-profit purposes.

Unless otherwise indicated, all Biblical citations are from the King James Version.

Other versions cited include:

The New International Version (NIV). Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by
International Bible Society
The New American Standard Bible (NASB). Copyright 1995 by Lockman
Foundation

Book design: Michael Sturgulewski

Cover, top: Woodcut by Gustave Doré, The Transfiguration. Public Domain.

Cover, bottom (from left to right): Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Attis, and Dionysus. Public
Domain.

All images, except where credited, are the work of the author.
Noah's Ark, p 104. Copyright © 2008 Michael Sturgulewski. All Rights Reserved.

ISBN: 1449529658
EAN-13: 9781449529659

www.lightandlifegraphics.com

3
 T his book is dedicated to my

parents,

Raymond and Gretchen,

and my grandparents,

William and Esther Boley

and

William and Mary Bloomer,

for training a child in the way he should go.

4
 Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

The Charge Against Christianity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Part 1: Gospel or Myth?

I. Virgin birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

II. December 25th date of birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

III. Star in the east accompanied His birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

IV. Upon His birth, three kings came to adorn the newborn Savior . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

V. His mother was named Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

VI. He was born in a manger or a cave in the “house of bread,” also translated
as “Beth-lehem” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

VII. At age twelve He was known as a teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

VIII. At age thirty, He began His ministry after being baptized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

IX. He had twelve disciples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

X. He was a traveling teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

XI. He performed miracles, such as walking on water or turning water into wine 61

XII. He was known by titles such as “King of Kings” and “Alpha and Omega”. . 64

XIII. He held a communal last supper with His disciples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

XIV. He was crucified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

XV. Concerning the constellation Crux as being the supposed origin for the
crucifixion of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

XVI. He was dead for three days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

XVII. He was resurrected from the dead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

5
 XVIII. Concerning the observance of Easter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

XIX. Concerning Sunday as the sacred day of worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Part 2: Shattering the Mirror – Debunking the Claims of the Critics

I. Concerning the suspect confession of Justin Martyr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

II. Concerning the similarities between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah’s Flood 91

III. Concerning the claim that the account of Moses’ life in the Pentateuch is a
fabrication of existing motifs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

IV. Concerning the proposed relationship between Jesus and the signs and
ages of the Zodiac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

V. Concerning the proposed similarity between various Biblical concepts

and pre-existing beliefs and icons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

VI. Concerning the claim that the life of Jesus is merely a revision of the life
of Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

VII. Concerning Constantine and the Nicean Creed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

VIII. Concerning the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and the Inquisition . . . . . . . . . . . 149

IX. Concerning the historicity of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Part 3: Snares of the Deceivers

I. Proper use of terminology is often disregarded in claims which attempt to

liken events in the life of Christ to events which occur in pagan mythology . . . . 179

II. Many of the suggested pagan parallels to the life of Christ are based on non-
existent texts or misuse or alteration of existing texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

III. Other favorite tactics used by critics of Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

IV. Logical fallacies employed by the critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

V. Parallel vs. commonality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

Part 4: The Supremacy of Christ

I. The Son of God is one with the Father and the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

II. The Son of God is pre-existent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

6
 III. Jesus’ birth was not the product of a lustful god . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

IV. Jesus took part in bringing about His own birth, death, and resurrection . . . . 216

V. Jesus foreknew the time of His death and resurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

VI. Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection were foretold long before His
arrival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

VII. Jesus' death was voluntary, sacrificial, and redemptive in nature . . . . . . . . . 220

VIII. Jesus' death was a victory, not a defeat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

IX. Jesus' resurrection was a bodily resurrection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

X. Jesus' resurrection is a fact of history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

XI. The characteristics of the original source material regarding Jesus stands
as added testimony to its reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Part 5: The Gospel Record

I. The early date of the Gospel records testify to their historical accuracy . . . . . 238

II. Concerning the supposed silence of the remainder of the New Testament
regarding Matthew and Luke’s virgin birth narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

III. Concerning the supposed silence of the New Testament letters regarding
Jesus' humanity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

IV. Concerning the Gospels’ references to Jesus being of human descent. . . . . . 254

V. The authenticity and integrity of the Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

VI. The characteristics of the person of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels,

contradict popular Judaic concepts and, as such, could not have been a product
of invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

VII. The characteristics of the life of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels,

possess elements which do not bear the marks of invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

The Journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

7
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Online Resources for Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

Photo Credits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Benediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

Future books available through Light and Life Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

8
 Preface

The book you now hold is a condensed version of a previous work titled A Sure
Foundation: Answering the Charge Against Christianity. That work was presumably
finished in February 2009 and was written in response to the allegation that the Gospel
writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, fabricated their accounts of the life of Jesus of
Nazareth. The charge against the Gospel narratives was that they were composed using a
conglomeration of various pagan myths, the writers having borrowed some elements
from the mythology of Egypt, others from the mythology of Greece, others from Persia,
and so on. By February I had written a response to all such allegations, however there
remained other issues still at large – issues which posed as a threat to Christianity, at least
in the mind of those less informed regarding the issues at hand. Among these issues was
the 2007 documentary titled The Lost Tomb of Jesus, claiming that not only was the tomb
of Jesus' family discovered in an area outside of Jerusalem, but also that the tomb
contained an ossuary (a small repository for the bones of a deceased individual) that was
inscribed with the name of “Jesus, son of Joseph.” Likewise, there have been a
resurgence in recent years regarding proposed alternate gospels that told a version of the
ministry of Jesus which was very different from that told in Scripture. To many
unsuspecting minds, these lost gospels hold as much authority as do the canonical
Gospels found in the New Testament. Therefore, I revisited my keyboard and returned to
my research so that I may include responses to these sort of problems facing Christians
today. Four months and a few hundred typewritten pages later, the final edition of A Sure
Foundation was made available to the public in July of 2009.
The purpose of the present volume is to contain material in a fashion more focused on
the original allegations mentioned above and which set me on this journey into the realm
of history and apologetics. While the material added after February of 2009 was related
to the topic at hand – that being, the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth – it was not
absolutely necessary to the argument. Rather, the added material served mainly to further
an already solidified case. And so it is that this book was put together, not only to present
my argument in a more concise fashion, but also so that those who may be intimidated by
a large page count would not be overwhelmed to the point of skipping over the evidence
for the authenticity of the Gospels and instead settling for the less-informed verdict
presented by documentaries on television or discussions around the water fountain at
work. For those who do seek answers to further issued raised in today's society
concerning Jesus and the Gospels, then I would refer those ones to the previous work.
The arguments presented in the present work serve as evidence that not only did Jesus of
Nazareth exist as a historical person, but also that the Gospels contained in the New
Testament stand as historical accounts and remain so after being judged by various tests
of authenticity. It is my sincere desire that the reader of this book, after considering the
arguments presented herein, arrive at the conclusion that the Gospel of Christ is not only
true, but that it is the power of God unto salvation, for it is in the name of Jesus alone that
anyone can find redemption.

Michael Sturgulewski
September 22, 2009
Endicott, NY

9
 Introduction

Nothing new under the sun

In June of 2008 I was introduced to a short video entitled The Great Arcanum, which,
as would later be discovered, is part of a full length documentary entitled The Zeitgeist
Movie. This documentary, produced by Peter Joseph, is a rejection of religion in general,
and is specifically an attack on the Christian faith. The claim of the film is that deities of
various faiths, including Jesus Christ, share many of the same characteristics in the
accounts of their life, and that these characteristics are based in ancient beliefs concerning
the sun and other celestial bodies. In so doing, Zeitgeist attributes to these faiths the same
origin, making them equal with one another both in validity and merit. Christianity,
among other faiths, is here under attack by making the claim that the “Jesus story,” as the
narrator calls it, is merely a myth and that the Gospel accounts of His life, death,
resurrection, and ascension are based purely on ancient mythological and astrological
beliefs. The ramifications of such a notion, were it true, would make Jesus a false prophet
rather than the Son of God and promised Messiah, the Bible would be reduced to a book
of lies and deceit, and Christians would be in possession of false hope, having been
deluded into having faith in a God who does not exist. The reason this is particularly an
attack on Christianity, above other faiths, is that Jesus is the only of these so-called “solar
messiahs” whose birth, life, death, and resurrection resulted in real (not imagined or
symbolic) salvation for those who have faith in Him as their Savior. Yes, the Gospel
account of the life of Christ is a story, but it is a story founded in history and truth, and
what a story it is! That God was made man in the person of Jesus Christ so that He may
die to take upon Himself the sins of the very same ones whom He created, and who
abandoned Him to serve their own lusts. Yes, the birth, life, death, and resurrection of
Jesus is a story – a story of grace and mercy, of redemption and life everlasting, of a
loving King who gave His all for His people.
The Zeitgeist Movie teaches Gnostic beliefs. Gnosticism is a belief system which
began during pre-Christian times and is no new opponent to Christianity. According to
religiostolerance.org, “Gnosticism involves the relational or experiential knowledge of
God and of the divine or spiritual nature within us.” It places an emphasis on an inherent
divinity within man. Gnostics believe that salvation is achieved through knowledge and
the full development of the human consciousness (in short, Gnostics teach we can save
ourselves). Gnosticism was virtually eradicated in the fifth century due to Catholicism,
but has experienced a re-emergence since the mid-1900’s. According to
gnosticteachings.org, Gnostics believe their religion is the source from which all the
world's religions have their origin. The heart of Gnosticism is the Great Arcanum (hence,
the title of the video under scrutiny), or the Great Knowledge; that is, the “secret
knowledge” of which Gnostics pride themselves in possessing, and the knowledge which
they believe results in one’s salvation. This knowledge, they believe, is the absolute
knowledge of good and evil.
The thrust of the film is the notion, which has existed for centuries, that the life of
Jesus was merely a copy of pagan myths (hence, it is often termed the “copycat theory”),
borrowing elements from fictional stories of various other “saviors.” Although this theory
is generally rejected by mainstream scholars, it continues to gain popularity with
conspiracy theorists and Internet antagonists. The theory gained notable popularity in the

10
modern era during the nineteenth century with the publication of the book The World’s
Sixteen Crucified Saviors written by Kersey Graves, a member of the “freethought”
community. The theories contained in this book have been disproved a dozen times over
since its publication, yet skeptics of Christianity continue to look to it as a source of truth.
In fact, many of Graves’ sources often long post-date the Christian era, a practice which
is very common among critics in their scrambling for evidence to support their claims.
Jonathan Z. Smith, in The Encyclopedia of Religion, comments that the alleged
“parallels” to Jesus either post-date the Apostolic Age or the “evidence” in the pre-
Christian texts is simply lacking in solidarity. Smith states, “The category of dying and
rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to
have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late
or highly ambiguous texts.… All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the
class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of
disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case, the deities return but have not died;
in the second case, the gods die but do not return. There is no unambiguous instance in
the history of religions of a dying and rising deity."1
“Zeitgeist” is a German expression meaning “the spirit of the age” and is literally
translated as “time (zeit) spirit (geist)." The film was first released in June 2007 and is
comprised of three parts. Part one is an attempt to deconstruct Christianity by alleging it
is a series of fabrications having been merged together from previously existing myths
and astrological beliefs. Parts two and three engage in political conspiracy theories
involving the banking system and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, purporting that the United
States government itself orchestrated these attacks. According to the Zeitgeist web site
(www.zeitgeistmovie.com), the project “was created as a nonprofit filmiac expression to
inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to
understand that very often things are not what the population at large think they are.” The
producers of the movie claim that "truth is not told, it is realized," thus implying that truth
is relative to one’s viewpoint . However, when viewing the movie, it becomes apparent
that it is actually designed to indoctrinate the viewer with its own “truth” (that is,
falsehood) and persuade the viewer to come to see the world from Mr. Joseph’s
perspective.

Checking the facts

Concerning the sources used for The Zeitgeist Movie, the producers have the following
to say: “Now, it's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve
things that are counter to our understanding, without the necessary research performed.
For example, some information contained in Part one and Part three, specifically, is not
obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For
instance, very often people who look up ‘Horus’ or ‘The Federal Reserve’ on the Internet
draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text
book encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However,
if one takes the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being
presented is based on documented evidence.”2
In doing the research for this book, I discovered why “online encyclopedias or text
book encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist.” The
reason for that is that the information contained in Zeitgeist (at least in Part one, with
which this book is concerned) is largely falsified. Not only does the movie make

11
occasional simple errors with names of places; but also, very frequently lists “facts”
which have no basis in truth or history. For instance, regarding the Egyptian deity Horus,
the movie states, “These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to permeate
cultures of the world.” Research has proven the attributes in question (which will be
discussed later) are in fact not at all “original” to the Horus myth; but rather, are
fabricated by the movie’s producer, or another conspirator, for the purpose of creating an
imagined reality based only on the movie itself rather than what is actually real. The
producer makes such statements in the hopes that the viewers will not do their homework
and put these claims to the test. The producers also claim they want to be “academically
correct” and “factual.” As this work will show, they have catastrophically failed in these
attempts, as true academic research has only served to debunk their claims. In the words
of Dr. Ben Witherington III, a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, “One thing you
can say about Mr. Joseph's film-- he is an equal opportunity distorter of world religions in
general, he is not just a prankster, but one who is simply angry with religion in general.”3
Additionally, the sources listed on the movie’s web site do not contain experts in either
Biblical history or pagan mythology. Of the numerous sources cited in the movie’s
transcript, less than 25% are original material, with the remainder citations coming from
secondary authors, many of whom wrote decades ago and whose research is now
considered outdated. An author who is Biblically illiterate is simply incapable of
accurately discussing the integrity of the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ.
Additionally, a good number of the sources used for the film are outdated, and have been
proven to contain falsehood.
The Zeitgeist Movie is guilty of employing a logical fallacy known as “Post Hoc Ergo
Propter Hoc,” a Latin phrase meaning "after this, therefore because of this." Such
reasoning is based only on temporal sequence, claiming that Event B is a product of
Event A simply because Event A comes before Event B. The movie is also quite fond of
the use of anachronistic reasoning; that is, making the claim that “source X” is a basis on
which “source Y” was formed, when in reality, “source X” post-dates “source Y.” In
short, the producers of this film are nothing more than freethinking conspiracy theorists
whose research is largely flawed, and The Zeitgeist Movie stands as a testimony to such
shortcomings.
In his documentary The God Who Wasn't There, Brian Flemming admitted his regret
in relying on both Kersey Graves and D. M. Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S), both of whom
were authors cited in the sources for The Zeitgeist Movie. In his documentary, which
attempts to show that Jesus was not an historical figure, he included the god Beddru
among deities listed in a background graphic. Beddru is mentioned in books by authors
Graves and Murdock, but there is no documentation that such a deity ever existed in any
culture. In an interview for the “Rational Response Squad,” Flemming said, “… [Beddru]
shouldn't be in there. What I did is I cut and pasted from a list of gods that I was
researching to find out were these true or were they not, and I should not have put that
one on the list. Kersey Graves appears to have made that up. And so people who say, you
know, ‘Kersey Graves is full of crap’ and this Beddru thing is probably false, they’re
actually right. And I'm going to change that in the second edition of the [documentary].”4
Sources used in Part one of The Zeitgeist Movie are as follows (notice the lack of
ancient texts among their source material):

Footage from The Naked Truth 1995

12
 Audio from Revelations by Bill Hicks 1993
Audio from The Light of the World Courtesy of Jordan Maxwell 1992
Massey, Gerald The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ 1886 , Ancient
Egypt-Light of the World 1907, and Egyptian Book of the Dead and the
Mysteries of Amenta 1907
Acharya S/Murdock, D.M The Christ Conspiracy 1999, and Suns of God 2004,
Who was Jesus?2007
Churchward, Albert The Origin and Evolution of Religion 1924
Allegro, John The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth 1979
Maxwell, Tice & Snow That Old Time Religion 2000
King James Version The Holy Bible 1611
Leedom, Tim C. The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read 1993
Remsburg, John F. The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of
His Existence 1909
Irvin & Rutajit Astrotheology and Shamanism 2006
Doherty, Earl The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With A Mythical Christ?
1999
Campbell, Joseph Creative Mythology: The Masks of God 1959-1968
Doane, T.W. Bible Myths And Their Parallels In Other Religions 1882
Carpenter, Edward Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning
1920
Rolleston, Frances Mazzaroth 1862
Cumont, Franz Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans 1912
Fideler, David Jesus Christ, Sun of God 1993
Berry, Gerald Religions Of The World 1956
Frazer, Sir James The Golden Bough 1890
Wheless, Joseph Forgery in Christianity 1930
Singh, Madanjeet The Sun- Symbol of Power and Life 1993
Jackson, John G. Christianity Before Christ 1985

Why do we care?
Since the advent of The Zeitgeist Movie a number of its supporters have charged
Christians with getting all hyped up for no good reason. The movie, they claim, is not an
attack against Christianity, but against religious beliefs which are invalid and based in
falsehood. They charge Christians with blindly following a God who does not exist and
placing their faith in that which is devoid of hope. They also charge Christians with
seeking to deny others the right of religious freedom, attempting to push Christianity on
those whose faith rests elsewhere. The supposed reason behind Christians’ opposition to
the film is that of fear, arising from insecurity or an inadequate measure of faith in one’s
own belief system, resulting in a feeling of their religion being threatened and attacked by
false accusation. Also, opponents are quick to cite the words of Christ Himself when He
said, “Judge not, lest you be judged,” (Mt 7:1) and, “whosoever smites you on your right
cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Mt 5:39)
Yes, Christians are to love their neighbors. In addition, Christians are also instructed to
give reason for the faith. (I Pet 3:15) However, care must be taken in defending the truth.
One cannot simply beat someone over the head with a Bible and tell him that he will go
to hell if he does not believe in Christ. The facts need to be presented and the reader

13
should decide whose doctrine to follow. But, the question is asked, Why do the facts need
to be presented? Why does the record need to be set straight? Why can’t people just get
along and agree to disagree? The reason is that one’s faith is of utmost importance, for it
is his faith which determines his destiny. In The Zeitgeist Movie the truth is not presented;
but rather, misrepresented in the form of fabricated and false evidence. When such a thing
occurs, it gives people cause to avoid Christianity altogether, having been misled into
believing it to be “the fraud of the age,” as the film states. Although the film attacks
religion in general by stating, “Religion exists as barriers to personal and social growth,”
Christianity is the one singled out as the “fraud” and the one to which special effort is
extended in hopes of exposing it as a lie. Supporters of the movie claim the film never
devalues religion nor does it claim religion is wrong, however, if Christianity is the
“fraud of the age,” then it certainly cannot have value, and belief in it would certainly not
be the product of a right mind. Such is the eventual conclusion, as well as the implication
behind the film’s claims.
When the truth of the Christian faith is misrepresented, then it is the duty of the
Christian to set the record straight. It is not that everyone must be beaten into submission
until he agrees to accept Christianity as the one, true religion. Rather, the reader must be
presented with the facts in order to make an informed decision, which one cannot do
simply by watching the film in question. Once the facts are presented, then the reader is
capable of exercising his God-given ability to make an informed decision concerning
who he will serve, whether the Creator or the creation. The fact is that the false claims
and fabricated “evidence” presented in the film is the cause for which a person may
become shaken in his faith, since it alleges that Christianity is something it is not – a
series of themes borrowed from pagan myths and astrology. The film states the
relationship between religions is a “suppressed history,” when, in fact, the relationship is
not a history at all, since such a relationship simply does not exist, despite the claims of
the critics. The purpose in this book is to educate those who have been duped into
believing the lie of Zeitgeist, and to supply others with the means to respond when such
false accusations are presented against their faith. The message here is three-fold.

First, to the Christian:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who
did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also
with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God
is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died,
yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for
us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or
persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? . . . For I am convinced that
neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to
come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:31-39
NASB)

Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that
falls away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as
it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of

14
 sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our
assurance firm until the end, (Heb 3:12-14 NASB)

... let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let
us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is
faithful. (Heb 10:22-23)

The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who
does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the
testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that
God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the
life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have
written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that
you have eternal life.. . . . We know that we are of God, and that the whole world
lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come, and
has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in
Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ This is the true God and eternal life.. (1 Jn
5:10-13, 19-20 NASB)

Second, to the skeptic:

Let no man deceive you with empty words: for because of these things cometh the
wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with
them. (Eph 5:6-7)

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him: he that believeth not
God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that God hath
borne concerning his Son. And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life,
and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son
of God hath not the life. (I Jn 5:10-12)

… if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart
that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame. (Rom
10:9-11)

Third, to the critic:

How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? And scoffers delight them in
scoffing, And fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: Behold, I will pour out
my spirit upon you; I will make known my words unto you. Because I have called,
and ye have refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man hath regarded; But ye
have set at nought all my counsel, And would none of my reproof: I also will laugh
in the day of your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear
cometh as a storm, And your calamity cometh on as a whirlwind; When distress and

15
 anguish come upon you. Then will they call upon me, but I will not answer; They
will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge,
And did not choose the fear of Jehovah: They would none of my counsel; They
despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, And
be filled with their own devices. For the backsliding of the simple shall slay them,
And the careless ease of fools shall destroy them. But whoso hearkeneth unto me
shall dwell securely, And shall be quiet without fear of evil. (Prov 1:22-33)

But these, as creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed,
railing in matters whereof they are ignorant, shall in their destroying surely be
destroyed, suffering wrong as the hire of wrong-doing; men that count it pleasure to
revel in the day-time, spots and blemishes, revelling in their deceivings while they
feast with you; having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; enticing
unstedfast souls; having a heart exercised in covetousness; children of cursing;
forsaking the right way, they went astray, having followed the way of Balaam the son
of Beor, who loved the hire of wrong-doing; but he was rebuked for his own
transgression: a dumb ass spake with man’s voice and stayed the madness of the
prophet. These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm; for whom the
blackness of darkness hath been reserved. For, uttering great swelling words of
vanity, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by lasciviousness, those who are just
escaping from them that live in error; promising them liberty, while they themselves
are bondservants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he
also brought into bondage. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the
world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again
entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse with them than the
first. For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than,
after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them. It
has happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog turning to his own
vomit again, and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire. (2 Pet 2:12-22
NASB)

Outline of this book

This book will concern itself with Part one of The Zeitgeist Movie, dealing with the
origins of religion. I will leave a discussion and/or refutation of Parts two and three to
better and more capable hands. I will begin by providing a synopsis of the first section of
The Zeitgeist Movie as it is given in the shorter Great Arcanum video, following which
will begin a refutation of these claims, as well as a refutation of the remaining claims
made in the Zeitgeist film. In so doing, the agenda here will be to first address, in Part
one, the five pagan deities discussed in The Great Arcanum, along with brief
considerations on other deities pertinent to the discussion. Following that, Part two will
address The Zeitgeist Movie's claims apart from the five deities previously mentioned, as
well as considerations regarding issues pertinent to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Part three will concern itself with the methods generally used by critics when making
charges against Christianity concerning forgery and fabrications. Having addressed the
reasons why pagan deities are not counterparts to Christ, Part four will then commence
an in-depth consideration into why Jesus, the living incarnation of the Son of God, is
unique and superior to deities found within pagan religious systems. Finally, Part five

16
will address the primary source material for Jesus of Nazareth – the Gospels themselves –
and it will be shown that this material does not bear the marks of forgery nor fabrication;
but rather, serves as an authentic and historical account of the only crucified Savior the
world has ever known.

17
 The Charge Against Christianity

Below is a breakdown of The Great Arcanum’s content, followed by my rebuttal (in

Part one: Gospel or Myth?). In my rebuttal, I will first examine the statements made
concerning the non-Christian deities by judging the truthfulness of the statements made in
the video and comparing these biographical aspects which are allegedly similar to those
of Christ’s life. Following that, I will show how the person of Jesus is distinct from the
other deities who are said to share like biographical characteristics. In conclusion, I will
consider the superiority of the Biblical record concerning Jesus of Nazareth over those
texts concerning pagan mythological deities.

Introduction
The narrator, who remains nameless, begins by pointing out that people have
worshiped the sun for many centuries, giving to it their respect and adoration. This
adoration is in recognition that the sun maintains regularity of motion and provides the
earth with its life-sustaining effect. It is also pointed out that for many centuries people
have looked to the stars to “recognize and anticipate events which occurred over long
periods of time.” Mankind has also cataloged these stars into groups known as
constellations. Early man personified both the sun and stars as personifications of
elaborate myths. The sun was personified as the “unseen creator,” due to its life-giving
qualities, and was known as “god’s sun, the light of the world, [and] the savior of
mankind.” The twelve constellations represented those who traveled for god’s sun.

The sun god Horus

The narrator then discloses how ancient Egyptians applied these concepts to the god
Horus (3000 B.C.). “He is the sun anthropomorphized,” the narrator says, “and his life is
a series of myths,” It is then suggested the rising and setting of the sun was likened to the
myth of Horus and his evil counterpart Set, the personification of darkness. Sunrise is so
named for Horus’ defeat of Set at the dawn of every new day, thus ushering in light to the
world; and sunset, so named for Horus’ daily banishing to the underworld at the hands of
Set, thus bringing darkness upon the earth.

The narrator makes the following statements concerning the god Horus:
He was born of the virgin Isis, also known as Mary, on Dec. 25
His birth was accompanied by a star in the east
Upon his birth, three kings came to adorn the “newborn savior”
At age twelve He was known as a teacher
At age 30, He began his ministry after being baptized
He had twelve disciples
He performed miracles, such as walking on water
He was known by such titles as “the truth, the light, the lamb of god, god’s
anointed son, [and] the good shepherd.”
He was crucified after being betrayed, then rose from the dead after three days

18
Other Deities
The narrator then states, “These attributes of Horus, whether original or not, seem to
permeate cultures of the world, for many other gods are found to have had the same
mythological structure,” and he then continues to list other deities who share some of
these attributes, as follows:

Attis of Greece (1200 B.C.)

He was born of the virgin Nana on Dec 25
He was crucified, dead for three days, and rose again

Krishna of India (900 B.C.)

He was born of the virgin Devaki on Dec 25
A star in east signaled his coming
He performed miracles and had disciples
He was crucified and rose from the dead

Dionysus of Greece (200 A.D.)

He was born of a virgin on Dec 25
He was a traveling teacher
He performed miracles, such as turning water into wine
He was referred to by such titles as “king of kings, god's only begotten son,
and the alpha and omega”
He was crucified and rose from the dead

Mithras of Persia (1200 B.C.)

He was born of a virgin on Dec 25
He had twelve disciples
He was resurrected three days after his death
He was referred to by such titles as “truth” and “light”
Sunday was his sacred day of worship

The video then scrolls through a list of numerous deities who are said to have shared
some or all of these attributes:
Chrishna of Hindostan
Budha Saki of India
Salivahana of Bermuda
Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus of Egypt
Odin of the Scandinavians
Crite of Chaldea
Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia
Baal and taut of Phoenicia
Indra of Tibet
Bali of Afghanistan
Jao of Nepal
Wittoba of the Bilingonese
Thammuz of Syria
Atys of Phrygia

19
 Xamolxis of Thrace
Zoar of the Bonzes
Adad of Assyria
Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam
Alcides of Thebes
Mikado of the Sintoos
Beddru of Japan
Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids
Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls
Cadmus of Greece
Hil and Feta of the Mandaites
Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
Ischy of the island of Formosa
Divine Teacher of Plato
Holy One of Xaca
Fohi and Tien of China
Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece
Ixion and Quirinius of Rome
Prometheus of Causasus
Mohamud, or Mahomet, of Arabia

The following statement is then made: "The fact of the matter is, there are dozens of
virgin-born, crucified saviors from all over the world who fit these descriptions. The
question remains: Why these attributes? To find out, let's examine the most recent of the
solar messiahs."

Then, after a dramatic pause ...

Jesus of Nazareth
He was born of the virgin Mary on Dec. 25
His birth was announced by star in east
He was a child teacher at age twelve
He began His ministry at 30 after being baptized
He had twelve disciples who traveled with Him
He performed miracles
He was known by such titles as “King of Kings, Son of God, the Alpha Omega,
Light of World,” and the “Lamb of God”
He was crucified, dead for three days, rose again, and ascended to Heaven

Suggested origin for the “Jesus story”

After listing these attributes of Jesus’ life, the narrator expounds on the idea that the
“story of Jesus,” as he calls it, is merely a fabrication rooted in pagan mythology. He
claims Jesus’ birth sequence is “completely astrological." The “star in east” (or the star of
the magi) is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which on December 24th aligns with
the three brightest stars in Orion's belt. These three stars have been called, since ancient
times, the "three kings,” and these stars, along with Sirius, all point to the place of the

20
sunrise on December 25th (See Figure 1, below), the date known through history as the
birth of "god's sun.” This is why, he says, the three kings are mentioned in the Matthew’s
Gospel account of Jesus birth: to follow the star in the east so that they may locate the
rising of God’s Son.

Figure 1

The mention of the virgin Mary is representative of the constellation Virgo, also
known as Virgo the Virgin (Virgo is Latin for “virgin”). The ancient glyph or letter for
Virgo is M. "This is why Mary,” the narrator states, “and other virgin mothers such as
Myrra and Maya (the mother of Buddha), begin with an M.” Virgo is also referred to as
the “house of bread”. Bethlehem means “house of bread” in Hebrew. "Bethlehem is thus
a reference to the constellation Virgo, a place in the sky, not on earth,” so the video
suggests.

Suggested origin for the Dec. 25th date of birth

The video then examines a phenomenon which occurs around December 25th of each
year. The shortening of the days during the winter solstice symbolized the concept of
death among the ancients, and was known as the death of the sun. During December
22-24, the sun stops moving south, at least perceivably. During this “three day pause,“ the
“sun of god” resides in the vicinity of the southern cross, or Crux, constellation (see the
Figure 2, next page) and on December 25th, the sun moves, or “rises,” north (see the
Figure 3, next page), foreshadowing longer days, warmth, and spring.

21
 Figure 2 Figure 3

Conclusion
The video concludes by saying, "And thus it was said, the sun died on the cross, was
dead for three days, only to be resurrected, or born again. This is why Jesus, and all the
other sun gods, maintain the crucifixion, three day death, and resurrection concept: it is
the sun's transition period before it shifts its direction back into the northern hemisphere,
bringing spring, and thus salvation.” It is then stated, “However, [ancient civilization] did
not celebrate the resurrection of the sun until the spring equinox, or Easter. This is
because at the spring equinox, the sun officially overpowers the evil darkness."

End of video

22
 The Great Arcanum makes the following statement: "The fact of the matter is, there
are dozens of virgin-born, crucified saviors from all over the world who fit these
descriptions [i.e. virgin-birth, youthful teacher, star in the east, crucifixion, three day
death, resurrection, etc.].” It’s time to put this claim to the test and see if the meat behind
this statement is nothing more than bologna. Are these facts indeed factual in nature, or
are they the fabrications of a deceiver?
In order to answer this question, I will look at each attribute which is said to have been
similar to the attributes inherent in the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ (virgin-born,
star in the east, miracles performed, crucifixion, resurrection, etc.). In this section, I will
begin by considering the deities primarily discussed in the film: Horus*, Attis, Krishna,
Dionysus, and Mithras,** and it will be shown that the Gospel accounts are not mere
reflections of pagan myths, and that the claims of any such parallel or derivation is based
on an alteration or gross exaggeration of the original myths and religious texts. Each so-
called “parallel” attribute will be considered separately and in relation to each of these
deities.

*Egyptian mythology names several gods by this name. The one here under discussion is
the son of Osiris and Isis, identified as king of Egypt.

**There are actually three versions of this deity: the Indian deity Mitra, the Iranian
(Persian) deity Mithra, and the Roman deity Mithras. Following the time of Christ, the
former Iranian Mithra became known by Romans as Mithras. Zeitgeist incorrectly
identifies the pre-Christian Persian deity Mithra as Mithras and applies to him certain
characteristics of the post-Christian Roman Mithras. For instance, the Roman Mithras
was said to have been born on Dec 25th and was worshiped on Sundays, but such
characteristics were never associated with the Iranian Mithra. The producers of Zeitgeist
confuse the two deities either due to lack of careful research, or as an intentional attempt
to apply false characteristics to a deity which pre-dates Christianity, so that they may
fabricate a basis on which to claim the earlier Iranian myth was that on which were based
the later Gospel accounts of Jesus (after all, a post-Christian source is of no use to the
copycat theorist when attempting to prove his or her case). In this book, my attention will
focus on the Roman Mithras, since this is the deity actually under discussion, as the
biographical characteristics suggest, rather than the Iranian Mithra.

I. Virgin birth: said of Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithras

Concerning Horus
The narrator states that Horus was born of the virgin Isis on December 25th. In the
original myth, Isis was not Horus’ mother, however, when Isis was merged with
Hathor, another deity, she then became the wife of Osiris and the mother of Horus.
The manner of Horus’ conception did not involve a virginal conception. Before his
birth, his father Osiris was dismembered by Set into fourteen parts, which were
dispersed throughout Egypt (which is why there are so many tombs for Osiris to be
found in Egypt). Osiris’ wife, Isis, gathered the parts and pieced them together,
except for Osiris’ phallus, which she could not locate, for Set threw it into a river and
it was eaten by a fish. Isis then fashioned a phallus for him and by drawing the seed

24
from the body of her dead husband, she conceived Horus. A hymn within Plutarch’s
account of the Horus myth contains the following description of Horus’ conception:
"[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [phallus] of him whose heart was at rest,
she drew from him his essence [sperm], and she made from them an heir [Horus]."1
That is not virginal conception, since virgin birth necessitates the lack of sexual
union and clearly Horus was born from the essence, or seed, of the revived Osiris. In
fact, one ancient Egyptian relief depicts Horus’ conception by showing Isis, in the
Underworld and in the form of a falcon, hovering over the erect phallus of the dead
Osiris. It can also not be assumed that Isis was a virgin at the time of Horus’
conception, since she had been married to Osiris prior to the moment of Horus’
conception. There is no confirmation whether the marriage was or was not
consummated in the myth, but the natural and reasonable presumption is that sexual
intercourse would have been inherent in the relationship. Also, the last line in the
first hymn found in the Book of the Dead, an ancient Egyptian religious text believed
to have been a guide for the deceased in their journey through the Underworld,
states, “The Company of the gods rejoiced at the coming of Horus, the son of Osiris,
whose heart was firm, the triumphant, the son of Isis, the heir of Osiris.“ In his
efforts to seek the opinion of modern scholarship, Ward Gasque, President of the
Pacific Association for Theological Studies, contacted twenty contemporary
Egyptologists, asking them whether or not Horus was virgin-born. The ten who
responded were all in agreement that there is no indication within the ancient texts
that Horus was virgin-born.2 Among the ancient manuscripts, the most complete
account of the Horus myth is “On Isis and Osiris” by Plutarch (c.46-120 A.D.). It
reads as follows:

"Of the parts of Osiris' body the only one which Isis did not find was the male
member, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the
lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these very
fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica
of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honor of which
the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival."3

Compare this to the following statements made by Egyptian scholars concerning

Horus’ birth:

"...drawings on contemporary funerary papyri show [Isis] as a kite hovering

above Osiris, who is revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his
wife."4

"After having sexual intercourse, in the form of a bird, with the dead god
[Isis] restored to life, she gave birth to a posthumous son, Horus."5

In her booklet The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist Part 1, author D. M. Murdock

(otherwise known as Acharya S) states, “It is erroneously claimed that, because in
one version of the myth Isis impregnates herself with Osiris’ severed phallus, she
cannot be considered a ‘virgin.’”6 In such an analysis, Murdock fails to consider that
although the conception of Horus was a supernatural conception, it was still

25
conception by insemination, a means of conception which, regardless of the
circumstances, does not involve virgin birth. By such logic as hers, the modern
practice of artificial insemination would be considered virginal conception, which, of
course, it is not. She even admits in the above statement that it was by Osiris’
“severed phallus” that Isis became pregnant. She also reiterates the conception by
insemination in the next sentence when she says, (emphasis mine) “Furthermore, in
his eye-opening comparison of Isis with the Virgin Mary, Budge states that in the
Osirian myth it is by incantations, spells and words that Isis draws the seed into
herself to conceive Horus.” The only eye opener here is the inconsistency of
Murdock’s reasoning, since, even according to her own admission, it is still by
Osiris’ “seed” that Isis is impregnated.
Murdock attempts to further her premise concerning Isis’ so-called virgin birth by
appealing to an inscription on the temple of the goddess Neith, one of Isis’ alter egos.
Her claim is that the temple, which no longer remains standing, contained an
inscription reading, “My garment no one has lifted up … The fruit that I have borne
is the sun.” Murdock reads into this a reference to virginity, since no one is said to
have “lifted up” Neith’s “garment.”7 The inscription did exist, to a certain degree,
and is found in the writings of Plutarch, however, the context in which Plutarch
refers to Neith’s “garment” is not in reference to her sexuality, but to the
transcendent nature of the deity, who remains shrouded from the mind of men by
means of the veil, as shown in the excerpt below (emphasis mine):

“… he that was elected out of the military class immediately became one of the
priests, and was initiated into their wisdom, which was for the most part
shrouded in fables and stories giving obscure indications and glimpses of the
truth … And the shrine of Minerva at Sais (whom they consider the same with
Isis) bears this inscription, ‘I am all that hath been, and is, and shall be; and my
veil no mortal has hitherto raised.’ … Manetho the Sebennyte is of opinion that
the ‘hidden’ and ‘hiding’ is expressed by this word. Hecataeus of Abdera says
that the Egyptians use this word to one another, when they are calling anyone to
them; for the word is one of calling to, for which reason the Supreme God
(whom they consider the same with the All) they invoke as being hidden and
invisible, and exhort him to make himself visible and apparent, and therefore
call him ‘Amun’: so great therefore was the piety of the Egyptians in their
teaching respecting the gods.”8

The above excerpt from Plutarch is a clear reference to the mysteries of the
religion, and of the deity herself, rather than a reference to any supposed virginity of
the goddess. Nevertheless, Murdock then cites William Coleman as saying, “The
point is this: Does the expression, ‘lifting the garment’...of Neith refer to her
perpetual virginity or to her inscrutability? There is not a shadow of doubt that it
refers to the former, and I am confident that every Egyptologist in the world will so
decide.”9 Given the above context in which the phrase was originally given by
Plutarch, Coleman’s certainty in his colleagues’ agreement with his interpretation is
the epitome of overconfidence in such an unwarranted premise, as evidenced by the
Egyptologists who replied to Gasque’s inquiry. Murdock even hints to the true
meaning of the “garment” when she cites Wallis Budge as saying (emphasis mine),

26
“at Sais [the location of Neith’s temple] there were several chambers in which the
‘Mysteries’ of the ancient Virgin Mother-goddess Neith were celebrated.”10 By her
own admission, Murdock gives her readers the true meaning of the veil: that it is a
covering over of the deity’s person, thus preventing her from being known by her
devotees, and the pursuit of such knowledge is the purpose for which these
“chambers” existed in her temple.
Murdock also appeals to the birth of Ra, the Egyptian sun god, in an attempt to
link his birth with the birth of Jesus, the Son of God, by drawing attention to the
identification of Neith as the Great Mother and the “begetter of the sun.” The appeal
she is making is two-fold. First, she appeals to the similarity between the title of
Neith and the title of Mary, both regarded, by some, as a “mother of God.” This
tactic will be addressed under the heading specifically concerned with Mary herself.
Second, she appeals to the phonetic similarity of Neith as the mother of the sun to
that of Mary as the mother of the Son of God. This tactic will be addressed under the
heading immediately forthcoming. Yet, in raising such a point, she brings to light a
subtle comparison that some critics would draw between the type of births involved
in the Neith myth and the Gospel nativity, claiming that both involved a birth by
virginal conception, since neither birth involved male insemination. According to the
Egyptian myth, Neith is one of the primeval deities and the one responsible not just
for the creation of the sun, but also, the gods themselves. Neith (as Isis) is the mother
of Ra, the Egyptian sun god. She is said to have conceived him while she was in the
primordial watery void known as Nun. Since the sun, or Ra, rose from these waters
while Isis/Neith was within them, she is said to have given birth to the sun. However,
Ra’s birth was not a virgin birth; but rather, a birth through parthenogenesis, or
asexual reproduction. Neith was an androgynous deity, meaning she was a mixture of
masculine and feminine properties,11 and a birth by such a deity cannot be likened to
a virgin birth, since it still involves the function of a particular type of sexuality.
Neith, being a deity who possesses properties of both male and female genders, does
not reproduce through union with a member of the opposite sex, since there is no
gender to which she is opposite. Neither is there abstinence from sexual intercourse
by which she could rightly be considered a virgin. In the natural world,
parthenogenesis occurs in some species of plants and creatures, such as some bees
and scorpions, reptiles, and, on rare occasions, birds and sharks. 12 In these instances,
the subject is not regarded as haiving given birth by virginal conception, nor is the
conception considered supernatural, since the process of parthenogenesis is a natural
form of conception in asexual creatures. By contrast, Mary’s virginal conception of
Jesus cannot be compared to parthenogenesis since parthenogenesis is not a natural
means by which women conceive. Perhaps Murdock is aware that such a comparison
is not reasonable, thereby compelling her to make such an analogy by merely
evoking a play on words, linking Isis, the mother of the sun, to Mary, the mother of
the Son of God. Unfortunately, for her, it takes more than child’s play to make her
analogy tenable. Finally, she states, “Nor is Neith-Isis the only pre-Christian and
non-Christian virgin mother. Gautama Buddha was only one of many Oriental heroes
whose mother was a virgin.”13 Buddha's mother was married to the King of Shakyas
at the time of Buddha’s conception and, although he was indeed said to have had a
supernatural birth (a white elephant is said to have entered his mother’s side and

27
impregnated her), such a legend concerning his birth did not arise until after the
writing of the Gospels.

Concerning Krishna*
*Note: “Krishna” is incorrectly translated when translated as “Christ.” Krishna
literally means “Black” in Sanskrit, whereas “Christ” means “Anointed One” in
Hebrew.

Krishna’s birth was not to a virgin. Contrary to critics’ suggestions that Krishna
was born to the virgin Maia, Krishna was the eighth son of Devaki and her husband
Vasudeva, according to the Hindu texts:

"You have been born of the divine Devaki and Vasudeva for the protection of
Brahma on earth."14

It is true that, while their previous seven sons were born through normal
conceptions and births, Krishna’s birth was said to have been miraculous in that he is
said to have never entered the womb of Devaki, but was already there in her mind
and heart.

“While carrying the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead within the
core of his heart, Vasudeva bore the Lord's transcendentally illuminating
effulgence, and thus he became as bright as the sun. He was therefore very
difficult to see or approach through sensory perception. Indeed, he was
unapproachable and unperceivable even for such formidable men as Kamsa, and
not only for Kamsa but for all living entities. Thereafter, accompanied by
plenary expansions, the fully opulent Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is
all-auspicious for the entire universe, was transferred from the mind of Vasudeva
to the mind of Devaki. Devaki, having thus been initiated by Vasudeva, became
beautiful by carrying Lord Krishna, the original consciousness for everyone, the
cause of all causes, within the core of her heart, just as the east becomes
beautiful by carrying the rising moon.”15

"With our senses we can perceive some things, but not everything; for example,
we can use our eyes to see, but not to taste. Consequently, You are beyond
perception by the senses. Although in touch with the modes of material nature,
You are unaffected by them. You are the prime factor in everything, the
all-pervading, undivided Supersoul. For You, therefore, there is no external or
internal. You never entered the womb of Devaki; rather, You existed there
already."16

In the case of Krishna, it is said the personality of godhead was transferred from
the mind of Vasudeva to the mind of Devaki without the intervention of male seed.
Krishna did not reside within the womb of Devaki, for his presence within the core
of her heart was sufficient to carry him. For this reason, Hindus are forbidden to
think that Krishna was begotten by Vasudeva within the womb of Devaki and that
she carried him as she carried her previous seven children. This account of Krishna,

28
although miraculous, were it true, could not be likened to the Gospel accounts of
either Jesus’ conception or Mary’s pregnancy, for the following reasons:

1. Jesus was Mary’s first child (Lk 2:7), whereas Krishna was Devaki’s eighth,
thereby identifying Devaki as a non-virgin..

2. While the conception of Jesus was supernatural and without male

insemination, Mary’s pregnancy was as natural as any mother’s-to-be pregnancy
could be. She carried Jesus in her womb for a full term and gave natural birth.

3. Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception (Lk 1:27), and remained so
until after his birth. While she was “espoused”, or betrothed, to Joseph at the
time of Jesus’ conception and they were legally considered husband and wife,
they did not consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born (Mt 1:25). The
custom of the day was that betrothal lasted one year, during which time Mary
and Joseph were considered legally married and were called husband and wife.
After the year of betrothal, a seven day-long wedding ceremony took place, after
which Joseph would bring her to the door of their new home. However, during
the betrothal period, they were also bound to be faithful to one another and any
infidelity was considered adultery. In such case, the relationship could be broken
by one of two means:

* Joseph could have her presented with a note of divorce in public court,
at which time her reputation would be forever scarred and, according to
Levitical law, she could be stoned for adultery, although by her day the
practice of stoning as the penalty for such an offense had virtually been
abandoned, due to the influence of the Pharisees.

* Or, Joseph could “put her away” privately, at which time she would be
presented with a note of divorce in the presence of one or two witnesses,
after which she would be sent to raise her child in secret and away from
the community.

Historian Michael Licona contacted Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at

Rutgers University, regarding the parallels which author D. M. Murdock draws
between Krishna and Jesus. Concerning Bryant’s response, Licona writes:

“I emailed him regarding her 24 comparisons of Krishna to Jesus which the

reader may find in The Christ Conspiracy. He stated that 14 of her 24
comparisons are wrong and a 15th is partially wrong. What about her 9 that are
correct; especially Krishna’s virgin birth, the story of the tyrant who had
thousands of infants killed (a parallel to Herod), and Krishna’s bodily ascension?
Benjamin Walker in his book, The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of
Hinduism provides an answer. After tracing similarities related to the birth,
childhood, and divinity of Jesus, as well as the late dating of these legendary
developments in India, ‘[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the
tales [from Christianity], but not the name.’ Bryant also comments that these

29
 parallels come from the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa. Bryant believes
the former ‘to be prior to the seventh century A.D. (although many scholars have
hitherto considered it to be 11 century A.D.’ Yet this is hundreds of years after
the Gospel accounts. Of the Harivamsa, Bryant is uncertain concerning its date.
However, most sources seem to place its composition between the fourth and
sixth centuries, again hundreds of years after the Gospel accounts had been in
circulation. An earlier date is entertained by David Mason of the University of
Wisconsin, who states that there is no consensus on the dating that he is aware of
but that it may be as early as the second century. Even if this early date is
accurate, it is still after the Gospels, not before as Murdock’s thesis requires.”17

Concerning Mithras
Not only was Mithras not born to a virgin, he was not born of woman at all; but
rather, he emerged from a rock, and in proximity to a wild bull, which critics choose
to liken to the Christian manger scene complete with lambs and oxen. In the religious
texts and in the earliest reliefs depicting his origin, Mithras is seen emerging from
the rock as a fully-mature being. Thus, Mithras is known in literature as the “rock-
born god,” and an early inscription attributed to Mithras reads, “To the almighty God
Sun invincible, generative god, born from the rock.”18 Commodianus, a Latin poet
who wrote c. 250 A.D., identified Mithras as "the unconquered one … born from a
rock."19 In addition, the Mithras cult did not become known in the Roman world until
the second century A.D. (the latest of the four Gospels, the Gospel of John, was
written in the 90’s A.D.), and therefore could not have been a source for any such
fabrication of virgin birth for Jesus in the first century. The following is from the
Encyclopedia Britannica:

“There is little notice of the Persian god [Mithra] in the Roman world until the
beginning of the 2nd century, but, from the year A.D. 136 onward, there are
hundreds of dedicatory inscriptions to Mithra. This renewal of interest is not
easily explained. The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Roman
Mithraism was practically a new creation, wrought by a religious genius who
may have lived as late as c. A.D. 100 and who gave the old traditional Persian
ceremonies a new Platonic interpretation that enabled Mithraism to become
acceptable to the Roman world”20

It is said that shepherds attended Mithras' birth and even offered to him the
firstlings from their flock, but the source material for this aspect of the birth story
dates only back to the second century and, therefore, could not have been an
influence for the writer of the Gospel of Luke. Besides, according to Mithraic
doctrine, Mithras emerged from the rock at a time before man, whether shepherd or
non-shepherd, existed on earth.
In regards to the alleged similarities between Mithraism and Christianity, Manfred
Clauss states, "...the entire discussion is largely unhistorical. To raise the issue of a
competition between the two religions is to assume that Christians and Mithraists
had the same aims. Such a view exaggerates the missionary zeal -- itself a Christian
idea -- of the other mystery cults. None of them aimed to become the sole legitimate
religion of the Roman empire, because they offered an entirely individual and

30
personal salvation. The alternative 'Mithras or Christ?' is wrongly framed, because it
postulates a competitive situation which, in the eyes of Mithraists, simply did not
exist....We should not simply transpose Christian views and terms in this area onto
other mystery cults. Most of the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are
part of the common currency of all mystery cults or can be traced back to common
origins in the Graeco-oriental culture of the Hellenistic world. The similarities do not
at all suggest mutual influence....there are more substantial parallels at the ritual
level, particularly the ritual meal...."21

Concerning Attis
Attis was born of the nymph Nana after she was impregnated by an almond
(seriously!) which was affected by the semen of Zeus, the chief of the Olympian
gods. According to one version of the myth, a hermaphroditic (having both male and
female parts) monster arises from the earth and gives “birth” to the river Sangarius,
from which Nana is brought forth. The myth states she either became impregnated by
holding an almond to her breast or by it falling into her lap while sitting beneath a
tree. After the child is born, she abandons him and he is afterwards raised by a
goat*.22 There is also an alternate version of the myth, in which Nana is the daughter
of King Sangarius and she becomes pregnant from a pomegranate fruit. After an
attempt by Liber to kill the hunter Agdistis, the fruit is produced from Agdistis’
blood, and it is by this fruit that Nana is impregnated. There is clearly no similarity
here to the virgin birth of Jesus, in which the child is conceived in Mary’s womb
without her being affected by an object touched with “divine” life-giving properties.
Pausanias, a second century geographer, gave the following account of the belief
concerning Attis’ birth:

“Zeus, it is said, let fall in his sleep seed upon the ground, which in course of
time sent up a demon with two sexual organs, male and female. They call the
demon Agdistis. But the gods, fearing Agdistis, cut off the male organ. There
grew up from it an almond tree with its fruit ripe, and a daughter of the river
Sangarius, they say, took of the fruit and laid it in her bosom, when it at once
disappeared, but she was with child. A boy was born and exposed, but was
tended by a he-goat.”23

* In myth, the goat is linked to the god Pan, a trickster spirit.

Concerning Dionysus
As with Attis, there are two versions of the birth of Dionysus, and neither one
involves birth from a virgin. In the first, Dionysus is conceived after his mother,
Semele, a mortal woman, is impregnated by Zeus. The goddess Hera became jealous
of the pregnant Semele and convinces her to ask Zeus to show her his glory, knowing
that any mortal who looks upon his glory would die. Semele made such a request and
upon beholding Zeus’ glory, she was incinerated. After her death, Zeus sews the fetal
Dionysus into his own thigh and carries him until his birth. A play by Euripides tells
of the rebirth of Dionysus:

31
 “Immediately Zeus, Kronos' son, received [Dionysus] into a chamber fit for
birth, and having covered him in his thigh shut him up with golden clasps,
hidden from Hera. And he brought forth, when the Fates had perfected him, the
bull-horned god, and he crowned him with crowns of snakes.”24

In the second version of the birth story, Dionysus is the offspring of Persephone,
her having being impregnated by Zeus. This version also features a jealous Hera,
who sends the Titans to kill the infant, which they do by dismemberment. Zeus
remedies the situation by implanting Dionysus’ heart into the womb of Semele, from
whom Dionysus is then reborn.
In the case of Dionysus, both birth versions involve the god Zeus impregnating a
woman to satisfy his own lust, which is in no way similar to the conception of Jesus,
who was conceived not as a result of Mary being “impregnated” by the Holy Spirit;
but rather, the child was formed within her without the means of insemination. Zeus
was a morally corrupt god, siring numerous offspring after either deceiving or raping
a woman.25 In addition, Dionysus was not born for the purpose of the child bringing
salvation, as was the case with Jesus. When the angel announced to Mary she would
conceive, she was told specifically the child would “save his people from their sins.”
Also, Dionysus’ second “birth” is better likened to the concept of re-creation, being
created a second in the same form and as the same person. In any case, no virgin
birth can be attributed to Dionysus.
Dionysus is said to have been the bodily incarnation of God, as was Jesus. In the
Bacche Dionysus says that he “veiled his godhead in mortal shape” and was made
“manifest to mortal men.” Elsewhere in the same work he says, “I have changed my
immortal form and taken the likeness of men.” However, he said this merely in
retaliation to Pentheus' refusal to bestow him honor, rather than making a literal
claim to incarnation.

II. December 25th date of birth: said of Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus,
and Mithras

Concerning Horus
Horus' birth was actually celebrated during the month of Khoiak, which
corresponds to October/November. Plutarch’s claim that Horus was born in
December1 is more closely related to the sacredness which many pagan religions
associated with the winter solstice, which was typical of sun gods (which Horus
became through his merging with Ra).

Concerning Attis
Nowhere in the myth is Attis said to be born in December. In fact, his birth was
associated with the annual return of spring.2

Concerning Krishna
Krishna's “birthday” is observed by the celebration called Krishna Janmaashtami,
and is observed in the Hindu month of Bhadrapadha which corresponds to the month
of August.3

32
Concerning Dionysus
In like fashion with Attis, Dionysus’ birth is associated with the annual return of
spring. It was not until the fourth century, by Epiphanius, when Dionysus’ birth was
associated with a date in the winter months, and this date was January 6th, not
December 25th.4

Concerning Mithras
True, December 25th is associated with Mithras, but not until 274 A.D. when the
Roman Emperor Aurelian instituted the Feast of Sol Invictus to be observed on that
date.5 He did so with political motives due to the growing popularity of Mithraism
among the Roman populace and an attempt to secure the loyalty of his soldiers.

When was Jesus born?

The critics who claim Jesus’ birth date is derived from pagan mythology are
actually correct, since the date on which Christians observe His birth does have
pagan origin, as will be shown shortly hereafter. However, these critics are
apparently unaware that Jesus was not actually born on December 25th, or they
intentionally manipulate the information, through omission or alteration of the facts,
for the purposes of deceiving others into believing their claim to be true. No one
knows the exact date of Jesus’ birth, however, we can narrow the scope of the search
for His birth date by considering other factors, such as the death of Herod the Great,
the Jewish rite of purification, and the date of Zechariah’s service in the temple.

Establishing the year

The end date - The death of Herod the Great

Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great, as described in
Matthew’s narrative. Historians have assigned the date of Herod’s death to a few
different years: 5 B.C., 4 B.C., and 1 B.C. The best evidence leans in favor of 4
B.C. According to Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote in order to gain favor
with the Roman emperor, Herod’s kingdom was divided among his sons in 4
B.C., following their father’s death. Additionally, he stated that Herod died
shortly before the Passover Feast6 in the year of Rome 750 AUC* (or 4 B.C.), a
feast which was held on the date corresponding to the fourth of April. Josephus
also stated Herod died after a lunar eclipse which occurred earlier, on March
13th, 4 B.C. Therefore, Herod must have died between March 13th, the date of the
lunar eclipse, and April 12th, the date of the Passover Feast, in 4 B.C.7

* AUC stands for Ab Urbe Condita, meaning "from the foundation of Rome". 1
AUC corresponds to 754 B.C., the date being chosen in 533 A.D. by Dionysus
Exiguus, who chose to reckon years from the founding of Rome to what he
believed was the year of Christ’s birth, although Jesus was not actually born in 1
A.D.

Conclusion #1: The birth of Christ must have been no later than
April 12th in 4 B.C.

33
 The beginning date - The date of the construction of the Temple
Herod the Great ordered the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, an
effort which began in 20 B.C. In John’s Gospel, the Jews stated that this effort
continued for forty-six years (Jn 2:20), which would bring its completion to 26
A.D. The event recounted in the Gospel is the first of three annual Passovers
attended by Jesus during His ministry. If the Temple was completed in 26 A.D.,
and Jesus’ attendance at the three annual Passover feasts was between 27-29
A.D., that would place His birth in late 5 B.C. or early 4 B.C., as He was thirty-
three years of age when He was crucified.

Conclusion #2: The birth of Christ must have been no earlier than
the latter portion of 5 B.C. and no later than April 12th in 4 B.C.

Determining the time of the year

The date of Zechariah’s service in the temple

In Luke’s Gospel, it is said of Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist and a
member of the Jewish priestly order, that the birth of John was announced to
him by an angel while he was performing his priestly duties in Jerusalem. Luke
also states that Zechariah was of the priestly “course of Abijah” (or Abia, as
spelled in the King James Version).

The priestly courses

King David, in accordance with instruction he received from God (1 Chr
28:11-13), divided the Levitical priesthood into twenty-four courses, or groups
(1 Chr 24:1-4). The establishment of these courses would ensure the Temple
would be staffed year round by a set rotation of priests. Once the priesthood was
divided, lots were drawn to determine the order in which each course would
serve in the rotation (1 Chr 24: 7-19). As a result, the course of Abijah was
named as the eighth course in the rotation (I Chr 24:10), a schedule which
continued until the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

The Jewish calendar

The Jewish calendar has twelve or thirteen months, corresponding to the
revolution of the earth around the sun (about 12.4 months), having twenty-nine
or thirty days each, corresponding to the revolution of the moon about the earth
(about 29.5 days). In order to compensate for the additional eleven days gained
each year on a strictly twelve month calendar, the Hebrews added a month,
called Adar I, between Shebat and Adar, the eleventh and twelfth month. The
Jewish months, from first to last, are:

Nisan 30 days Mar-Apr

Iyar 29 days Apr-May
Sivan 30 days May-June
Tammuz 29 days June-July
Av 30 days July-Aug
Elul 29 days Aug-Sept

34
 Tishri 30 days Sept-Oct
Cheshvan 29-30 days Oct-Nov
Kislev 29-30 days Nov-Dec
Tevet 29 days Dec-Jan
Shevat 30 days Jan-Feb
Adar I 30 days Feb-Mar (leap years only)
Adar 29 days Feb-Mar

The rotation of courses

Each course would serve for one week, from Sabbath to Sabbath, in the
scheduled rotation, with the exception of the festivals of Unleavened Bread and
Passover (Nisan 15-21), Pentecost (Sivan 6), and Tabernacles (Tishri 15), during
which all courses were on duty in the Temple. Each year, when the rotation was
completed, it began anew with the first of the courses. Thus, each course served
five times during the year – two weeks for their usual rotation and three weeks
for the three weekly festivals. The rotation of courses began in the Jewish month
of Nissan (corresponding mid-March to mid-April), the beginning of the Jewish
year (1 Chr 27:2).

Nisan 30 days Mar-Apr

Week 1 - course 1
Week 2 - course 2
Week 3 - all courses for the Passover and Feast of Unleavened
Bread
Week 4 - course 3
Iyar 29 days Apr-May
Week 5 - course 4
Week 6 - course 5
Week 7 - course 6
Week 8 - course 7
Sivan 30 days May-June
Week 9 - course 8 (Zechariah’s service during the first rotation)
Week 10 - all courses for the Feast of Pentecost.
Week 11 - course 9
Week 12 - course 10
Tammuz 29 days June-July
Week 13 - course 11
Week 14 - course 12
Week 15 - course 13
Week 16 - course 14
Av 30 days July-Aug
Week 17 - course 15
Week 18 - course 16
Week 19 - course 17
Week 20 - course 18

35
 Elul 29 days Aug-Sept
Week 21 - course 19
Week 22 - course 20
Week 23 - course 21
Week 24 - course 22
Tishri 30 days Sept-Oct
Week 25 - course 23
Week 26 - course 24
Week 27 - all courses for the Feast of Tabernacles
Week 28 – The rotation begins anew with course 1
Cheshvan 29-30 days Oct-Nov
Week 29 - course 2
Week 30 - course 3
Week 31 - course 4
Week 32 - course 5
Kislev 29-30 days Nov-Dec
Week 33 - course 6
Week 34 - course 7
Week 35 - course 8 (Zechariah’s service during the second
rotation)
Weeks 36-52 – the remainder of the courses serve in their second
scheduled rotation

The service of Abijah

The schedule above shows that the course of Abijah would serve its regular
schedule during the first week of Sivan, in the latter half of May, and the third
week of Kislev, in early December. In addition to this, the same course would
also serve for the three weekly feasts: 1) in early April, 2) in late May,
immediately following its first scheduled appointment, and 3) in early October.

The birth of John

Luke tells us that “as soon as the days of [Zechariah’s] ministration were
accomplished” (Lk 1:23) he returned to his home in "the hill country" of Judah
(Lk 1: 39). His wife, Elizabeth, conceived shortly after his return home.
Allowing a few days for the journey home, we can assume John was conceived
shortly thereafter. John the Baptist would then have been born close to nine
months following Zechariah’s service in the Temple.

The conception of Jesus

According to Luke, when the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she
would conceive a son, he also stated that Elizabeth was in the sixth month of her
pregnancy at that time (Lk 1:26-36). Therefore, Jesus’ birth, nine months later,
was fifteen months after Zechariah’s service.

Determining at which appointment Zechariah served

Luke does state that Zechariah performed his service “in the order of his
course,” (Lk 1:8) and that as part of his service he entered “into the temple of

36
the Lord and burn incense.” (Lk 1:9) The nature of Zechariah’s service described
in the text indicates that it was during one of his two regularly-scheduled weeks
that he served, rather than one of his three festival weeks of service.8 Therefore,
at the time of the annunciation of John’s birth, it is likely Zechariah was in
service either in late May or early October, when his course regularly served
according to the regular schedule. Based on that information, we can calculate
the conception and birth of John and Jesus as follows:

If during Zechariah’s first service in the latter half of May:

Late May/early June – John is conceived
Late November/early, December – Jesus is conceived
Late February/early March – birth of John
Late August/early September – birth of Jesus

If during Zechariah’s second service in early December:

December – John is conceived
June – Jesus is conceived
September – John is born
December/January – Jesus is born

Conclusion #3: Jesus’ birth was in August/September or December

of 5 B.C.

The events surrounding Jesus’ birth

Immediately following her giving birth to Jesus, Mary entered in to a period
of time when she was deemed unfit to participate in religious ceremonies.
According to Jewish law, in order to cleanse herself of this state, a woman was
required to undergo the rite of purification after giving birth. In the case of a
daughter, purification was to be completed eighty-one days after birth; and for a
son, forty-one days. The rite required Joseph and Mary to journey from
Bethlehem to Jerusalem and pay to the Temple the appropriate amount due for
Mary’s purification. This means that the time between Jesus’ birth and Mary’s
purification must have been at least six weeks, to allow for the forty-one day
requirement. We also know that after the purification they returned to Bethlehem
and were visited by the magi. After the magi departed Bethlehem, Herod sent his
soldiers to Bethlehem to slaughter the male children two years and under.
It was said above that Herod died between March 13th to April 12th in 4 B.C.
Between Jesus’ birth and the death of Herod were Mary’s forty-one day period
of ceremonial impurity, the round trip to Jerusalem for the Purification rite, the
visit of the Magi, and the slaughter of the children. In order to allow enough
time for these events to occur, a December birth is unlikely, since it only allows
for no more than four months – and that being the case only if Jesus’ birth was in
early December and Herod’s death was shortly before April 12th.
Finally, Luke tells us that Jesus was born during a Roman census conducted
“when Quirinius was governor of Syria*.” (Lk. 2:1-2) A census was typically
conducted following the harvest season, from August to October, in order to
cause as little effect on the economy as possible in a largely agrarian society.9

37
 Also, travel from one district to another would have been easier and safer before
the winter storms and rain set in. For this reason, a December census would not
have been likely.

* Note: Critics have challenged Luke’s accuracy, since Quirinius did not begin
his governorship until a few years after the supposed date of Jesus’ birth.
Historian Alfred Edersheim and theologian J. Gresham Machen agree that the
census began prior to Quirinius’ governorship, but was completed while he was
in office, and that it was custom to name a census according to the ruler under
whose governorship the census was completed.10 See Part five for a further
discussion on Quirinius' enrollment.

Conclusion #4: Jesus’ birth was in August/September of 5 B.C.

Addendum - The argument regarding the shepherds

According to Luke, on the night of Jesus' birth, there were “shepherds in the
same country abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock.”
(Lk 2:8) Some argue that a December birth is unlikely on the premise that
shepherds would not keep watch in the fields in the winter months, while others
argue that shepherds watched their flocks year round, making a December birth
not impossible on this basis alone. Luke was a man who paid close attention to
detail. His mention of shepherds abiding with their flocks by night was not
likely just a casual reference; but rather, was probably included as an indicator
of the time of the year when Jesus was born. If shepherds watched their flocks
year round, then such a mention of a night-time watch would be futile.

How did December 25th come to be recognized as Jesus’ birth date?

As stated above, the exact birth date is not known, but we can, with a fair amount
of certainty, narrow the date to within a short span of time. The celebration of Jesus’
birth date was established on December 25th by Julius I in 350 A.D. Prior to this
establishment, December 25th was known as the Roman holiday Brumalia, a pagan
celebration devoted to the sun. Desiring to challenge the Roman observance, Julius
declared that date to be the date on which the birth of Jesus would be observed. As
one Roman Catholic writer states, "… to facilitate the acceptance of the faith by the
pagan masses, the Church of Rome found it convenient to institute the 25th of
December as the feast of the birth of Christ to divert them from the pagan feast,
celebrated on the same day in honor of the 'Invincible Sun' Mithras, the conqueror of
darkness."11 Christians were outraged and offended at this declaration, since the birth
of their Savior was being associated with a pagan celebration. However, that date
remained firm as the date on which Jesus’ birth was observed. Since then, December
25th has been the date on which Jesus birth has been celebrated, despite the actual
date being unknown.
Concerning this date, some critics appeal to the piece of legislation known as HR
847, passed in 2007 by the U.S. House of Representatives, allegedly declaring
December 25th as Jesus' birthday. The truth is that this piece of legislation does not
declare December 25th as the birthday of Jesus. The legislation (the text of which
may be read in full at www.govtrack.us) makes various statements concerning the

38
population of Christians in the world, as well as statements relating to various social
and political observations with respect to Christians and Christianity in general.
However, concerning Christmas as the date of Jesus' birth, the bill simply states that
Christmas is “a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures
and nationalities, [and] is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United
States and the world. … On December 25th of each calendar year, American
Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus
Christ; … as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and … [and] as a
time to serve others.” Such statements merely relate what Christians believe about
Christmas, without further commenting or making declarations concerning the
validity of these beliefs. The bill only names December 25th as the date on which
Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, not as the date on which Jesus was actually
born.

Why are many pagan deities said to be born on December 25th?

It is true that many pagan deities share December 25th as the date for celebration
in their name. This is due to the fact that many of these deities are associated with the
sun or the sky, and December 25th has been considered throughout history and by
many cultures to be the birthday of the sun. Thus, a deity said to be a sky or sun god
shared the “birthday” of the sun. The selection of this date is based on the
symbolism surrounding the Winter Solstice (derived from the Latin words “sol”
meaning “sun”, and “sistere,” meaning “to cause to stand still”), which marks the
end of the darkening of the days and the beginning of the lengthening of light. On
this day, because of the tilt of the earth on its axis, daylight exists in its shortest
duration throughout the year, after which the daylight hours gradually increase.
Many cultures saw this event as a sign of rebirth, renewal, and even salvation.
During the three days prior to the Winter Solstice, between December 22nd-24th, the
sun is perceived as ceasing to move either north or south, and ancient cultures
considered this stillness of the sun as being symbolic of death; specifically, the death
of the old sun. When, on December 25th, the sun began to move north, or “return
from the dead,” this was considered symbolic of life, or the “rebirth” of the sun. So it
was that December 25th became celebrated as the birth of the sun, and also became
closely associated with any deity related to the sun.
The celebration of the Winter Solstice was not observed by ancient Egyptians.
Rather, it has its basis as a Druidic or Celtic observance. The Celtic year observed
the following eight annual cycles:

Samhain, the beginning of the Celtic year – October 31st

This was a time when men and women conducted themselves in a chaotic
manner, playing various sorts of tricks and pranks and even cross-dressing
amongst themselves. During these three days the World of the Ancestors
was made available to the living, and many attempted to contact those in the
spirit world. There were feasts held in honor of the dead, and during this
time, the dead were thought of as living spirits.
Yule, The Winter Solstice – December 22nd -24th
Also called Midwinter or Alban Arthan (i.e., the Light of Arthur), the
Winter Solstice marked a time of death and rebirth, as the sun is perceived

39
 to disappear on this day, the day of the longest night, then reappear on
December 25th, the day which begins the lengthening of daylight.
Imbolc – February 2nd
Also called Oimelc, this date marked the beginning of the spring thaw when
the winter snow began to fade.
Ostara, The Spring Equinox – March 20th or 21st
During this time, forces of day and night are perceived to reign in equal
duration.
Beltine – April 30th
A time when adolescence and fertility is celebrated.
The Summer Solstice – June 21st or 22nd
Also called Alban Hefin, this is the day which sees the longest period of
daylight. Druids held an all-night vigil on the eve of this day. A second
ceremony was held beginning with the light of day, and a third ceremony at
noontime.
Lughnasadh – August 2nd
Also known as Lammas, this day marked the beginning of the harvest
season. On this day were held various contests and games.
Mabon, The Autumn Equinox – September 21st
Also called Alban Elfed, this final cycle marked the end of the harvest
season. Day and night are again of equal duration, as during the Spring
Equinox. On this day the Celts gave thanks to the Mother Goddess for the
bounty of the season’s harvest.

There is a vast difference between the Christian view of astronomy and the astro-
theology of pagan cultures. In pagan cultures, the revolution of the seasons and the
stars in the heavens are reflective of the recurring events in the lives of their deities.
Thus, the annual renewal of vegetation is likened to the annual rebirth of a god. In
Christian theology, the seasons are set in motion by a providential God and the stars
in the heavens are His creation. In pagan religion, the sun is god. In Christian
theology, the sun is a created body fashioned by the word of God. In pagan religion,
the gods are subservient to the seasons. In Christian theology, the seasons were set in
motion according to the design of God. The ancient Jews and Christians never
thought of the sun, stars, or seasons as being objects worthy of worship. In fact, God
strictly forbade the worship of the stars, therefore, any suggestion that the Gospel
accounts of Jesus are based on pre-existing astrological beliefs denies the fact that
the writers of the Gospels belonged to a religious system which forbade such astro-
theological beliefs.

And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and
the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to
worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all
nations under the whole heaven. (Deut 4:19 NASB)

Additionally, the pagan deities who were “reborn” with the return of spring, were
reborn on an annual basis, dying every winter then being reborn in the spring. In
contrast, Jesus died once for all, having paid for sin through His death on the cross.

40
There was no need for Him to sacrifice Himself again. Following His death and
resurrection, Christ ascended to Heaven to sit at the right hand of His Father, having
satisfied God’s wrath against sin. These are just a few of the differences between
Jesus and the pagan deities. Other differences, such as the historical character of
Jesus verses the mythological character of the pagan deities, and the atoning purpose
for Christ’s death against the non-redemptive nature of pagan gods, will be discussed
more in Part four of this work.

The stars are the product of God’s creation

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (Gen 1:16)

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the
stars, which thou hast ordained. (Ps 8:3)

Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of
death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for
the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The
LORD is his name: (Amos 5:8)

The seasons are set in motion by God’s design and decree

Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and
winter. (Ps 74:17)

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide
the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for
days, and years: (Gen 1:14)

And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I
will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the
imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite
any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth,
seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day
and night shall not cease. (Gen 8:21-22)

He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down. (Ps
104:19)

Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever:
for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons.
(Dan 2:20-21)

Son of God or “sun of God”?

In their attempt to identify Jesus as just another solar deity, critics appeal to the
phonetic similarity between the words “son” and “sun” in their attempt to sway

41
others to their own perverted interpretation of the Christian belief in Jesus as the Son
of God. However, the association ends with vocal pronunciation and even this level
of association is evident in only select languages. For example, in Hebrew, the
language in which the Old Testament was written, the word for “sun” is shemesh,
which bears no similarity, even phonetically, to ben, the Hebrew word for “son.”
Likewise, in Greek, the language in which the New Testament was written, the word
for “sun” is helios, which bears no similarity in meaning, although some phonetic
similarity, to huios, the Greek word for “son.” In Aramaic, the language spoken in
Palestine during the time of Christ, the word for “sun” is jämbär, while the word for
“son” is wänd lj. The only appeal that the critics cling to in their attempts to identify
Jesus as a solar deity is that of phonetics, at the expense of etymology. The difference
in meaning of “sun” and “son,” in any language, regardless of any phonetic
similarity, is enough to prove that the New Testament and early Christian writers did
not regard Jesus as representative of a celestial body; but rather, as one who is in
direct relation to divinity. Also, it should be noted that the identification of Jesus as
the Son of God denotes His oneness with God the Father, rather than a natural or
ontological begetting, and this relationship will be discussed in detail in Part four.
In her attempt to validate this play on words, D. M. Murdock says, “the
authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia states: The earliest rapprochement of the births
of Christ and the sun is in [the writings of Church father] Cyprian [200-258 A.D.]…
‘O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was
born…Christ should be born.’”12 It is interesting that the Catholic Encyclopedia
suddenly becomes “authoritative” when it appears to support a claim of hers,
whereas at all other times she decries the use of such reference works (especially
those supporting Christian beliefs), as expressed in her blog on her personal website,
where she states (in reply to an anonymous posting) that, “Skimming encyclopedias
does NOT [emphasis not my own] constitute scholarship, which is why I do not
simply regurgitate the mainstream perspective found in encyclopedia entries.”13 As
Forrest Gump would say, “That's all I have to say about that.” It is also interesting
that in the Catholic Encyclopedia, on the very same web page that contains the above
citation from Murdock, says that the statement, “O, how wonderfully acted
Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born…Christ should be born,”
was “written in 243 [after the Gospels had been composed] and falsely ascribed to
Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ's birth on 28 March, because on that
day the material sun was created.”14
Murdock also draws attention to the early church writer John Chrysostom (c.
347-407), who said, “But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December…the
eight before the calends of January …, But they call it the 'Birthday of the
Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord…? Or, if they say that it
is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice.”15 She then states, “As we can see
from these revealing remarks, the birth of Christ at the winter solstice has been
asserted since as early as the 3rd century. Moreover, the reason for this birthdate is
clearly given: This date represents ‘the birthday of the Sun!”16 It must be
remembered that neither Scripture nor Apostolic tradition places the birth of Jesus in
the month of December, and for reasons previously noted, the proper birthdate is
likely sometime in September, when the sun is alive and well. It must also be noted
that Chrysostom was born approximately only three years before December 25th was

42
named by Julius I as the date on which Jesus was born. In stating that Jesus was born
on that date, he is not appealing to empirical evidence; but rather, echoing the
sentiment of the time. Furthermore, his reference to Jesus as the “Sun of Justice,” is
no evidence to support the critics’ claims that Christians worshiped the sun. It is clear
from Chrysostom’s writings that, despite his use of “sun” rather than “son,” he is
referring to the historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians
worship as Lord. Nowhere in his writings can it be inferred that his references to the
Lord are references to a mere celestial body. His point in this passage was to draw
attention to the superiority of the Christian faith above the beliefs held by the pagans,
in that Christians worship a personal and living God, whereas pagans worship that
which God created. Nevertheless, Murdock reiterates her position by stating, “The
fact that this highly important solar festival was not added to the Christ myth until
centuries after the purported advent of Jesus does not make it any less significant or
him any less of a solar hero himself. Indeed, so common was the claim that
Christians worshiped the sun that Church fathers such as Tertullian (c. 155-230) and
Augustine (354- 430) were compelled to write refutations of it. In Ad Nationes (I,
13), Tertullian writes: The Charge of Worshiping the Sun Met by a Retort. …Others,
with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the
god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east,
or because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do less than this?
Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshiping the heavenly
bodies likewise, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise?”17 Critics love to take
things out of context and twist one’s words to imply they mean something they do
not. The point that Tertullian is making is not that both Christians and pagans
worship the sun. In fact, he explicitly states that it is non-believers in Christ who
“suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians.” Rather, his point is to call
attention to the hypocrisy of the pagans in persecuting Christians for engaging in
practices which appear similar to their own. Finally, Murdock attempts to further her
claim by stating, “Adding to the suggestion of sun worship, the orientation of
Christian churches towards solar alignments is well known, as explained by Sir
Lockyer: ‘All our churches are more or less oriented, which is a remnant of old sun-
worship. Any church that is properly built today will have its axis pointing to the
rising of the sun on the Saint's Day, i.e., a church dedicated to St. John ought not to
be parallel to a church dedicated to St. Peter.... Certainly in the early centuries the
churches were all oriented to the sun, so the light fell on the altar through the eastern
doors at sunrise.’”18 Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer (1836-1920) was a scientist and
astronomer, who had a special interest in the sun. Given such a predisposition, it is
not surprising that one would suggest such a thing. The truth is that mainstream
Christian churches are not oriented in any special direction, and nowhere in Scripture
are Christians instructed to pray towards the east. Rather, it is the Islamic faith, not
the Christian faith, which instructs its devotees to pray towards the east.

43
III. Star in the east accompanied His birth: said of Horus and Krishna

Concerning Horus
The stories of Horus’ birth do not include the appearance of an eastern star, or any
star for that matter. The only reference to a star in relation to Horus is the star Sirius,
the brightest star in the night sky. However, this reference is merely symbolic. Horus,
as a sun god, became related to this star, since Sirius, along with the three stars
which make up the “belt” in the constellation Orion, point in the direction of the sun.

Concerning Krishna
In the myths, Krishna’s birth did not involve the appearance of a star, nor was his
birth attended by wise men – or shepherds, for that matter. Krishna is said to have
been born in a prison, where his parents bore him in secret. Some critics claim he
was born in a manger, but the evidence for any such claim is not to be found in the
religious texts.

What was the star of Bethlehem?

Even if a star were present in the myth stories, it would still not mirror the star
found in the Christian nativity story of Jesus Christ. The star in the Gospel of
Matthew is described in such a way so as to discourage the notion that it was a
natural stellar phenomenon. The magi, or wise men, traveled to Jerusalem after
seeing the star in the heavens. They were likely aware of the prophecy of Balaam
that “there shall come a star out of Jacob” (Num 24:17-19) as foreshadowing the
coming Messiah. For many years the people of Israel were in captivity in Persia.
During this time, a Hebrew by the name of Daniel grew to prominence in the land
and gained favor with the king. Daniel was a prophet of God and also reinforced the
teachings of the prophets who came before him, including the prophecy of Balaam,
thus having much influence over the inhabitants of the empire. When the king
allowed the Hebrews to return to their own land, many remained in Persia,
intermarrying with their former captors. In addition, many Hebrews were scattered
throughout the land during this period of time known as the Dispersion, and as a
result Judaism, with its promise of a coming Messiah, spread across the continent.
Thus, the magi, upon seeing the star, perceived it as a fulfillment of the prophecy
concerning the coming of the Messiah, and so they journeyed to Jerusalem in search
of this newborn King. The star appeared before their journey to Jerusalem, but the
text does not say it led them there. Rather, they likely chose Jerusalem due to the
prominence of the city in the religion of Israel and the assumption that the city would
serve as the birthplace of the Messiah. However, after learning from Herod’s
counselors that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, they then left Jerusalem
and began the six mile trek to Bethlehem. After leaving Jerusalem, the same star
which they had previously seen in the east now appeared again, only this time not as
a mere celestial body, but as a guide. As Matthew states, the star “went before them
and stood over the house where Jesus was.” (Mt 2:1-9) Also, the duration of time
between the first appearance of the star, prior to the magi’s departure for Jerusalem,
and the second appearance of the same star, upon their departure from Jerusalem,
seems to have been a period of two years. This is inferred from the fact that Herod,

44
after being informed by his counselors that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem,
asked the wise men when was the exact date of the first appearance of the star.
Although their reply is not given in the text, it is implied that their response was that
the star had appeared to them two years prior. This is implied by the fact that when
Herod realized he would not be led to this child through an attempt to manipulate the
wise men into disclosing the infant’s location, he ordered the slaughter of all male
children two years and under in Bethlehem and the surrounding vicinity. Most likely,
his selection of children within that age group was based on the magi’s reply to his
inquiry. As far as the nature of this particular star, there have been several theories,
but that discussion is outside the bounds of this work. For the purpose of this
argument, it will suffice to say that a natural star does not appear and disappear at
will and over long periods of time, nor does it serve as a literal guide, moving on a
course of its own and to a destination foretold in a prophecy long before its
appearance. The bottom line is that the star of the magi was not just another star in
the sky, but was a direct fulfillment of prophecy.
Critics suggest that the star of the magi, the star which led these men to
Bethlehem in their search for Jesus, was the star Sirius, observable from any place on
earth throughout most of the year. The magi, who were educated in astronomy,
would not have taken this star, which they could have seen on any clear night, as a
special occurrence, nor perceive the alignment of Sirius with Orion’s belt as nothing
more than an event which occurred with regularity. Why, all of a sudden, would they
consider this star to be something other than it was on any previous observance?
Finally, critics neglect to point out that Jesus’ birth was not “announced” only by
a star, but by hundreds of prophecies before His birth. In fact, even the star itself was
the fulfillment of a prophecy announced by the prophet Balaam thousands of years
before Christ. Independent research will show a myriad of pre-Christian texts which
foretell specific events and circumstances in the life of Christ. Below is a short list of
such prophecies:

Messianic prophecy Foretold in the Cross-reference

Old Testament with the New
Testament
As the seed of the woman * Gen 3:15 Gal 4:4
As the seed of David Ps 132:11, Jer 23:5 Acts 13:23,
Rom 1:3
Born of a virgin Isa 7:14 Mt 1:22,23, Lk 2:7
Called Immanuel Isa 7:14 Mt 1:22,23
Born in Bethlehem Mic 5:2 Mt 2:1, Lk 2:4-6
Massacre of the children of
Bethlehem Jer 31:15 Mt 2:16-18
Flight to Egypt Hos 11:1 Mt 2:15
Sold for thirty pieces silver Zech 11:12 Mt 26:15
His visage being marred Isa 52:14, 53:3 Jn 19:5
Spit on and scourged Isa 50:6 Mk 14:65, Jn 19:1
Hands and feet nailed to the cross Ps 22:16 Jn 19:18, 20:25
Garments being parted Ps 22:18 Mt 27:35
His death Isa 53:12 Mt 27:50

45
 Messianic prophecy Foretold in the Cross-reference
Old Testament with the New
Testament
That none of His bones should be
broken Ex 12:46, Ps 34:20 Jn 19:33, 36
His being pierced Zech 12:10 Jn 19:34, 37
His resurrection Ps 16:10, Isa 26:19 Lk 24:6, 31, 34
His ascension Ps 68:18 Lk 24:51, Acts 1:9

* The phrase “seed of a woman” is a reference to the virgin birth of the Messiah.
Everywhere else in Scripture, when referring to someone’s “seed,” the person
mentioned in the passage is a man.

IV. Upon His birth, three kings came to adorn the newborn
Savior: said of Horus
In the myth of Horus, no mention is made of a visitation by three kings, despite the
critics’ suggestion to the contrary. The three “kings” to which critics are referring are in
fact the three stars which make up the belt of the constellation Orion, despite their
apparent deception to influence one to take their words literally. These stars, named
Mintaxa, Anilam, and Alitax, point directly to another star in the east: the star Sirrus,
otherwise known as the star of Horus. In the myth, Horus was never visited by three
figures being identified as kings. In fact, neither is there mention of three kings in the
Gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew simply states that “wise
men from the east” came to Bethlehem to visit the newborn King, and it is never stated
they were three in number. Rather, it is said only that they presented three gifts to Mary
and Joseph. It was not until centuries after the apostles left the scene that the wise men
were numbered in three, and even given names which were derived from an early sixth
century Greek manuscript in Alexandria. In all likelihood, the magi mentioned in
Matthew would have been part of a large traveling company comprised of servants and
bodyguards, especially since they were unwelcome outsiders traveling in potentially
hostile Roman territory and also were in possession of items of great value which would
attract bandits who resided in the countryside. In addition, the “wise men” mentioned in
Matthew were not kings at all, but were of the order of the magi. The magi were close to
royalty, but were not royalty themselves. They served kings as counselors, philosophers,
and astrologers. At times, they took part in the selection of kings, but were not made
kings themselves.

V. His mother was named Mary: said of Horus

The mother of Horus was the goddess Isis. Nowhere in antiquity was she ever called
“Isis-Meri,” as critics suggest. In fact, when it is proposed that Isis was also known as
Isis-Meri, the only source provided as evidence is a modern-era book written by an
author who is seeking to make false parallels between Egyptian mythology and
Christianity. There were, however, other figures who had the suffix, or prefix, “meri” or
“mery,” a word meaning “beloved” or “loved by,” added to their name. Such was the case

46
of Nefertari, the wife of Rameses II, who was also known as Mery Mut. Mut, or Mout,
was an Egyptian deity who was perceived as a mother goddess, being the one who gave
birth to the universe. The epithet “Mery Mut” means "Beloved of Mut,” and indicates
Nefertari’s honorable position as one loved by the gods. D. M. Murdock suggests that the
identification of Mut as a mother goddess, linked with the epithet “Mery,” indicates that a
“‘Mother Mary,’ so to speak, [existed] long before the Christian era.”1 However, the
“mother” in question, or Mut, is not the one named Mery in this depiction. Rather, the
one named “Mery” is the one who is loved by the mother, but she is not the mother
herself; therefore, the analogy falls apart. Likewise, the name “Merneith” (also known as
“Meritnit,” “Meryet-Nit,” or “Meryt-Neith”) was given to a queen who is believed to
have been the fourth pharaoh of Ancient Egypt during the first dynasty2, and an name
which means “beloved by Neith.” Here, again, Murdock draws a false analogy when she
states, “in consideration of the fact that Neith was a virgin mother, in this name
[Merneith] we possess the concept of a ‘virgin Mery’ long prior to the Christian era.”3 In
reasoning as such, she merges the two separate figures – the lover and the one “loved by”
– into one entity, a conclusion which is not supported by the name itself. Her method of
reasoning as such is most evident in her claim that “Ra and Amen also had the epithet
meri/mery attached to their names: Ra-Meri or Meri-Ra and Amen-Meri or Meri-Amen,
meaning ‘beloved of Ra’ or ‘beloved Ra’ and ‘beloved of Amen’ or ‘beloved Amen.’ The
god Ptah was likewise deemed ‘beloved,’ as in ‘Ptah-Meri.’ Even Egypt itself is called
Ta-Meri—‘beloved land.’”4 According to her analysis, Ra is identified as both the source
and the object of love – in other words, he, as “Ra-Meri,” becomes “Ra, beloved of Ra.”
Likewise, “Amen-Meri” becomes “Amen, beloved of Amen” and “Ptah-Meri” becomes
“Ptah, beloved of Ptah.” Such a narcissistic form of love is not the type of affection that
is denoted by the epithet “mery” or “meri.” Also, the reference to Egypt as the “beloved
land” serves no purpose other than to indicate the notion that the Egyptian people were
favored by the gods, a notion which is common within many societies, thus mimicking
the promise made to Abraham that God would lead him to another land and from his seed
will sprout a great nation (Gen ch. 12). In the final analysis, the epithet “Isis-Meri” is a
reference to the one who Isis, the “Mother,” loves. As such, the epithet “Isis-Meri,” as
suggested by Murdock, refers neither to a “mother,” a virgin, nor to a person named
“Meri,” (or any variation thereof) and Murdock’s suggestion to the contrary is the product
of her own invention, in order to give credibility to an untenable parallel between Isis, the
mother of Horus, and Mary, the mother of Jesus.
The Great Arcanum also suggests that in the gospel narratives, the Virgin Mary is
representative of the constellation Virgo, also known as Virgo the Virgin (Virgo is Latin
for “virgin”), rather than representative of an historical figure: the mother of Jesus and
the wife of Joseph. Since the ancient glyph or letter for Virgo is M, this is why, according
to the Zeitgeist film, “Mary and other virgin mothers such as Myrra and Maya (the
mother of Buddha), begin with an M.” Virgo, one of the oldest constellations in the sky,
has been identified with many female deities, including Isis, the mother of Horus. She is
identified as the goddess of fertility, agriculture, and the earth. Images of Virgo are of a
woman holding a sickle and sheaves of grain or holding the young Horus.
First of all, the other mothers, whose name begins with M, were not virgin mothers.
Myrrha committed incest with her father, Cinryas.5 Maya, the mother of Buddha, is said
to have conceived her son without male intervention, but she was a married woman at the

47
time of conception, which is said to have occurred when “the most excellent of
bodhisattvas” entered into her womb after having assumed the form of a white elephant.

“To [the king Suddhodana] there was a queen named Mâyâ, as if free from all
deceit--an effulgence from his effulgence, like the splendor of the sun when it is
free from all the influence of darkness, a chief queen in the united assembly of
all queens. … Then falling from the host of beings in the Tushita heaven, and
illumining the three worlds, the most excellent of bodhisattvas suddenly entered
at a thought into her womb, like the Nâga-king entering the cave of Nandâ.
Assuming the form of a huge elephant white like Himâlaya, armed with six
tusks, with his face perfumed with flowing ichor, he entered the womb of the
queen of king Suddhodana to destroy the evils of the world.”6

The bottom line is that these mothers share nothing more than a common letter in their
name. Secondly, the supposed significance of the glyph M is based on an assumption that
all these cultures utilize the same alphabet, and one does not need to hold a doctorate in
linguistics to know that this is simply not the case.
Critics suggest that the paintings and images of Isis holding Horus are the foundation
for the images of Mary holding the infant Jesus, as if Christians merely borrowed this
icon from paganism. Have you ever seen a mother holding her child? Did you think that
she did so out of anything but love for her infant? Did you think she was cradling her son
merely because she saw someone else do it before her? No, of course not! Yet, this is just
one example of the length to which critics will stretch in their search for anything to back
up their claims. Yes, images of Isis holding Horus existed long before the birth of Jesus,
but so did countless images of other women holding their son. Is this really any reason to
suppose that one instance is merely a reflection of another? Such imagery is merely a
depiction of a normal human experience.
There is also no significance in the glyph M being associated with Virgo, for the same
glyph is also associated with Scorpio. Thus, it is representative of Virgo the virgin as well
as Scorpio the scorpion. As far as goddess-parents having names which begin with M,
there are also numerous goddess-parents which have names beginning with another letter
of the alphabet besides M. No significance can logically and reasonably be attached to
this claim. If an aquarium contains one hundred fish and sixty of them are goldfish, does
that automatically mean the other fish in the tank must also be goldfish by virtue of
association? The critic would obviously answer no, yet would persist to apply such
fallacious reasoning in the formulation of their theories.
In addition, the virginal state of Mary at the time of Jesus’ conception would not have
been a thing of Jewish invention (Matthew and Luke, the writers of the two Gospel
infancy narratives, were both Jews). For the Jew, the concept of God was so high as to
condemn even the misuse of His name. When Jesus proclaimed He was God, the Jews
sought to stone Him for blasphemy, and it was this charge of blasphemy which eventually
led to the masses crying out, “Crucify Him!” when He stood before Pilate. For this
reason, no Jew would have composed a birth story in which God Himself caused the
conception, even without the means of insemination. If he had, he would certainly not
have had much success in his story being accepted by the people – unless the story was
true and one’s faith overpowered tradition! In addition to this concept contradicting their
view of God, Jews would also not have conceived of a story where the Messiah would

48
have been born without human parentage, as was Perseus, who was born through Zeus
coupling with a woman, or any other son in pagan mythology who was born as a result of
a union between the human and the divine. Jews abhorred pagan religion, especially
being a people immersed in an oppressive Roman culture, and the idea of likening the
Messiah to any divine-human union was not only a gross offense, it was unthinkable. As
stated above, when December 25th was marked as the date for the celebration of Jesus’
birth, it resulted in an outrage that the birth of the Savior was being too closely associated
with pagan religion. The Jews would certainly not have looked to the stars and pagan
astrology to pick a mother for their Messiah, since such astrological veneration was
forbidden by the Law of Jehovah.
The role of one such as Mary in the Gospels’ account would hardly be one that would
have been selected had the birth of Jesus been the work of fiction. Mary was a poor
woman who lived in a town full of corruption and moral filth. As Alfred Edersheim notes,
her hometown, Nazareth, was positioned along a main road which connected the port
cities with Jerusalem and other inland locations.7 As such, people of all types traversed
past the town, and the women of Nazareth were known to provide sexual favors to
passers-by. Although the Gospels describe Mary as one who was not given to such moral
corruption, she would have been despised by outsiders who generally held Nazarenes in
low esteem. This would have been especially true of those in the southern region of
Judea, who considered those of the northern region of Galilee as people of lower class
and virtue. Had the Gospels been fabricated, certainly the writers would not have selected
either a woman or location of such ill repute.
As mentioned under an earlier heading, the deity known as Neith was an alter ego of
Isis. Concerning this deity, Murdock states that Neith “is not only the ‘Alpha and
Omega,’* so to speak, but also the inviolate begetter of the sun, the Immaculate Virgin
and Great Mother. The fact of her association with the Greek goddess Athena**—herself
a chaste and pristine virgin, as indicated by the name of her temple at Athens, the
Parthenon—confirms Neith's esteemed virginal status.”8 Murdock’s attempt here is to
liken Isis with the Virgin Mary, who is known by Catholics as the “Mother of God,” and
who is also regarded, again by Catholics, as being immaculately conceived – that is,
conceived without sin. It should be noted that the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception did not become church dogma until 1854, when Pope Pius IX issued his
Ineffabilis Deus. Such a doctrine is not only unexpressed in the New Testament; it is also
directly contrary to its teaching of the sin nature of mankind, which states that every
person is born in sin (Rom 3:23, 5:12). There does exist early references to the belief in
Mary’s perpetual virginity, in the writings of Origen in the third to fourth centuries, but
the New Testament clearly speaks of Jesus having younger siblings, and there is no
reason to believe, nor is there any indication given (in Scripture nor in first century
church tradition), that these were step-siblings. It is also believed by Catholics that Mary
experienced an assumption into heaven, but this doctrine was not defined until 1950 by
Pope Pius XII in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus. Murdock continues
by appealing to the following titles in her attempt to link Mary to a pagan deity (it must
be noted that many of these titles are not ones by which Mary is recognized by either
Catholics or Protestants, especially since some of these names belong within a
polytheistic belief system, whereas Christianity is monotheistic): “Divine Lady,”
“Greatest of gods and goddesses,” “Queen of the gods,” “Lady of heaven,” “Holy one of
heaven,” “Great goddess of the Other World,” “Mother of Horus,” “Mother of the God,”

49
“Lady of Life,” “Lady of joy and gladness,” and “Queen of heaven.” Any comparison of
Mary to a pagan deity based on these concepts is absolutely irrelevant to the claim that
the Gospels are a derivation of pagan myths, for such beliefs about Mary are not
expressed in Scripture; but rather, emerged within certain Christian groups centuries after
the Gospels were written. It should be noted that Mary’s title as the “Mother of God,” as
she is still called by Catholics, did not become dogma until 431 during the Council of
Ephesus. It was not until even more recent times, with Vatican II and Pope John Paul II's
Redemptoris Mater, that Mary became named as the “co-redemptrix” in the work of
salvation and the “Mother of the Church.” Likewise, Murdock’s argument that “as
Christians do with the Virgin Mary, Isis' female worshipers petitioned her to make them
fertile and able to conceive,” is equally untenable, since such veneration of Mary (or the
act of praying to any person recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church) is not
expressed anywhere in the New Testament or early church writings; but rather, gradually
developed over time during the Middle Ages, and it is from such development that the
practice of praying the Rosary emerged.
Murdock then grasps for whatever straw she can lay hold of when she states, “Isis
bewailed Osiris in the shrines of Egypt, as Mary bewailed her Son at Golgotha. The
seven scorpion-goddesses who attended Isis seem to have their counterpart in the seven
maidens who were associated with Mary in weaving the Veil of the Temple.”9 In all
fairness, Murdock does note that such depictions of Mary are not found in Scripture; but
rather, in the Apocrypha. However, since Christians do not regard the Apocrypha as
Scripture, and the books contained therein do not hold up to the same measure of
integrity and authenticity as does the books of the New Testament, any appeal to the
Apocryphal books is irrelevant to the critics’ argument. Nevertheless, it should be
observed that the New Testament’s description of Mary at the cross should come as no
surprise whatsoever, since such is a natural reaction of a mother to her son’s impending
death. Also, the notion that Mary, a young girl from the lower class of society and who
resided in Nazareth, was involved in the weaving of the veil of the Temple, is simply
ludicrous.
Finally, it must be noted that the name Mary, or Miriam, was as common a name in
ancient Palestine as are Smith and Jones today. Certainly not every Smith in my phone
book is related to all the other Smiths by virtue of a common name. Richard Bauckham,
Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland
conducted his own study to determine the commonality of names found on ossuaries
(stone boxes in which the bones of the deceased were paid to rest). The following chart is
the result of his research, through which 328 female subjects were used to determine the
four most common among females. Column A of the chart represents the number of
occurrances of the name from the total of subjects studied, while Column B represents
the number of occurrances of the name on ossuaries10. As shown in the chart on the next
page, the name Mary was at the top of the list, accounting for over 21% of the total
number of ossuaries studied. It is not surprising then that Jesus’ mother had the name
Mary.

50
 FEMALE NAMES COLUMN A COLUMN B
Rank Name Total Total Found on Percent of
References Ossuaries Total
(out of 328) References
1 Mary/Mariamne 70 42 21.3%
2 Salome 58 41 17.7%
3 Shelamzion 24 19 7.3%
4 Martha 20 17 6.1%

* Her reference to the “Alpha and Omega” is drawn from the portion of the inscription
which reads, “I am all that hath been, and is, and shall be.” She desires to parallel this
with such New Testament references to Jesus as the “first and the last,” “the Aplha and
Omega,” and “the one who was, who is, and who is to come.” Such a comparison will be
addressed under a later heading dealing with the titles by which Christ was known.

** Athena, also known as Minerva, was indeed a virgin, but she never conceived a child
in her virginity. She was simply a virgin, nothing more, and such is of no significance.

VI. He was born in a manger or a cave in the “house of

bread,” also translated as “Beth-lehem:” said of Horus
Virgo is referred to as the “house of bread”, according to Zeitgeist. I consulted over a
dozen Latin dictionaries and the result was unanimous consent: every one defined “virgo”
as meaning “maiden, virgin, or young girl.” Not a single Latin dictionary identified
“virgo” with a “house of bread.” I then did a search online for “virgo ‘house of bread,’”
in an attempt to find a link between the two. I was met with dozens of web sites
associating the constellation Virgo with the phrase “house of bread.” The interesting thing
is that these sites all had at least one thing in common: they were all hosted by people or
organizations who were attempting to promote the “copycat theory.” Each of these sites
was trying to make the same suggestion that the birth of Jesus was merely a fabrication
based on pre-existing astrological beliefs, and none of these sites provided a credible
source for their claim, for the source used, on the rare occasion when a source was cited,
was a book by an author who shared their motivation for making such a claim.
In the Hebrew tongue, “Bethlehem” literally does means “house of bread" – at least
the critics get that much right. According to Strong’s Concordance, the word
“Bethlehem” is made up of two words: “bayit,” meaning “house” and carrying the
connotations of one's family or immediate household, and “lehem,” meaning “bread” and
is a derivation of the verb “laham,” which means “to eat,” or “to use as food.”1
The video also claims that Bethlehem is “a reference to the constellation Virgo, a place
in the sky, not on earth.”
First of all, Horus was not born in a manger, as some suggest. Rather, he was born in a
swamp and raised in seclusion in the marshes on the floating island of Chemmis, near
Buto.2 His mother Isis raised him there in order to protect him from Set and preserve him
until such a day when he would claim his role as king of Egypt.

51
 Second, Bethlehem was originally known as Ephratah, or Ephrath, in early Old
Testament times, as shown in the following passages:

Then they moved on from Bethel. While they were still some distance from
Ephrath, Rachel began to give birth and had great difficulty. (Gen 35:16 NIV)

So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem). (Gen
35:19 NIV) [Note: Rachel’s Tomb, or so it is called, is located just outside of
modern-day Bethlehem]

The man's name was Elimelech, his wife's name Naomi, and the names of his
two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem,
Judah. And they went to Moab and lived there. (Ruth 1:2 NIV)

In later Old Testament times, Ephratah also became known as Bethlehem. It then
became one of two towns by that name. When the prophet Micah foretold the birthplace
of the Messiah, he specifically identified which Bethlehem he meant:

But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of
Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)

Scholars agree that the name Ephrathah either referred to Bethlehem itself or to the
district in which Bethlehem was situated. Even if the constellation Virgo were known as
“Bethlehem” or “house of bread,” which it evidently was not, it would not have been
known as “Bethlehem Ephrathah.” The language of the prophecy in Micah, as well as the
Gospels Matthew and Luke, clearly identify Bethlehem as an earthly location.
Third, because of Micah’s prophecy, the Hebrews knew the Messiah would be born in
the city of Bethlehem. While they did not accept Jesus as that Messiah, they did believe
that Bethlehem would be the place from where the Messiah would come. Extra-Biblical
Jewish writings, such as the Talmud and various targums (Jewish paraphrases of the Old
Testament), quoted below, name the city of Bethlehem as the accepted place of the
Messiah’s birth.

And you Bethlehem-Ephrathah who are too little to be counted among the
thousands of the house of Judah, from you in My name shall come forth the
Messiah who is to be ruler in Israel and whose name has been called from
eternity, from the days of old.3

The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of
Bethlehem in Judah.4

O, thou Bethlehem Ephrata ... although thou art little in the thousands of Judah,
out of thee shall come forth unto me a Man, a Ruler in Israel whose goings forth
are from the days of old ... that is from the Seed of David ... who was of
Bethlehem Judah.5

52
 Fourth, Jesus was not born in a cave. The Gospel narrative states Mary and Joseph laid
Jesus “in a manger, because there was no room in the inn.” Bethlehem was loaded with
visitors at this time, people who had come there to register for the Roman census;
therefore, the local inn was full. Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim, in his book Sketches
of Jewish Social Life, observed that khans, or inns, generally were built in a square, with
a court in the center for carriages or beasts of burden.6 The rooms surrounding the
courtyard were unfurnished and opened up to galleries all around. The innkeeper
expected no payment from his guests for occupancy, but he would provide necessities,
such as a house meal or linen, for a fee. Inns were not attached to a cave, but were located
within a town itself and on outlying roads between towns. When Jesus was placed in a
manger, He was not placed in a cave, but in a stable, of sorts - a section of the inn
reserved for animals.
Fifth, no one can deny that Bethlehem existed as a real city in Palestine even in
ancient times. Josephus mentions that Bethlehem was where King David was anointed to
be the future king of Israel.7 Archaeologist J. B. Hennessy affirms Bethlehem existed as a
city at the time Jesus was born. He states, “Minor excavations by the Franciscan Fathers
in the grottoes beneath the basilica have produced evidence of Iron Age and first century
A.D. occupation, while east of the church of St. Joseph excavation has produced several
deposits of Iron Age pottery. Perhaps most important has been the isolation, in 1969, of
the Iron Age tell. The limits of the Iron Age occupation, while not entirely clear, appear to
be on the flat surface and the slopes immediately beneath the basilica and to the E. The
work was carried out by the Israel Archaeological Society. Bethlehem appears to have
been a major area of occupation from the Paleolithic period.”8

VII. At age twelve He was known as a teacher: said of Horus

There is no indication that Horus was a teacher at age twelve. In fact, his mother Isis
raised him in secret, according to the myth, in the marshes, until such a time as he
became ready to claim his role as ruler of Egypt. Hence, his epithet Har-hery-wadj,
meaning “Horus who is upon the papyrus plants.” In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is
mentioned as having a discourse with the priests in the temple in Jerusalem after the
Feast of the Passover, but this was in accordance with Jewish custom. Each year, families
from all over Palestine traveled to Jerusalem to partake in the Passover festivities and
ordinances. It was typical, when the families left the city to return to their home, for the
male children twelve years of age and older to remain behind at the temple under the care
of the priests for the purpose of receiving instruction. It was such an occasion which
afforded Jesus the opportunity to sit in the company of the priests. The Gospel of Luke
states that Jesus listened to them and asked questions. Although it is said that the priests
were amazed at His knowledgeable answers to their questions, Luke does not state Jesus
was the teacher in this instance. Jesus was merely an inquisitive student, whose answers
amazed the priests in His company.

53
VIII. At age thirty, He began His ministry after being
baptized: said of Horus
In ancient Hebrew culture, a requirement for service as a priest, teacher, or a master
was that the candidate be at least thirty years of age, and this standard was established
long before Christ. In fact, it was part of Mosaic Law that such age must be reached
before one could enter into service.

From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that came
to do the service of the ministry, and the service of the burden in the tabernacle
of the congregation, Even those that were numbered of them, were eight
thousand and five hundred and fourscore. (Num 4:47-48 NASB)
D. M. Murdock, in her booklet The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist Part 1, makes the
following claim: “The notion that Osiris [Horus’ father] was 28 when he suffered his
passion is also interesting, in light of the fact that Jesus was likewise said to have been
around 28-30 when he began his ministry, depending on the source. Indeed, one early
Christian tradition also places Christ's passion at when he was ‘only twenty eight, and
one-quarter years of life,’ quite possibly in imitation of the Osiris myth.”1 The Jews
recognized three age brackets once a person passed through adolescence. A man under
thirty years of age was considered a young man, and unfit for certain work (such as
Temple service). Between the ages of thirty and fifty, a man was considered the age of a
“master,” or teacher. A man age fifty-one or higher was considered an old man. It was in
keeping with this custom that Jesus waited until close to His thirtieth birthday to begin
His public ministry.
None of the Egyptian texts concerning Horus includes a baptism. Critics claim that
Horus is said to have been hacked in pieces and thrown into a river, but this is what
happened to Osiris, not Horus. Nevertheless, if someone wants to call that a baptism, he
will do so with an absolute lack of understanding as to the true nature of baptism. As far
as the accusation that John the Baptist is a mere fabrication based on Anup the Baptizer,
there is no such person as Anup mentioned in any of the accounts of Horus. Even if there
were such a one, many religions have their own form of baptism and baptizers, therefore,
it is too common of an element to claim one is based on or fabricated from another.
Concerning Jesus’ baptism, Murdock states: “[Osiris] was said to have been drowned by
Set, or Seth. According to a later magical papyrus, this drowning took place in the ‘water
of the underworld.’ This aspect of the myth is interesting in light of the fact that in Greek
mythology the sun god Helios was said to have been drowned in the river Eridanus or
‘Jordan,’ in which Jesus was likewise said to have been baptized or dunked.”2 There is
speculation as to which river is named in the myth as the river Eridanos, but none of them
include the Jordan River – a river in Palestine, not Greece. Rivers named as candidates
for being the mythical river are the Italy’s Po River, Egypt’s Nile River, and the Danube.
Murdock’s claim that “Eridanus” is synonymous with “Jordan” is simply unfounded on
either a mythical basis or, as even a child hooked on phonics can attest, a phonetic basis.
As a result, Murdock fails in her attempts at false association and her claims cease to be
those which any reasonable scholar would classify as “interesting.”
According to the Gospel accounts, the baptism of Jesus was followed by His retreat
into the wilderness to be tempted of Satan for forty days, during which He fasted and

54
prayed. The depiction of the interaction between Jesus and Satan in such a scene is one
which critics delight in comparing to the age-old struggle between light and darkness, or
good and evil. In such a discussion, comparison is often made between Satan and pagan
figures which represent absolute evil. Concerning such a comparison, Murdock states:
“Like Satan, Set rebels from his divine birth. Also like Satan, who in the Old Testament is
merely ‘the Adversary,’ rather than the personification of Absolute Evil that he became in
the New Testament, Seth was not always considered absolutely evil. Like Yahweh, God
of the Old Testament, who was the orchestrator of both good and evil, Set is represented
as the ‘twin’ of Horus and half of a dual god as a single being, Horus-Set. Yet, Set is also
a separate entity who becomes locked in an eternal struggle with his alter ego and enemy,
Horus, and, again, at a certain point the ‘old thunder-god’ Set became ‘the representative
of all evil’ and ‘a real Satan.’ … Like Satan, Set/Seth too had his devoted followers—the
‘sons of Seth,’ possibly as recorded in the Old Testament and generally thought to refer to
the descendants of Adam's third son Seth. Like Adam's other son Cain, who kills his
brother Abel, Seth/Set is depicted as murdering his brother Osiris. And like other
characters in the Old Testament, such as Abraham and Moses, in the patriarch Seth we
seem to have yet another instance of an ancient tribal god demoted to human status. As
does Satan with Jesus (Rev 12:1-5), Set attempts to kill Horus. Set is the ‘god of the
desert’ who battles Horus, while Jesus is tempted in the desert by Satan. Like Satan, who
has a forked tail, Set too is depicted with a forked tail. In fact, Set's portrayal with bizarre
ears and an anteater-like snout makes him appear creepy and demonic.”3 In such an
analysis, Murdock draws a number of comparisons, which will here be examined one by
one.

“Like Satan, Set rebels from his divine birth.” This one is accurate, except that
Satan was “created,” not “born.”
“Also like Satan, who in the Old Testament is merely ‘the Adversary,’ rather than
the personification of Absolute Evil that he became in the New Testament, Seth was
not always considered absolutely evil.” The shift in the personage of “the Adversary”
to that of “Satan” in the New Testament is typically said to be due to Persian
influence on Judaism during the time when the Jews were under Persian captivity
from 597-539 B.C. The argument is that the Jews borrowed from the Persian concept
of a supremely evil being known as Angra Mainyu, a being who was believed to be
uncreated and co-equal to Ahura Mazda, the supremely good deity recognized in
Zoroastrianism, the principal religion of ancient Persia at the time of the Jewish
captivity. I will merely point out here that the concept of a supremely evil being
named Satan exists in the Old Testament as well as in the New. In fact, he appears as
Satan in the book of Job, one of the oldest books of the Bible. (Job 1:6-12)
“Like Yahweh, God of the Old Testament, who was the orchestrator of both good
and evil, Set is represented as the ‘twin’ of Horus and half of a dual god as a single
being, Horus-Set. Yet, Set is also a separate entity who becomes locked in an eternal
struggle with his alter ego and enemy, Horus…” First of all, Yahweh is not the
orchestrator of evil. I presume Murdock is making an allusion to such passages as
those below:

Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lam 3:38)

55
 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am
Jehovah, that doeth all these things. (Isa 45:7)

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be
evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6)

The word “evil” in these passages is translated from a word that means “calamity” or
“disaster,” and that the translation into the word “evil” is a shortcoming of the King
James Version, a shortcoming which has been corrected in modern translations.
Nowhere in Scripture is it said that God orchestrates evil or wickedness. Second,
Murdock draws yet another false analogy in stating that Horus and Set were “twins”
and two personages of a single being. In the New Testament, Jesus is not at all
portrayed as a “twin” or “altar ego” of Satan, nor are He and Satan ever portrayed as
two sides of a single being. Rather, Jesus is the one who created Satan, along with all
the other angels. Third, the conflict between Jesus and Satan is neither a “struggle”
nor is it “eternal,” as Murdock suggests. Satan was at one time among the greatest of
the angels, in service to God. At some point he rebelled and has since been at enmity
with God, roaming through the earth as a ravaging lion, seeking whom he may
devour. However, his efforts are futile, for he has already been defeated by virtue of
the work of Christ, who gave Himself for His people to ensure that they would never
be “devoured,” or lost. The final defeat of Satan will occur in the last day, when the
people of God will be forever free from the oppression brought upon them by
demonic forces. Also, Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness was not a struggle, but a
trial. He and Satan did not wrestle one another to the ground for forty days. Rather,
Satan is depicted as enticing Jesus to perform acts which would be against His
Father’s will, and in each instance, Satan was defeated.
“Like Satan, Set/Seth too had his devoted followers—the ‘sons of Seth,’ possibly
as recorded in the Old Testament and generally thought to refer to the descendants
of Adam's third son Seth.” Murdock makes use of another false analogy in comparing
the “sons of Set/Seth” to followers of Satan. Satan does indeed have those who are
devoted to him, and even regard him as the source of knowledge and the one through
whom a person’s “inner divine self” can be realized. In the book of Genesis, Seth is
said to be the third son of Adam, born after Cain killed his brother Abel. Seth is
described as a godly man, and not one who followed the devil. Likewise, the lineage
of Seth is also described as a godly lineage, and it is for this reason that some
interpret the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis chapter six (6:2) as a reference to the
mingling of Seth’s godly line with the wicked “daughters of men,” thereby giving
birth to abominations. The identification of the figures named as “sons of God” in
that passage is a subject of much debate. Some regard them as fallen angels who
coupled with human women, resulting in a sort of superhuman offspring called
“nephilim,” however, it is not my intention here to support one view above another
(for such a discussion would be well outside the bounds of the subject at hand). I
mention the passage here simply for the purpose of indicating that the sons of Seth
were not regarded in Scripture as the followers of Satan.
“Like Adam's other son Cain, who kills his brother Abel, Seth/Set is depicted as
murdering his brother Osiris. And like other characters in the Old Testament, such
as Abraham and Moses, in the patriarch Seth we seem to have yet another instance

56
of an ancient tribal god demoted to human status.” Murdock’s reasoning here is
anachronistic, since she attempts to suggest the story of Set killing Osiris is the basis
on which the account of Cain and Abel was based. The Egyptian religion did not
emerge until well after the death of Abel, therefore, the account of Cain and Abel
certainly could not have been a derivation of an Egyptian myth. The truth is that the
Egyptian myth of Horus and Osiris is a reworking of the account of Nimrod, a
wicked descendant of Noah who lived before the Pharaohs of Egypt. In the Book of
Jasher, an ancient pre-Christian text (mentioned twice in Scripture - Josh 3:10 and 2
Sam 1:18), it is said that Shem, a son of Noah, dismembered Nimrod and dispersed
his parts throughout the kingdoms, as a warning of the punishment which would
befall those who rebelled against God. After Nimrod’s death, his wife gave birth
(through union with another lover) to Ninus, who later sought revenge against Shem.
In the struggle, Shem is said to have gouged out Ninus’ eye. Similarly, in the
Egyptian myth of Osiris, Set dismembers Osiris and sends his parts throughout
Egypt. Later, Horus seeks revenge against Set, but Set manages to gouge out Horus’
eye. So it is that the Osiris myth, rather than being the basis for any Biblical account,
actually originated from a remolding of an account based on Biblical figures, in
which Shem becomes Set and Nimrod becomes Osiris.
“As does Satan with Jesus (Rev 12:1-5), Set attempts to kill Horus.” The passage
to which Murdock refers here is the twelfth chapter of the book of Revelation, cited
below:

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun,
and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And
she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And
there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having
seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew
the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the
dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour
her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to
rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to
his throne. (Rev 12:1-5 NASB)

The obvious comparison Murdock is making is that the dragon, or Satan, attempts to
kill the man-child, or Christ, as was said of Set and Horus. Such an analogy is based
on a false interpretation of this passage, which I will here only briefly enforce. The
woman mentioned in the above text is the church, not Mary, whose persecution
(which largely ended with the Edict of Constantine in 313 A.D.) is described in the
passages following the one quoted above. The sun with which she is clothed is the
righteousness of Christ, whose radiance is brighter than the sun. The crown on the
woman's head is the doctrine delivered to her by the twelve apostles. The figure
represented by the woman's child is not Christ, for the church did not “deliver”
Christ; but rather, those who have been made converts, disciples, and ministers
through the doctrine with which the woman is crowned, and who serve in the world
as ambassadors of Christ, the King of Kings. The dragon is indeed a metaphorical
depiction of Satan, but since Satan's attack here is directed against the church, not

57
 Christ, Murdock's analogy fails in its primary assumption on which her faulty
comparison rests.
“Set is the ‘god of the desert’ who battles Horus, while Jesus is tempted in the
desert by Satan.” Jesus was indeed tempted by Satan in the wilderness; however, His
forty days' temptation there hearkens to the forty years of trial the people of Israel
faced during their own wanderings in the wilderness following their departure from
Egypt. In Scripture the wilderness setting symbolizes a place without God, that is, a
place where His blessings are not abundant, where the soul feels as desolate and
forsaken as the land. It was to such a place that Israel was committed during their
time of wilderness wandering, as penalty for their unbelief, and the trial they endured
in that barren landscape foreshadowed the trials the Messiah would face in His own
wilderness temptation. As Israel left the wilderness to lay hold on that which God
had prepared for them, so did Jesus leave the wilderness to embark on the mission
which had been ordained for Him since before the creation of the world. If
Murdock’s analogy were to stand, then why is it not said that Jesus dismembers
Satan and sends his parts throughout the pagan kingdoms? Why does not one of
Satan’s followers seek revenge and Gouge out the eye of Jesus? Aside from the
wilderness setting, Murdock’s analogy sinks like an anvil in quicksand.
“Like Satan, who has a forked tail, Set too is depicted with a forked tail. In fact,
Set's portrayal with bizarre ears and an anteater-like snout makes him appear
creepy and demonic.” I do not know from which story book Murdock obtained this
description, but it is certainly not a description found in the Bible, which never
depicts Satan as having a forked tail, and neither does her description of Set, with
bizarre ears and a snout, hold any relevance. Researching children’s books for such
an image of Satan is the epitome of a digression from scholarly research. Also, Set’s
portrayal as “creepy and demonic” is nothing more than a laughable and pathetic
attempt to lead one’s perception of Satan further towards Murdock’s very non-
Biblical portrayal of Satan. Nowhere in Scripture is Satan pictures as merely
“creepy.” Cemeteries are creepy, abandoned houses are creepy, The Amityville
Horror is creepy (if you’re a ten year old boy with an overactive imagination), but
Satan, on the other hand, is absolute evil which transcends the bounds of mere
creepiness.

Prior to engaging herself in the above comparisons, Murdock suggests that “if Set is
Satan, then Osiris/Horus is Jesus, as has been maintained for centuries for this [the items
listed above] and many other reasons.”4 The key to this statement is the simple little word
“if,” and it is because of this same word that the entire premise collapses into a heap of
rubbish. It has in fact not been maintained for centuries that Jesus is Horus, as this portion
of the book has shown, and will continue to do so. Also, the reasons on which this
premise is based have been shown above to be a failure at every turn.

IX. He had twelve disciples: said of Horus and Mithras

Concerning Horus
The Egyptian texts mention Horus had four disciples (the Heru-Shemsu – i.e.,
“followers of Horus”), who were essentially inferior deities.1 He did have human

58
followers, but they numbered sixteen, not four, plus an unnumbered group of
followers comprised of blacksmiths (the mesniu or mesnitu). The twelve “followers”
of Horus to which the critics delight in drawing attention were actually metaphorical
representations of the twelve signs of the zodiac. Since Horus was the sun god, after
merging with Ra, the constellations of the zodiac are loosely viewed in modern times
as being his “disciples.” Concerning Jesus, some critics claim that, as God’s Son (or
“God’s sun,” as they call Him in order to better create their illusion), His disciples
can also be identified with the twelve signs of the zodiac. However, the signs of the
zodiac do not travel abroad preaching and teaching in the name of any master, and
cannot properly and reasonably be considered “disciples” either in a literal nor
symbolic sense. Additionally, in the Book of Hades there is found a mural which
depicts twelve reapers, but Horus is not present in this mural.2

Concerning Mithras
In similar fashion as Horus, the twelve signs of the zodiac are attributed as
Mithras' disciples, based on a relief which shows Mithras surrounded by the signs of
the zodiac. As stated above, this is nothing more than a stretch of the imagination, as
the zodiac signs do not reflect even a close parallel to actual flesh-and-blood men
who preach in the name of another. Granted, in the Iranian version of the myth,
Mithras did have a companion by the name Varuna. In the Roman version of the
myth, Mithras had two helpers named Cautes and Cautopatres. However, no version
of the Mithras or Mithra myths contains twelve followers. The Roman Mithraic cult
was a private cult and was not seeking to evangelize the world, as did Christians
following the day of Pentecost, and in accordance with the Great Commission issued
by Jesus prior to His ascension. Acceptance in the Mithraic cult was selective and by
initiation, with membership primarily consisting of Roman soldiers and typically
excluding women from the order.3

The number twelve as common throughout the Bible

In her book The Christ Conspiracy, author D. M. Murdock makes the same
conclusion, expecting the reader to place some sort of significance in this as
evidence of fabrication in Biblical numerology. In comment on this, historian
Michael Licona states, “If we want to accept her [Murdock’s] thoughts on this, we
also need to accept that Dunkin Donuts is owned by an astrologer since they give a
discount when you buy a dozen donuts. Grocery stores are also run by astrologers,
since you buy eggs by the dozen. Even our legal system must have been influenced
by astrology, since there are twelve jurors.”4 Fallacious reasoning ultimately leads to
fallacious conclusions. One goes hand-in-hand with the other. Additionally, the
twelve disciples of Jesus are reflective of the twelve tribes of Israel. Do the critics
also intend to claim that Israel was never composed of twelve tribes? Good luck with
that!

How many disciples did Jesus really have?

Jesus had twelve core disciples with whom He traveled, but He also had many
more disciples not mentioned by name in Scripture. Luke mentions an instance
where Jesus sent seventy or seventy-two of His disciples on an evangelical mission.
(Lk 10:1, 17) Concerning these seventy disciples, D. M. Murdock states, “... the 72

59
 ‘co-conspirators’ in the later version of the tale likewise possess astrotheological
meaning, representing the 72 dodecans, or divisions of the circle of the zodiac into 5
degrees each. Interestingly, in the gospel story Jesus is depicted with either 70 or 72
‘disciples,’ the number 70 often symbolizing the dodecans as well. Also, the
drowning of Osiris in the ‘river’ Eridanus evidently signifies the god's passage
through the well-known constellation of the same name. It is likely that the Jordan
River, biblical site of so many purported miracles, was named after its apparent
stellar counterpart, with said ‘miracles’ also taking place not on Earth but in the
heavens.”5 Murdock’s bias is evident at the outset when she names Jesus’ disciples as
“co-conspirators” and the Gospels as a mere “tale.” As far as her association between
the Eridanus and Jordan rivers, such an erroneous identification has already been
addressed under a previous heading and found to be with fault. Also, in Acts 1:15
one hundred and twenty of Jesus disciples are mentioned. If the number of His
disciples were predetermined to correspond to the seventy-two dodecans of the
Zodiac, then critics must somehow account for the additional fifty disciples and find
a place for these disciples within their astrotheological scheme. Also, concerning the
seventy disciples in Luke, the evangelist tells us that Jesus sent these seventy out in
pairs of two, an act which likewise does not fit into the critics' interpretative scheme.
Furthermore, Jesus gave specific instructions to these ones concerning what to eat
and drink and how to conduct themselves with the hosts who would receive them
into their homes, and when they returned to Jesus following their mission, Jesus
declared to them that their names were written in heaven. The text in Luke gives
every indication that these were seventy literal human beings being referred to in this
passage.

X. He was a traveling teacher: said of Dionysus

True, Dionysus is depicted as a traveling teacher, but this is not an uncommon trait
and cannot properly and logically be used in an argument in favor of any “copycat
theory.” In ancient times if someone had a message to share, he certainly could not secure
his own web site or buy air time. The best means of spreading one's message was by
traveling and preaching to those outside his home town. Besides, Dionysus traveled far
and wide, whereas Jesus’ journeys were within Palestine, nor was Dionysus a teacher of
spiritual truth, as was Jesus. Dionysus taught people how to grow grapes and produce
wine, all the while enticing people to worship him. Additionally, Dionysus was hardly a
messiah. He was not anointed for a higher calling and his teachings and deeds were not
with the intention to provide salvation. In his traveling he often disguised himself as a
priest of his own order, so that he may compel people to give him worship. Those who
refused his teaching were often met with aggression, for Dionysus was vindictive in
character. In the Bacchae, he drives women insane, causing them to eat their own
children. He also fooled King Pentheus into endangering himself to the point of death.
Even if he had been a savior who traveled abroad spreading his own gospel, would his
evangelistic wanderings be something that should come as a surprise? Someone regarded
as having special worth, and especially one regarded as deity, would be expected to
spread his message, either locally or abroad. Rather than seeing this as a reason to assume
one highly revered individual’s activities were merely copied from another’s, the critics

60
should simply accept this as something to be expected due to the mission of the person in
question.

XI. He performed miracles, such as walking on water or

turning water into wine: said of Horus, Krishna, and Dionysus

Concerning Horus
Horus did perform certain feats which could be considered extraordinary, but
these feats classify more as magic tricks rather than miracles, for they did not defy
any law of nature, such as raising the dead or changing the constitution of an element
from one thing to another. It is said that Horus successfully warned off crocodiles
and serpents while living in the swamps as a child. Such feats may qualify him to be
a circus entertainer, but certainly not deity. He is also said to have healed others, but
this ability came through his mother Isis, who healed him from scorpion stings, and
such healing ability was not inherent to Horus’ own being. It is said by critics that
Horus walked on water, but the religious texts do not produce a mention of this
instance. It has also been said that Horus raised El-Azarus (a.k.a., El-Osiris) from the
dead, reflective of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus from the dead. The name Lazarus comes
from the name Eleazer, therefore the phonetic association is superficial, at best.
Furthermore, Horus did not raise Osiris from the dead, as Osiris never experienced a
bodily resurrection. After his death, Osiris descended to the Underworld to reign
over the dead, while Horus set out to avenge Osiris' death.

Concerning Krishna
Krishna is said to have performed the following miracles:

At age seven, he lifted a mountain and upheld it by his hand for seven
days. This is said to have been witnessed by tens of thousands of people
who stood under the mountain.

He multiplied his body into 16,105 separate bodies. Good for him, but
this bears no similarity to anything ever performed by Jesus during the time
of His incarnation.

While appearing as Ram, he built a bridge between India and Sri Lanka
by causing stones to float on the surface of the water. Between the islands of
Mannar and the southeastern coast of India there exists a thirty mile-long
chain of limestone shoals known as Rama's Bridge. This is claimed to be
the remnants of the bridge constructed by Krishna, and it is said that the
bridge was passable by foot until the fifteenth century when the depth of the
water was increased by storms. Hindus believe the “sinking” of the bridge
was due to the gods fastening the shoals to the sea bed. Of course, there is
no evidence to support that this limestone formation ever rested on the
surface of the water, as claimed in the myth.

61
 When his mother accused him of eating dust, he opened his mouth and in
it was revealed the entire cosmos.

He restored the dead to life, including six of his younger brothers.

He performed healing of diseases.

He transformed a hunchback woman into a beautiful woman. Jesus’

miracles never involved giving someone a cause for vanity. He healed the
lame, the deaf, the dumb, and the diseased, but He never gave people a
cause to glory in themselves. His miracles drew people to the Father and
glorified Christ, they never brought glory to man.

He granted visions.

He was able to see over a long distance.

He fed many people with small amounts of food.

He appeared numerous times in incorporeal form. The Gospels never

recount an appearance of Jesus, from the time of His birth to the time of His
resurrection, in anything other than a human body. There was an instance
when His glory was revealed to a few of His disciples on the “mount of
transfiguration,” but this did not constitute a change of form; but rather, a
lifting of the veil which hid His divine glory from man. As a man, Jesus’
glory was shrouded by the limitations of His flesh, but in this instance that
shroud was pulled back and His disciples beheld Him for who He is. Never
during His incarnation did He appear in “ghostly” form.

He destroyed demons and performed exorcisms.

These “miracles” of Krishna bear the marks of myth, not legend. Some of the
myths, such as the lifting of a mountain and the ability to see long distances, sound
as if they belong in a Superman comic book. Legends are based on truth, but myths
are based on fantasy. The deeds of Krishna which bear marks similar to those of
Jesus include miracles relating to healing, resurrection of the dead, and the feeding of
a multitude. It is only natural for one assumed to be divine to possess the ability to
perform healing, so these come as no big surprise. The defeat and subjection of
demons by Krishna was due to an act of might, not by the sheer authority held by his
person. In the case of Jesus, demons left those of who they were in possession
because of Jesus’ authority as the second person of the Trinity. Jesus did not wrestle
the possessed individuals to the ground and pull the demons out of them. He
commanded them to leave, and leave they did. Neither does the feeding of a
multitude serve as a reason to assume the Gospels copied from the Krishna account.
If the Gospel writers did copy from the Hindus, then no doubt there would be more
miracles bearing similarity to Krishna, but the fact of the matter is there are very few
which do bear a similar narrative. In the Gospels, the events of the life of Jesus are

62
not even discussed between His nativity and the beginning of His public ministry at
around age thirty. The only exception is a mention of the twelve year-old Jesus in the
Temple, but this instance involves nothing more than the amazement of the Temple
scholars at the questions and answers posed by the young Jesus. Any description of a
youthful Jesus in Apocryphal literature has been historically deemed an unauthentic
account written by later writers who were neither representative of orthodox
Christianity, nor eyewitness to the events they describe, nor contemporaries with
those who were eyewitnesses.

Concerning Dionysus
Dionysus is credited with giving King Midas the ability to turn whatever he
touched into gold, an ability which turned into a curse, rather than being to Midas’
benefit. He also gave the daughters of King Anius the ability to transform things into
wine, oil, or corn by the touch of their hand. Considering his identity as the god of
wine, this should not be a wonder to anyone, nor give reason to claim any of Jesus’
miracles are rooted in those of Dionysus. There are mentions made of Dionysus
filling empty vessels with wine, but never turning water into wine, as some claim.
Pausanias relates instances when, during festival times, empty vessels are placed in a
shrine overnight then found the next day to be filled with wine.

“Between the market-place and the Menius is an old theater and a shrine of
Dionysus. The image is the work of Praxiteles. Of the gods the Eleans worship
Dionysus with the greatest reverence, and they assert that the god attends their
festival, the Thyia. The place where they hold the festival they name the Thyia
is about eight stades from the city. Three pots are brought into the building by
the priests and set down empty in the presence of the citizens and of any
strangers who may chance to be in the country. The doors of the building are
sealed by the priests themselves and by any others who may be so inclined. On
the morrow they are allowed to examine the seals, and on going into the
building they find the pots filled with wine.”1

Another tale, by Pliny the Elder, describes a spring which produced a substance
having the taste of wine.

“In the island of Andros, at the temple of Father Bacchus, we are assured by
Mucianus, who was thrice consul, that there is a spring, which, on the nones of
January, always has the flavor of wine; it is called dios theodosia.”2

These instances do not produce the parallels that the critic would like them to
produce. Jesus turned water into wine, but He did not fill empty vessels with wine.
Neither does Pliny’s wine-flavored spring afford any parallel to Jesus miracle at the
wedding in Cana.

Finally, the Bacche records Dionysus as being transfigured in divine glory above
Pentheus' palace, but it is not stated in what manner he was seen, other than it was
“in the glory of his godhead,” and neither was his transformation witnessed by those
present at the scene.

63
 As mentioned above, the concept that a figure regarded as deity should be able to
perform such a feat is not evidence that another figure to whom deity is ascribed should
be able to perform the same or a similar feat. The claim that any deity performed miracles
is not uncommon among world religions. Rather, it is to be expected of a deity that he be
able to work wonders, and such instances cannot stand as evidence that one story is
copied from another.

XII. He was known by titles such as “King of Kings” and

“Alpha and Omega:” said of Horus, Dionysus, Krishna, and Mithras

Concerning Horus
None of the titles here attributed to Horus was ever used of him in the
religious texts. Horus was known by such titles as “pillar of his mother,” “savior
of his father,” “lord of the sky,” and “god of the east.”1 Some critics have
claimed Horus was known as the “KRST,” however, “KRST” is the Egyptian
word for “burial,” and does not refer to God's “anointed one,” as does the title
Christ. Horus is typically depicted as a falcon, or an anthropomorphic being with
the body of a man and the head of a falcon. Murdock attempts to utilize this
depiction in her efforts to link Jesus to Horus. In The Companion Guide to
Zeitgeist Part 1 she states, “Horus symbolizes the power aspect of the sun, and
the falcon is likewise a solar symbol by virtue of how high it flies. Horus
therefore represents the sun as the governor of nature, the ‘Lord of lords,’ as it
were.”2 While Horus was indeed representative of the sun, Jesus was not;
therefore, her analogy falls apart, since it is based on incorrect assumptions
concerning the object of Christian worship (which, of course, was the person of
Jesus, not the sun). Also, her attempt to link Jesus and Horus by the title “Lord
of Lords,” is equally untenable, since the application of any such name to Horus
is only symbolic of the nature of the sun’s life-sustaining properties. In other
words, Horus, as a sun god, represents the celestial body without which no life
would be sustained; therefore, he is, metaphorically speaking, the “governor of
nature,” as Murdock suggests. However, her attempt to apply the title “Lord of
Lords” to Horus is unsupported by the religious texts which relate the myth of
Horus, for in these writings, he is never named as such. It appears that Murdock
is aware of this lack of support, for she does include the disclaimer “as it were”
in her identification of Horus as the “Lord of Lords,” however, in so doing, she
makes use of the logical fallacy known as “false analogy” (the attempt to link
two or more things by virtue of an association which does not exist in reality),
since she associates Horus and Jesus by a name by which, of the two, only Jesus
is known. She also attempts to liken Horus to Jesus as a creation deity in her
claim that Horus, as representative of the sun, makes “all life possible.”3 The
appeal here is clearly to the passages which name Jesus as the one responsible
for the creation of the cosmos (Jn 1:1-4 and Col 1:16), however, such
responsibility can only metaphorically be applied to Horus, while Jesus is
named in Scripture as the one who actually created “all things.” Also,
Murdock’s identification of Osiris, Horus’ father, as the “Lord of Eternity” and

64
“Lord of Resurrections,” two epithets by which he is named in one version of
the Egyptian Book of the Dead*4, are also weak attempts to link Osiris and Jesus
together. Scripture does not identify Jesus specifically as the “Lord of eternity,”
although He is named the “Everlasting Father” in the book of Isaiah (9:6), and
nowhere is Jesus named the “Lord of Resurrections.” Rather, Jesus is the
resurrected Lord and the one because of whom all other resurrections (such as
Lazarus and Jarius’ daughter) are possible. Likewise, Murdock’s mention of the
title “morning star” as being attributed to both Horus and Jesus is equally of no
consequence. As a sun deity, it should come to no surprise to anyone aware of
Horus’ representation as a sun god that he would be identified by a title such as
the “morning star..” In the book of Revelation (22:16) Jesus is called the
“Morning Star,” but any astrological application of this title is based on the
erroneous assumption that sun worship is not forbidden in Scripture. In Part two
of this book there is an entire heading devoted to the supposed relationship
between Christianity and astrology; therefore, I will reserve a full treatment of
the issue until then. Here is only needs to be stated that God expressly forbids
His people to worship His creation, as shown in the passages below (emphasis
mine):

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy
God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight
of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and
served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of
the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and
thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the
thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou
bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked
thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them
with stones, till they die. (Deut 17:2-5)

Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty
and five years in Jerusalem: But did that which was evil in the sight of the
LORD, like unto the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD had
cast out before the children of Israel. For he built again the high places
which Hezekiah his father had broken down, and he reared up altars for
Baalim, and made groves, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served
them. (2 Chr 33:2-3)

And he brought me [Ezekiel] into the inner court of the LORD’s house, and,
behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the
altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of
the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshiped the sun
toward the east. Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man?
Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations
which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and
have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their
nose. Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither

65
 will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will
I not hear them. (Ez 8:16-18)

Finally, Murdock attempts to link Jesus and Horus by the description of one who
comes as a “thief in the night.” In this case, her application of the title is not to
Horus; but rather, to Set, Horus’ enemy. She appeals to the Book of the Dead, in
which Set is described as one “who steals souls, who laps up corruption, who lives
on what is putrid, who is in charge of darkness, who is immersed in gloom, of whom
those who are among the languid ones are afraid.” Murdock latches onto the
description of Set as one who is “in charge of darkness” and the one who was
believed to defeat Horus at every day’s end, thus ushering in the hours of darkness
and stealing the light from the world. She concludes in saying, “Set is a thief in the
night who robs Osiris/Horus of his strength and life. Set is the serpent of the night,
the Prince of Darkness and other qualities in line with Satan, while Horus is the ‘sun
of righteousness’ and the Prince of Light, much like Christ.”5 Murdock’s analogy
fails on two counts. First, and most obvious, is the fact that Satan is not described in
Scripture as a “thief in the night.” Rather, it is Jesus whose coming is described as
such (1 Thess 5:2) by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Thessalonian church.
Therefore, the objects of her analogy do not line up, since the Christian counterpart
of Set, according to her use of terminology, is Jesus, not Satan. Second, the depiction
of Set as one “who robs Osiris/Horus of his strength and life” can in no way be
likened to the description of Jesus as one who will appear as “a thief in the night.” In
the first place, in Murdock’s portrayal, Horus is defeated and weakened by Set. In
Scripture, Jesus is never defeated nor weakened by Satan. There is an instance when
a weakened Jesus is tempted by Satan, but this was during His incarnation as a man
and under all the limitations placed upon a normal human body. During this period,
Jesus’ weakness was for lack of food, and not because of any attack on Him by
Satan. In Genesis (3:15) it is said that the seed of the serpent (that is, Satan) will
bruise the head of the seed of the woman (that is, Christ). Such a depiction is
metaphorical of the suffering of Christ, during which He gave His body as a Lamb to
the slaughter so that His people would be redeemed from their sin. Also, such
sacrifice was one Jesus made willingly, rather than having it forced upon Him by an
enemy, or Satan. In the second place, Paul’s description of a “thief in the night” is
not a reference to Jesus Himself; but rather, to the manner of His appearance. It is
said in Scripture that He will one day appear in the clouds to gather together the
resurrected bodies of believers. This coming will be both unexpected and sudden, as
would be characteristic of the coming of a thief. At such time, Jesus’ appearance will
not be to steal the bodies of believers, but to claim what He has rightfully purchased
with His own blood.
It should also be noted that titles such as “truth,” “light,” “good shepherd,” “god’s
anointed son,” and “alpha and omega” are such general titles which should
understandably be attributed to a being regarded as deity. The commonality of the
titles is no indication that one deity was ascribed a certain title simply because the
same title was also attributed to another deity. Throughout many ages, man has used
concepts such as light and darkness as a metaphor for good and evil, or truth and
falsehood. It was true in ancient times and it is true in modern times to the point that
it permeates the various cultures of the world, and in a myriad of fashions, from

66
religion to entertainment and art. A common title is no indication that one to whom
this title is applied is a victim of “monkey-see, monkey-do.”

* Critics try to claim that the Book of the Dead is a piece of literature on which the
Ten Commandments were based. Such claims are unfounded and will be addressed
in Part two)

Concerning Dionysus
Dionysus was not the “king of kings,” for he was a god who stood inferior to
others. If any deity in Greek mythology would have been referred to by such a title,
it would have been Zeus, the chief of the gods of Olympus. Likewise, Dionysus
cannot correctly be called the “god’s only begotten son,” since Zeus did sire other
offspring (Hermes, Apollo, Athena, Artemis, etc), nor can he be called the “alpha and
omega,” (i.e., the “beginning and the end”) since Dionysus had a definite birth and
death. Although he was not called a savior, the Bacche does describe his followers as
declaring, “We are saved,” however, the salvation to which they referred was
deliverance from Pentheus' anger, not to eternal redemption from sin.

Concerning Krishna
It is said that Krishna was known as the “lion of the tribe of Saki,” “son of god,”
“lord,” and “savior,”and was recognized as one who had come die for mankind. All
of these claims are false. None of these titles were ever historically applied to
Krishna. Neither was he the second person in a divine trinity, as some claim. Krishna
was one of ten avatars for Vishnu. After the beginning of the Christian era he was
known as Jezeus or Jeseus, a name meaning “pure essence,” but these names were
not given to him prior to the time of Christ.

Concerning Mithras
The Persian Mithra was called a “warrior angel of light,” but no such title is given
to the Roman Mithras in question here. Critics claim that Mithras was identified by
such imagery as a lion and a lamb. True, Mithras' totem was a lion (again, a cross-
cultural symbol of strength and supremacy), but he was never associated with a lamb
in any of the myths. In many cultures light is a common means to illustrate truth and
spiritual illumination, therefore it is not unthinkable that people from different
religions know the one(s) they worship as a “light” in one sense or another. Even in
modern culture, the concept of a “bright idea” carries a like reference to a person
experiencing a personal enlightenment. It has been said that Mithras was identified
as a lion and a lamb, reflective of Jesus' depictions in the New Testament. It is true
that after the advent of Christianity, Mithras' totem was a lion, but the lion did not
represent Mithras himself. Furthermore, Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, which
was associated with a lion long before the closing of the Old Testament cannon or
even the Mithraic religion, as attested by Moses in the book of Genesis.

Judah is a lion’s whelp; From the prey, my son, thou art gone up: He stooped
down, he couched as a lion, And as a lioness; who shall rouse him up? (Gen
49.9)

67
 Another title which has been attributed to Mithras was “logos,” meaning “word,” as
was attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John (1:1) where it is said, “the Word was
made flesh.” However, this reference post-dates Christianity and refers to Mithras'
teaching, not to Mithras himself, whereas John identified Jesus as the bodily
incarnation of the Word of God.

XIII. He held a communal last supper with His disciples: said of

Mithras and Dionysus

Concerning Mithras
The following quote is attributed to Mithras and is found on the supposed tomb of
Peter, located in the Vatican: “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my
blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.” The quote
does exist, but it is not referring to Mithra or Mithras. Rather, the reference is to
Zarathustra (c.650-583 B.C.), the founder of Zoroastrianism. Even so, a document
linking this quote to Mithra only dates back to the middle ages, not to pre-Christian
times.

The Mithraic communal meal does not offer a parallel to the Christian
Communion observance. In the first place, the Mithraic meal was understood to
provide spiritual rebirth, as Manfred Clauss comments:

"The Mithraists evidently believed that they were reborn through the
consumption of bread and wine. The food was of course not simply actual or
literal food, but also food in the metaphorical sense, which nourished souls after
death: the meal was the guarantee of their ascension into the undying light.”1

In the case of Christian Communion, salvation or spiritual rebirth does not come
through partaking of the bread or the wine in Communion. Rather, the meal is a
memorial or remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ. Also, only believers are
instructed to share in such a meal, since it is a signification of the covenant between
God and His people,with God having provided for their redemption. Secondly, in
the case of the Mithraic meal, the elements do not represent, either figuratively or
literally, the body and blood of Mithras. However, in the Christian Communion, the
elements are represented as the body and blood of Christ. Some denominations view
the elements as metaphorically representative of the body of Christ, whereas in other
denominations, the elements are said to be literally transformed into the actual body
and blood of Christ, as in the case of the Eucharist. While it is the view of the
present writer that the elements represent Christ in a figurative sense, a discussion on
this point is outside the bounds of this work. In either case, it serves here to point out
the distinction between Christian Communion and the Mithraic communal meal, in
which the elements do not represent Mithras' body and blood in neither a figurative
nor literal sense.

68
 Concerning Dionysus
Some critics claim Dionysus's devotees observed a meal in which Dionysus' body
was eaten. Dionysus was in fact eaten, but it was the Titans, not his followers, who
dismembered and consumed him.

XIV. He was crucified: said of Horus, Attis, Krishna, and Dionysus

Concerning Horus
There is no reference to a crucifixion in the Horus myth. Even in the battle with
Set, Horus (according to some versions) loses an eye or sustains injuries in both
eyes, but he is not killed. Horus did later become merged with the sun god Ra, in
which he is said to have been sent to the Underworld by Set upon every setting of the
sun, only to be reborn the next day with the rising of the sun. This “death” is more
akin of a banishing to the Underworld rather than a literal death. However, the critics
are wrong even in this regard, for the myth never sends Horus to the underworld in
his battles with Set. It was Osiris, not Horus, who was sent to the underworld to rule
as king of the dead. Horus, on the other hand, was known as the king of the living.
There are two versions of the battle between Horus and Set. In one version, the battle
lasts eighty years, after which time the earth god Geb awards to Horus the whole of
Egypt as his inheritance. In the other version, Horus, as a falcon, soars into the
cosmos and returns in a great light, thus defeating Set, the personification of
darkness. Additionally, there exists no archaeological or historical evidence to
support the notion that crucifixion was a means of death employed in Egypt.
In the version of the myth as told by Diodorus, Horus drowns, but is given a drug
which gives him immortality. In another version, he is stung by a scorpion, but it is
not said that he dies. Rather, it is said that Isis placed her nose to his mouth to see if
he was still breathing, but whether he was or not, is not expressed in the story. The
text merely says that Horus “healed” throughout the night.1

Concerning Krishna
The Hindu religious texts do not mention a crucifixion in relation to Krishna.
Rather, Krishna’a death is due to being pierced in the foot with a hunter’s arrow:

"A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer. The
hunter, mistaking [Krishna], who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a
deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for
capturing his prey."2

Critics claim that since he was sitting under a tree when the arrow pierced his foot,
that the impact resulted in him being impaled, or “crucified,” (so they say) to the
tree. Such a death is far from crucifixion. Crucifixion was a means of punishment or
execution by which one’s feet and arms were impaled or tied to two beams forming
the shape of a “T” or an “X.” The primary means of death as a result of being in a
crucified state was suffocation or loss of blood. Death by simply having one foot
impaled to a tree does not constitute death by crucifixion.

69
Concerning Attis
A nice feature of the Attis myth is that if you don’t quite care for his manner of
death, there are plenty other tales of his demise from which to choose.

Death #1:
According to Ovid, Cybele falls in love with Attis, makes him her priest, and
demands chastity of him. However, Attis falls in love with a nymph, the
daughter of the river-god Sangarius. Angered, Cybele inflicts madness on Attis,
by which he is compelled to castrate himself under a tree. From the flow of
blood flowers sprout up in the soil and Attis is turned into a pine tree.3

Death #2:
Attis fled into the forest to escape the snares of a king. Attis was able to
subdue the king and as the king lay dying he pronounced upon Attis the same
madness inflicted in the above version, after which Attis castrates himself and
dies. His body is found by Cybele’s priests and they carry him to her temple in
hopes he may be brought back to life, but they failed in their efforts to do so.4

Death #3:
After his bride-to-be dies, Attis is consumed with grief. In a fit of sorrow, he
then castrates himself and dies while sitting under a pine tree. Agdistis, feeling
guilty that he caused the death of Attis’ love, asks Zeus to bring Attis back to
life. Zeus consents, but rather than restoring Attis to life, he merely preserves the
body, which remains in a state of death.5

Death #4:
A fourth account tells us that Attis married Cybele, the daughter of the
Phrygian king Maeon. When this became known to the king, he ordered Attis
killed. The story ends with Attis being buried after already being in a state of
decomposition.6

Death #5:
According to Hermesianax, Attis, the son of the Phrygian king Calaus,
journeyed to Lydia where he caught the attraction of the goddess Cybele. Zeus,
angered at the goddess’ allure, sent a wild boar to Lydia, killing many
inhabitants, including Attis.7

Death #6:
According to Herodotus, Attis’ father, king Croesus, had a dream in which
Attis was killed by a spear. Shortly after, a wild boar terrorizes the Mysians, who
beg Croesus for help. He sends help, but commands Attis be left behind, fearing
his dream may come true. Attis begs his father to allow him to engage in the
hunt. The king agrees, but sends Adrastus along to protect Attis. In his attempt to
kill the boar, Adrastus throws his spear, misses, and hits Attis instead. Attis’ dead
body was returned to the king and quickly buried in a tomb.8

70
 Death #7:
According to Arnobius, Attis marries the daughter of the king of Pessinus. As
a result, Agdistis drives the wedding party insane, again resulting in Attis’ fatal
emasculation under a tree. It is then requested of Zeus that he restore Attis to
life, but he refuses, instead merely preserving Attis’ corpse from decay, his hair
always in a state of growth and his little finger in a constant motion.9

It is clear none of these deaths involve a crucifixion. Yes, in some accounts he

was near a tree, but he was not on the tree, nor was he crucified to the tree. It has
been said that in ancient times, the annual festival in honor of Cybele included a
procession in which was upheld an image of Attis fastened to a tree, but this was
done merely as a means of practically depicting him under the tree, as is said of him
in the myth, and the figure fastened to the image was not fastened in a crucified state.
Some versions of the myth have Attis being transformed into a pine tree, but not
being crucified on one. In the case of Jesus, each of the Gospel accounts provide us
with the same mode of death, a death which occurred in history, was witnessed by
real people, and was documented in writing by ancient historians and scholars, both
Christian and pagan, as will be shown in Part two.

According to one version of Attis’ death by emasculation, the flow of blood

causes a patch of violets to grow and blossom. The life-giving properties
resulting from his flow of blood is unlike the remission of sins through the
shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross. In the case of Attis, the shedding of
blood gave life to a flower. In the case of Christ, the shedding of blood cleanses
men from sin, makes them sons of God, affects man’s soul, and spares him from
the eternal wrath of God. By Attis’ blood, a flower is born; by Jesus’ blood, the
guilty are forgiven of the grossest of offenses. The growing of flowers in the
Attis myth is reflective of an element common in both myth and fantasy fiction,
in which flowers are often seen blooming in proximity or response to a being of
special worth. Such was true in ancient times, and the story element has
persisted even in modern times, as in the writings of J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S.
Lewis in their Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Chronicles of Narnia,
respectively.

Concerning Dionysus
As stated under a previous heading, Dionysus’ death was due to being
dismembered by the titans. Also, Dionysus' crown of ivy has been compared to Jesus'
crown of thorns, however, Dionysus wore his crown at all times, whereas Jesus'
crown was placed upon Him in mockery of His claim to be the King of the Jews. The
same can be said of the purple robes which both figures wore. There does exist an
amulet (shown on the next page) which is said to depict a crucified Dionysus,
however the amulet has been dated to the fourth century A.D.10, and is widely
thought to be a forgery.11

71
 The Bacche describes Dionysus' enemy Pentheus as being “lifted up on a tree,”
but the event relayed therein was not one of crucifixion. Rather, Dionysus placed
Pentheus in the tree to be reprimanded by women, who throw stones at him, but are
unable to throw them high enough to strike him. Therefore, the women rip out the
tree and Pentheus fall to the ground and is dismembered by the women.
Attention has been drawn to similarities between Jesus' and Dionysus' demeanor
in the face of persecution, as both were silent before their enemies. In the case of
Dionysus, he allowed himself to be taken in order to be presented before King
Pentheus in hopes of being given an opportunity to humiliate the king, whereas in the
case of Jesus, His silence was a reflection of His submission to the trials set before
Him, as well as a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy that He would be silent as a lamb
taken to slaughter.

Blood as a symbol of life

Many cultures regard blood as symbolic of spiritual life. In the Old Testament
sacrificial system, it was the blood of animals which symbolized the forgiveness of
sin. Such sacrifices themselves were not regarded as actually cleansing oneself from
sin; but rather, foreshadowed the shedding of the blood of Christ, by which the sin of
man is actually forgiven. This concept is evident in the blood rituals found within
many pagan cultures. Concerning such a concept, Wallis Budge states, “The great
Codices of the Book of the Dead written under the XVIIIth dynasty prove that the
blood of Isis was believed to possess great magical protective powers.” After quoting
Budge, D. M. Murdock makes the claim that “Isis’ magical blood is like that of
Christ.”12 Such a reduction of the sacrifice of Christ to a mere magic trick reflects a
gross misunderstanding of the Biblical concept of justice, as well as of the blessings
conferred by virtue of either Jesus’ or Isis’ blood. A chapter in the Theban Recension
of the Book of the Dead describes the blood of Isis as that by which the deceased
would be allowed to roam free in the Underworld:

“Let the blood of Isis, and the magical powers of Isis, and the words of power of
Isis, be mighty to protect and keep safely [the deceased], and to guard him from
him that would do unto him anything which he abominateth.”13

The shedding of the blood of Christ, as the spotless Lamb of God, was sufficient to
satisfy the justice of God, who required the life of man for abandonment to sin.
Through Isis’ blood, the dead remain dead, but through Jesus’ blood, the spiritually
dead are raised to new life and are spared the torments of hell. The commonality of
the element of blood in religious beliefs will be addressed in Part three, and it will be

72
 shown that the concept of bloodletting (including forms such as blood drinking and
blood bathing) is a concept which transcends cultural boundaries and is therefore
found in many different religious systems. The presence of the element of blood in
Scripture goes back as far as the generations of Adam and Eve, who offered
sacrifices to God as a form of faith in a forthcoming redemption from sin. The very
first mention in Scripture of the shedding of blood was that of an animal whose skin
was used as a covering for Adam and Eve (Gen 3:21), who were ashamed of their
nakedness following their act of sin. It is interesting that God Himself provided the
skin of the animal by which Adam and Eve were covered. The covering of Adam and
Eve as such is representative of the final covering of sin which would be made
effectual through the work of Christ. As God provided a covering for the first man
and woman, so that their shame (or sin) would be covered, so does the righteousness
of Christ provide a covering by which the former sinner can stand before God,
clothed not in his own sin, but in the righteousness of the Son of God, the shedding
of whose blood takes away the sin of the world. This concept of the life-giving
properties of blood (be it physical life, spiritual life, or both) has since migrated into
the many pagan religions, including the Egyptian myth of Isis, of whom it is said her
blood is that which protects the dead after their entrance into the Underworld.

XV. Concerning the constellation Crux as being the

supposed origin for the crucifixion of Jesus:
The smallest of the modern constellations is Crux, a constellation which bears a
resemblance of a cross (“crux” is Latin for “cross”). There are a few reasons why this
constellation bears no relevance to the crucifixion account.
First, Crux was not a known constellation in antiquity. In pre-Christian times, Crux
was part of the constellation Centaurus, as noted by Ptolemy.1 The first known record of
the signs of the zodiac date back to the fifth century B.C., but this constellation was not
identified as Crux in that record. It was not until the year 1679 that this cluster of stars
was given its present-day name, in reflection of the cross of Christ. As Dr. Noel
Swerdlow, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, notes,
“As it turns out, while the stars of the Southern Cross were just barely visible from Israel
in ancient times, it wasn't distinguished as a constellation until much later. In fact, in
ancient times, the second-century astronomer Ptolemy, who cataloged a number of stars
in various constellations in a work called the Almagest, included these stars in the
constellation Centaurus.”2 Elsewhere, Dr. Swerdlow states that the reason “Crux, the
Southern Cross, was not recognized as a separate constellation in antiquity is probably
because, as seen from the Mediterranean, it is low on the southern horizon and is
surrounded on three sides by stars of Centaurus, which is a large, prominent constellation,
and the four bright stars of Crux are included as stars of Centaurus in Ptolemy's star
catalog. It is only when you go farther to the south, so that Crux is higher in the southern
sky, that it becomes prominent as a group of stars by itself, so its recognition had to wait
until the southern voyages of the sixteenth century.”3 Since the writers of the Gospels
would not have been able to clearly see the stars which would later be known as the Crux
constellation, Crux could not have been the inspiration behind Jesus’ mode of death as
portrayed in the Gospels.

73
 Second, the symbol of the cross was not a symbol popularly used by early Christians.
Early Christendom’s symbols included such iconography as fish and bread, as seen in
existing frescoes and mosaics on catacomb walls and baptismal pools, as well as early
manuscripts, which have survived to this day, but such icons were rarely a cross. For the
first few centuries after Christ, Christians suffered harsh persecution under the thumb of
Rome. Many Christians were put to death for their faith in Jesus. For this reason, they
avoided the use of symbols, such as the cross, which would conclusively identify them as
believers. The most common icon among early believers was a fish, the same symbol
seen on many bumper stickers (as the image shown below). It was used a means of
identifying someone as a fellow Christian. One person would draw half of the fish, and if
the other person knew to complete the symbol by drawing the other half, he was
indicating to the first that he also was a believer in Christ.

Third, Zeitgeist’s claim that “during this three day pause, the Sun resides in the
vicinity of the Southern Cross, or Crux, constellation” is completely false. The sun never
endures a three day pause at any time of the year. Also, the sun does not “reside” in even
close proximity to the constellation later known as Crux at any time around December
25th. All one has to do to verify this is open any astronomy book, or just look to the sky.
Also, The Zeitgeist Movie states, “Coming back to the cross of the Zodiac, the
figurative life of the Sun, this was not just an artistic expression or tool to track the Sun's
movements. It was also a Pagan spiritual symbol. … This is not a symbol of Christianity.
It is a Pagan adaptation of the cross of the Zodiac. This is why Jesus in early occult art is
always shown with his head on the cross, for Jesus is the Sun, the Sun of God, the Light
of the World, the Risen Savior, who will ‘come again,’ as it does every morning, the
Glory of God who defends against the works of darkness, as he is ‘born again’ every
morning, and can be seen ‘coming in the clouds, up in Heaven,’ with his ‘Crown of
Thorns,’ or, sun rays.”
The film attempts to erroneously draw a correlation between the cross of the zodiac
(Fig. 1), the so-called “shorthand” of which is seen below (Fig. 2), and crosses mounted
on church rooftops (Fig. 3). The fact is that crosses were not used in churches until 431
A.D. and were not mounted on church steeples until 586 A.D. The early church did use
various symbols, such as fish or bread, but, as stated above, the sign of the cross was not
common among these symbols. As far as the crown of thorns being a representation of
the rays of the sun, this is, yet again, a gross stretch of the critics’ imagination. The
blatant truth is that the cross of the zodiac resembles the shape of a pie, not the cross of
Christ, and the so-called “shorthand” version referred to by critics is simply them
grasping at straws for a correlation between Christianity and astrology, a correlation
which in actuality does not exist.

74
 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

XVI. He was dead for three days: said of Horus, Attis, and Mithras

Concerning Horus
As mentioned previously, Horus’ so-called “death” is said to be manifested by the
setting of the sun, thus symbolizing Set’s banishing Horus, according to Zeitgeist, to
the Underworld every day at sunset. In this “death,” there is no reference to him
being enclosed in a tomb. Whether Horus’ so-called death is considered actual or
symbolic, it is still not lasting for a three day duration, for the very next day after his
passing, he just returns from the Underworld (at least until the sun goes down again).
In other words, every morning he comes back to life and every evening he dies
again. However, it must be remembered that it was Osiris who was banished to the
Underworld, while Horus remained alive to avenge his father’s death.

Concerning Krishna
Proponents of the “copycat theory” claim that Krishna descended to the grave for
three days and was seen by many witnesses, but in the myth, no evidence exists for
this claim. After being pierced in the foot by the hunter’s arrow, Krishna immediately
returns to life and forgives the hunter for his bad aim: "He [the hunter] touched the
feet of [Krishna]. The high-souled one comforted him and then ascended upwards,
filling the entire welkin with splendor."1

Concerning Mithras
In the texts and reliefs concerning the Roman Mithras (and also true of the Iranian
Mithra), no death is attributed to him. Instead of dying, Mithras is said to have been
taken to paradise in a chariot while yet still alive.2 If there is any borrowing here, it is
on the part of the myth, having borrowed from the earlier Hebrew account of Elijah
being taken to heaven alive and in a whirlwind, following the appearance of a
flaming chariot. (2 Kings ch 2)

75
Concerning Attis
In the version of the myth which has Attis being transformed into a pine tree, he is
carried, in his pine tree form, to the cave of the Great Mother. This cave does not
become his tomb, but is actually the home of the Great Mother (more will be said on
this in the next point).

The significance of the three day death

Why was Jesus in the grave for three days? The theme of an event occurring on or
after the third day is repeated many times throughout Scripture. In the Genesis
account of the life of Joseph, the chief butler is restored to his position after three
days. Later it is sad that Joseph's brothers are set free from prison after three days. In
the Exodus account, bitter waters are made sweet after three days. Concerning the
prophet Jonah, it is said that he was in the belly of a great fish for three days and
nights. The list goes on and on. Critics suggest that these pre-Christian references to
such a three day period of trial, suffering, or death, after which there is relief,
freedom, or salvation, is the formula adopted by the Apostles in their composition of
the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

A fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy

While it is true that Jesus' three day burial is directly related to the Old
Testament references to a three day period of time, the relation is not that of the
latter borrowing from the former; but rather, the former predicting the latter.
That is to say, the three day burial of Jesus is a direct fulfillment, not a
borrowing, of such Old Testament references. The Old Testament relates to the
burial of Jesus through both direct prophecy and typological foreshadows, or
events that serve as an allusion to a future event, without actually providing a
direct prediction of that event. In the book of Psalms, David said of the coming
Messiah that, following His suffering and death, God would not allow Him to
see corruption (Ps 16:10). The Jews recognized that after the first few days
following death, the body enters into a state of putrefaction and begins to decay.
Had Jesus remained in the grave, His human body would have experienced the
normal progression of decay which would occur in any other body after the
point of death. While Jesus was unable to be corrupted by sin, His human body
was able to be corrupted by death, as His body was not subject to any law
outside of nature, except that such was permitted by His divine nature, as when
He performed miracles. During the three days in the tomb, Jesus' body would
only remain in the initial “fresh” stage of decomposition. In this stage, the body
enters algor mortis, where the temperature of the body cools to that of its
surroundings. His bodily bacteria would begin to break down, a process which
causes putrefaction, resulting in the bloating of the body and discoloring of the
flesh, accompanied by a foul odor. Jesus' body, being in the grave for a mere
three days, did not pass into the putrefying stage of death, and was therefore
spared such corruption, thus fulfilling the prophecy of the Psalmist. Had Jesus
risen following the third day, then such prophesy would become null and void,
an effect which God has declared His Word will not have (Isa 55:11). When God
says a thing will occur, that thing will occur exactly as God said it will.

76
A validation of Jesus' claim to be the Messiah
In addition to this prophecy, the Old Testament includes many other
references to a three day period of suffering – references which serve as a
foreshadow of a coming reality. The Hebrew Scriptures contain numerous
elements which serve as a type, or foreshadow, of the coming Messiah. As
Moses lifted up a brazen serpent, which gave life to those who looked upon it,
so does the Messiah give life to those whose sin He paid for while He was
“lifted up” on the cross. Such is just one of many examples of an Old Testament
element which foreshadowed the person and work of the Messiah (others
include the life of Joseph, the furniture of the tabernacle, the ark of Noah, and
many others). Of these, one of the most well-known is that of Jonah’s trial, an
event to which Jesus Himself made reference when speaking of His forthcoming
burial. Jonah was a man God called to evangelize the people of Nineveh, a
people known for their wicked ways. Jonah attempted to escape this mission by
sailing away on a boat. During his voyage, a great storm swelled, making the
voyagers fearful for their lives. Recognizing that the storm was a divine
punishment on Jonah, his shipmates elected to throw him overboard, after which
he was swallowed by a great fish (often interpreted as a whale). In the belly of
the fish, Jonah came to a state of repentance. Three days later, the fish spat
Jonah upon dry land and he goes on to fulfill his calling to preach to the people
of Nineveh. It was this particular event that Jesus spoke of when the religious
leaders asked Him for a sign to show that He was indeed the Messiah. After
Jesus healed many people, the Pharisees accused Him of acting in the name of
God, but by acting in the power of Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Jesus
responded by pointing out the error in such reasoning and by declaring that His
acting in the power of God, not Satan, was the proof that He was the Messiah:
“If Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his
kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons
cast them out? Therefore shall they be your judges. But if I by the Spirit of God
cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.” (Mt 12:26-28) He
goes on to condemn the Pharisees for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, by whom
Jesus was empowered in His enacting of miracles*. The Pharisees then asked for
a sign that they might know that Jesus spoke the truth concerning the source of
His power. (v. 38) The sign that Jesus provided was an appeal to the historical
account of Jonah: “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and
there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was
three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be
three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall
stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they
repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.”
(vs. 39-41) Elsewhere, in John's Gospel, Jesus is again asked for a sign, and
again the sign given was that in three days following the destruction of His
temple, or body, He would rise again. (Jn 2:18-22) The disciples did not
understand the meaning of this sign until after the resurrection, for they thought
that the “temple” of which Jesus spoke was the temple built by Herod the Great,
rather than the temple of His body. However, Jesus' enemies understood clearly
that He spoke of His own bodily resurrection after three days, and it was on the

77
basis of this claim that they placed a Roman guard at Jesus’ tomb to ensure the
disciples would not steal the body, thus effecting a fake resurrection on the third
day.

* Jesus of Nazareth was both fully God and fully man. As God and the second
Person of the Trinity, Jesus had the power to perform the work of God, including
healing disease and raising the dead. However, as a man, Jesus had no more
ability to perform these feats than you or I, and had to be empowered, in His
humanity, by the Holy Spirit, just as were the prophets of old when they
performed miraculous works.

A guarantee of Israel's national restoration

In addition to Jesus' three day burial being a fulfillment of prophesy and a
sign that He was indeed the Messiah, it also served as a guarantee of Israel's
future restoration, as stated by the prophet Hosea that Israel's “resurrection” as a
nation would occur on the “third day:”

Come, and let us [the people of Israel] return unto the LORD: for he
hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up,
and we shall live in his sight. (Hosea 6:2)

In this passage, it is clear that the one being raised in not the Messiah; but rather,
the nation of Israel. The use of imagery involving bodily resurrection to refer to
the future restoration of Israel is most evident in a famous vision had by the
prophet Ezekiel, in which he saw a valley of dry bones which were restored to
life, given flesh and blood, and fashioned into a mighty army. Following the
vision, the Lord explained the vision to Ezekiel as follows:

Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of
Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we
are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus
saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and
cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of
Israel. And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened
your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, And
shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in
your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and
performed it, saith the LORD. (Ez 37:11-14)

The Hebrews have long been a people whose existence as a nation has been
challenged by oppression and captivity at the hands of foreign invaders.
Following the collapse of the monarchy which began with King Saul and
flourished during the reign of David and his lineage, the kingdom of the
Hebrews became divided into the northern and southern kingdoms, until such
time as the Hebrews were taken into captivity by the Persians. Following the

78
 Persian exile, the Hebrews became a scattered people. Whereas they once were
composed of a unification of twelve tribes, one for each of the sons of the
patriarch Jacob, the post-exilic Hebrew state constituted only a remnant of the
original twelve tribes. Still, God promised that the Hebrew nation would be
restored to its former glory, and that such will occur in the end of days. In the
meantime, the people of Israel travail and long for the reunification of the twelve
tribes. Scripture portrays this travail as a state of death, and the future restoration
as a resurrection from the dead. The duration of this travail is expressed by
Hosea as being, figuratively, a three day-long death, during which the body of
Israel lies in wait until the day when the stone will be rolled away from its own
tomb and she, the Hebrew people, shall appear in glorious fulfillment of the
promise made to her father Abraham. In his commentary on Hosea, Matthew
Henry states the following concerning this three day-long period:

“[The people of Israel] promise themselves that their deliverance out of

their troubles should be to them as life from the dead (v. 2): After two
days he will revive us (that is, in a short time, in a day or two), and the
third day, when it is expected that the dead body should putrefy and
corrupt, and be buried out of our sight, then will he raise us up, and we
shall live in his sight, we shall see his face with comfort and it shall be
reviving to us. ... The people of God may not only be torn and smitten,
but left for dead, and may lie so a great while; but they shall not always
lie so, nor shall they long lie so; God will in a little time revive them;
and the assurance given them of this should engage them to return and
adhere to him. But this seems to have a further reference to the
resurrection of Jesus Christ; and the time limited is expressed by two
days and the third day, that it may be a type and figure of Christ’s rising
the third day, which he is said to do according to the scriptures,
according to this scripture.”3

In summation, the recurring theme of restoration after three days was a

foreshadow of the future resurrection of Jesus Himself, who was raised on the third
day, as a sign that He was indeed the long expected Messiah and as a guarantee of
Israel's future restoration as a people pure and holy.

XVII. He was resurrected from the dead: said of Horus, Attis,

Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithras

Concerning Horus
Reinforcing what has been previously mentioned, Horus, according to Zeitgeist,
was presumed “resurrected” upon every sunrise, and this was merely symbolic of his
victory over Set, the personification of darkness. Claims attributing an actual
resurrection to Horus are based on the fact that ancient Egyptians believed that a
Pharaoh, upon death, was thought to become Osiris, whereas the succeeding Pharaoh
was considered to be living incarnation of Horus, the son of Osiris. Thus, upon each

79
succession of Pharaohs, Horus is resurrected in the “image” of the new monarch,
without experiencing an actual death.

Concerning the relationship between the sun and the concept of salvation, D. M.
Murdock quotes James Allen as saying, “The Sun was the original and daily source
of all life: his appearance at the creation and at every sunrise thereafter made life
possible in the world … The Sun's daily movement through the sky was viewed as a
journey from birth to death, and his rebirth at dawn was made possible through
Osiris, the force of new life … This vision of daily death and rebirth lay behind the
ancient Egyptian concept of the afterlife. Like the Sun, each person's [soul] was seen
as passing through the night of death before coming to life again with the sunrise.”1
Murdock then concludes by attempting to tie Allen’s analysis with the Christian
concept of resurrection. She says, “Again we see how singularly significant was the
sun that its own cycles were closely tied in with the salvation of the human soul,
thousands of years before the Christian era.”2 In such an analysis, she confuses the
concept of a symbolic, recurring resurrection to new life with a literal, once for all
resurrection to new life, and loses sight altogether of the Christian concept of
salvation. In the case of the ancient Egyptian, such death-to-life notions did not
effect a change in the person, either physically or spiritually, and are merely
reflective of concepts associated with the life-giving properties of the sun, which
emerged with every new day and, as was assumed, effected the daily resurrection of
the soul. In the case of the Christian, the concept of death and resurrection is the
means by which the guilty are set free (that is, saved from the wrath of God for their
sin) and eventually enter into everlasting fellowship with God. Regeneration, for the
Christian, is a change from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh, thus altering the
desires to that which seeks to please God, an alteration of the will to enable one to
respond properly to God, and an illumination of the mind to comprehend spiritual
truth. The salvation provided for the Christian is a provision of grace and mercy,
whereas the so-called “salvation” provided for the Egyptian upon the daily rising of
the sun is grounded in a mere superstition concerning a celestial body created by the
God of the Bible. Also, for the Egyptian, such a resurrection occurs daily, whereas
for the Christian, there is only one such instance of justification, and that comes
through faith alone, faith in the only begotten Son of God as the Savior of the world.

Concerning Krishna
Krishna’s resurrection is related in the Mahabharata, of which the earliest
testimony to the complete text comes from Dion Chrysostom and dates to the first
century A.D., after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, although portions date
to the sixth century B.C. or earlier.3 Krishna’s resurrection is told in the following
excerpt from the Mahabharata:

“Having restrained all his senses, speech, and mind, Krishna laid himself down
in high Yoga. A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of
deer. The hunter, mistaking Krishna, who was stretched on the earth in high
Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that
spot for capturing prey. Coming up, Jara beheld a man dressed in yellow robes,
rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself as an offender and

80
 filled with fear, he touched the feet of Krishna. The high-souled one comforted
him and then ascended upwards, filling the entire welkin with splendor.”4

Dating aside, the resurrection of Krishna after being struck by a hunter’s arrow is
no comparison to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

1. The only witness to Krishna’s resurrection was the hunter who shot him in the
foot; Jesus appeared to his disciples and 500 witnesses.

2. Krishna ascended to a mental state (Nirvana); Jesus ascended to a

metaphysical, or spiritual, location (Heaven)

3. Krishna was seen as a savior for freeing his people from the temporal reign of
Kamsa; Jesus is called Savior since He freed His people from the eternal wrath
of God.

Concerning Attis
Attis is not described as a resurrected deity anywhere in the myth. In one version,
his body is preserved by Zeus at the request of Agdistis, but is not brought back to
life. Upon being carried to the cave after his death, he is not resurrected; rather, there
is merely mourning for his passing. Neither in the Lydian nor the Phrygian version of
his death is there to be found a resurrection from the dead. Some have taken Attis’
reincarnation as a pine tree to constitute a resurrection, but being reincarnated in
another form is not the same as a resurrection. There are several versions of Attis’
death, as follows:

Version 1: According to Ovid, Attis is turned into a pine tree, but is not
resurrected. 5

Version 2: In a second account, Attis’ dead body is carried back to Cybele’s

temple in hopes he may be brought back to life, but they failed in their efforts to
do so.6

Version 3: In a third account, Zeus is asked to bring Attis back to life. Zeus
consents, but rather than restoring Attis to life, he merely preserves the body,
which remains in a state of death.7

Version 4: In a fourth account, Attis is buried after his body has already began
decomposing.8

Version 5: In a fifth account, Attis is killed by a wild boar and does not return to
life.9

Version 6: In a sixth version, Attis’ dead body was quickly buried in a tomb after
Attis was felled by a spear.10

81
 Version 7: Seven proves to be no lucky number for Attis, for even in this account
the god still remains dead. As in a previous version, Zeus is here asked to restore
Attis to life, which he again refuses to do. However, he does give Attis a bit of a
break this time around by allowing Attis’ little finger to remain in a state of
constant motion. 11 Still, though, there is no resurrection.

Attis was not known as a savior. The only mention of salvation in relation to Attis
is from Damascius (480-550 A.D.), who lived five hundred years after Jesus’
resurrection. He wrote that he had a dream in which a festival of Attis celebrated
“salvation from Hades.” In so doing, he was not relating an actual belief or festival,
but merely his own dream. There have been mentions made of Attis’ festivals
practicing a rite called taurobolium, or bull-sacrifice. In this rite, a man was said to
be “born again” when bathed in the blood of a bull. The first mention of taurobolium
resulting in salvation is found in the writings of Prudentius and dates to 400 A.D.,10
and that prior to that date, the rite was performed strictly for the benefit of the
Emperor’s health, having no reference to a transformation from a spiritual condition.
Additionally, the slaying of a bull in association with Cybele is not mentioned until
the second century A.D.12
Critics have pointed to the following passage by Firmicus Maternus as an
indication that Attis did experience a resurrection. Aside from the fact that this writer
lived in the fourth century, well after the Gospels were written, a close look at the
text in question does not express a belief in Attis’ resurrection.

“In order to satisfy the angry woman, or perhaps trying to find consolation for
her after she repented, [the Phrygians] advanced the claim that he whom they
had buried a little while earlier had come to life again; and since the woman's
heart burned unbearably with overweening love, they erected temples to the
dead youth. … The earth, they maintain, loves the crops, Attis is the very thing
that grows from the crops, and the punishment which he suffered is what a
harvester with his sickle does to the ripened crops. His death they interpret as
the storing away of the collected seeds, his resurrection as the sprouting of the
scattered seeds in the annual turn of the seasons.“14

A few things stand out in this passage to show that a literal resurrection was not in
view.

1. The resurrection of Attis was merely a “claim.”

2. The purpose for this claim of a resurrection was “In order to satisfy the angry
woman.”

3. The temples erected to Attis were in honor of “the dead youth,” rather than to
one who had risen from the dead.

4. The resurrection in view was symbolic of the annual return of spring: “His
death they interpret as the storing away of the collected seeds, his resurrection

82
 [they interpret] as the sprouting of the scattered seeds in the annual turn of the
seasons.”

A note on the “Day of Joy:”

Critics have appealed to the festival of Cybele (March 22-27) as a means to affirm
Attis as a resurrected deity. The third day of this festival is known as the “Day of
Blood” and the fourth day as the “Day of Joy.” They claim the Day of Joy was in
celebration of Attis’ resurrection following his “Day of Blood.” However, the day
following the Day of Blood was a day in honor of Cybele, not Attis, at which time,
the statue of Cybele was returned to the temple. It was not until the fifth century
A.D., by the philosopher Damascius, that this day was connected to Attis, when
Damascius described a dream had by Isidore the Dialectician in which the Day of
Joy was conducted in honor of Attis.15 Unfortunately, for the critic, Isidore’s dream
did not accurately reflect the true meaning of the celebration.

Concerning Dionysus
Dionysus was never resurrected. After the Titans consumed all but his heart, he
was then “re-born” from Zeus. A pre-Christian account of Dionysus’ rebirth comes
from Diodorus Siculus, a historian who wrote during the first century B.C. He states:

“The fabulous writers likewise feign a third generation of Bacchus, that he was
the son of Jupiter and Ceres, and that some men of the earth pulled him in
pieces, and boiled his parts; and that Ceres gathered his members together again,
and renewed and revived him. Which fictions the natural philosophers explain
according to natural reason; for he is said (they say) to be the son of Jupiter and
Ceres, because the vine is nourished by the earth and the rain from heaven, and
so produces fruit; whence comes wine, by pressing of the grape. That the
boiling of his members, signifies the operation of making the wine, which many
boil to render it more strong and fragrant. That his members were pulled in
pieces by earthly men afterwards, and joined together again, and he restored to
his former state, denotes no more, but that, after the vintage and pruning of the
vines at the season of the year, the earth causes them to flourish again, and to be
as fruitful as they ever were before.”16

This re-birth is more of a re-creation than a resurrection, for he emerges in a new

body, since his first form was destroyed. It is for this reason that Dionysus is referred
to in literature as “twice-born.” When Jesus rose from the dead, He arose possessing
the same body which was crucified and mutilated, yet the only remaining physical
signs of His execution were the scars on His wrists and in His side. Another event in
the Dionysus myth which some delight in likening to a resurrection is Dionysus'
descent to the Underworld to rescue his mother. Since he descended to the
Underworld without dying, it cannot be said that his re-emergence to the land of the
living constituted a resurrection.

Concerning Mithras
As stated earlier, Mithras is not said to have died at any point in the myth. Critics
point to a reference in the writings of Tertullian, a second century Christian, in citing

83
 that the Persian Mithra (not the Roman Mithras) was considered a resurrected deity.
The reference is from Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics and reads as follows:
"If my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan), sets his
marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and
introduces an image of a resurrection...."17 First of all, Tertullian is not citing what
actually took place regarding Mithra. Rather, he is relating, to the best of his
recollection, what he thought was the case. The ancient texts regarding Mithra does
not support Tertullian’s recollection that Mithra’s followers celebrated a resurrection
in his name. Concerning the notion that Mithras' blood gave immortality, that would
be a bit of a trick, since Mithras is not said to have died. This notion originates from
an inscription which reads, "And us, too, you saved by spilling the eternal blood;"
however, this inscription is dated more than a hundred years after the Christian
Apostolic Age and refers, as agreed among scholars, to Mithras' spilling of a bull’s
blood upon his emergence (i.e., birth) from a rock (cf. above section “Virgin
birth”).18 According to the myth, the blood of the felled beast, not Mithras' blood,
generated vegetation and all life.

In conclusion of this heading on resurrected deities, I present the following

quotes from two noted historians
Dr. Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University,
notes, “Parallels between the pagan myths of dying and rising gods and the New
Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus are now regarded as remote, to say
the least. … If anyone borrowed any ideas from anyone, it seems it was the Gnostics
who took up Christian ideas.”19 Author Jonathan Z. Smith comments, “..it is now
held that the majority of the gods so denoted appear to have died but not returned;
there is death but no rebirth or resurrection. What evidence was relied on by previous
scholarship for the putative resurrection can be shown, it is claimed, to be based on a
misinterpretation of the documents, or on late texts from the Christian era which
reveal … a borrowing of the Christian motif, at a late stage, by the religions
themselves.”20

XVIII. Concerning the observance of Easter

Furthermore, Zeitgeist states, “However, [the ancients] did not celebrate the
resurrection of the sun until the spring equinox, or Easter. This is because at the spring
equinox, the sun officially overpowers the evil darkness."
Actually, since the dawn of time the sun has overpowered the darkness every day - at
sunrise, not just on Easter. The word Easter is used in the King James Version of the
Bible, but its usage is the result of a mistranslation. The word “Easter” was translated
from the Greek word “pascha”, meaning “Passover.” “Easter,” on the other hand, is
derived from the name of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, the goddess of fertility, hence
the association with bunnies and eggs. More modern English translations of the Bible
have corrected the mistranslation of the word “pascha.” The meaning of Passover has no
correlation with the meaning associated with celebrations of Easter, either in ancient or
modern times. Passover, rather than dealing with resurrection, is related to the concept of
death which results in salvation. The first mention of Passover is in the twelfth chapter of
the book of Exodus. After Joseph grew to prominence in the land of Egypt, the Hebrew

84
people became so populated that Pharaoh ordered them into slavery for fear they might
overtake the kingdom. During these years of bondage, God raised up a deliverer, Moses,
to lead His people to the land of promise. However, Pharaoh refused to relieve the
Hebrew people from their bonds, even after God afflicted Egypt with various plagues, so
God brought one last scourge upon Egypt. He told Moses that if Pharaoh would not let
His people go, His angel would go from house to house and bring about the death of
every firstborn son in the land of Egypt. However, God provided a way out: He said that
He would “pass over” any house that had the blood of a lamb spread on the door posts,
thus sparing the firstborn of that household from this plague. After their departure from
Egypt, God commanded that the Hebrew people observe Passover annually, in
remembrance of their deliverance from bondage. At this annual feast, an unblemished
lamb was sacrificed, which served both as a reminder of the past and a promise for the
future. The Passover Feast, while looking back in reflection of past deliverance, also
looked forward to the future promised Messiah, who would be an even greater Deliverer
than Moses. The blood of the lamb was typical of the blood of Jesus, the Lamb of God,
slain for man’s sin. As those covered by the blood of the lamb in Egypt were spared from
death, so those covered by the blood of the Lamb of God are spared from the wrath of
God against their sin. Also, the supposed relationship between the words “sun” and “son”
in ancient beliefs is pure nonsense, since the beliefs in question far pre-date the English
language.

XIX. Concerning Sunday as the sacred day of worship: said

of Mithras
Mithras' day of worship was in fact Sunday (Sunday as the day of worship is only true
of the Roman Mithras, not the Iranian Mithra), but that was not so until the second
century A.D., well after Jesus’ resurrection.1 Additionally, Sunday was not declared as the
Christian’s sacred day until March 7th 321 A.D. by the edict of Emperor Constantine,
since that is the day on which Jesus rose from the dead and, in the creation account, it is
said that God rested on the seventh day.* Prior to that, the day of worship for Christians
was Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. Even so, a pagan deity’s day of celebration falling on
Sunday should come as no surprise. Many religions used Saturday or Sunday as its “holy
day” (after all, there’s only seven days in a week from which to pick a holy day).
Mithras' services were conducted by men known as “fathers,” the chief of whom lived
in Rome and was referred to as “Pater Patratus.” The obvious association that critics
employ here is to the Catholic church and its hierarchy, however, Catholicism did not
develop until hundreds of years after the time of Christ, therefore, any parallel regarding
the government of the Catholic church is irrelevant, especially since none of the Apostles
held the title of Pope or Holy Father, nor did they operate from Rome. Peter was the
Apostle to the Jews, whereas Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. While Paul did travel
to Rome, much of his time was spent elsewhere within the Roman Empire.

* His rest was not from weariness of work, but was a glorifying satisfaction that all He
created was good.

85
I. Concerning the suspect confession of Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr, a second century historian and one of the earliest Christian apologists, is
often accused by critics that he believed the Gospels were revisions of pagan myths. The
claim is based on the following quotes, both taken from his First Apology:

"When we say that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was produced without sexual union,
was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into Heaven, we propound
nothing different from what you believe regarding those who you esteem sons of
Jupiter."24

"He [Jesus] was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of
Perseus."25

Justin was a converted pagan. He was very familiar with the various myths which
existed in his day and were held by his contemporaries. He was a man of great
understanding and is regarded as one of the greatest writers of the early Christian era.
However, his work is not gospel. His writings were not inspired by God as were the
Scriptures. As such, they may contain errors. These above quotations, however, would
not fall under that category, for Justin is not confessing an association between Jesus and
mythological figures. For one, he lived during a time when oral and written tradition
regarding Jesus was fresh and relatively new. Time had not corrupted the elements which
orthodox Christianity held to be true. There were heretical sects who claimed to be
Christians, such as the Gnostics and the Marcions, but these and others like them were
rejected by mainstream Christians for believing in truths which stood in contradiction to
Scripture. If Justin had written with the intention of suggesting that the Gospels were
borrowed from paganism, certainly other of the church fathers would have condemned
his words in their own writings, and you will find no such condemnation by any of the
other early Christian writers. What Justin was doing here was appealing to the pagan
conscience. Christians, including Justin, were under attack by Rome and pagan Greeks.
Rome had set in place the death penalty for professing faith in Christ. Below is the thrust
of Justin’s argument here:

“In the first place [we furnish proof], because, though we say things similar to what
the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we
do no wrong, are put to death as sinners. … And this is the sole accusation you bring
against us, that we do not reverence the same gods as you do, nor offer to the dead
libations and the savor of fat, and crowns for their statues, and sacrifices.”26

In paraphrase, what he was saying was this: “Christians are being put to death for
believing in a man who was the Son of God, born of a virgin. Yet you [pagans] who
believe in myths like Perseus and Jupiter and hold to like beliefs, deem us worthy of
death.” In short, he was inviting he who is without sin to cast the first stone. He was
calling attention to their hypocrisy in condemning others for holding to the types of
beliefs to which they held themselves. The argument he was using was a legal one: that if
Christians held to beliefs which made them worthy of the death penalty, then pagans who

87
hold to similar beliefs are equally worthy of the same. Justin was appealing to what he
knew was fiction and myth in his process of defending that which he knew was the truth.
Granted, his choice of wording would have been better. He could have used
classifications other than “nothing different” and “in common” when discussing any
relationship between Jesus and Perseus or Jupiter. These statements, when taken by
themselves, which is what the critic always does, could indicate exactly what the critic
wants us to believe: that the Gospel was a rip-off of pagan myths. However, if we read
further and look at the broader context, it becomes clear that Justin is not making any
such claim. Consider the following statements made by Justin in this same work (when
added, emphasis mine). They certainly do not sound like the ramblings of a man who
believes the core tenants of his faith to be mere copies of existing myths.

“wicked devils perpetrated these things [referring to pagan myths]”27

“whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by
the prophets who receded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who
have existed [an obvious reference that Jesus was the fulfillment of the many
prophecies concerning the coming Messiah]; that we claim to be acknowledged, not
because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things:
and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by
God.”28

“… before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before
mentioned, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those
circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they
narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous
reports against us”29

Another quote from Justin which has drawn the attention of critics is found in his
work Dialogue with Trypho:

“'And when I hear, Trypho, said I, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand
that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.'”30

In saying that devils perpetrated the pagan myths, Justin is not saying that the devil
had foreknowledge of God’s plan for redemption, knowing beforehand that the Word of
God would be made flesh and be born of a virgin, having then inspired pagan religion
based on forthcoming Christian beliefs. Rather, he is saying that the devils inspired pagan
myths based on pre-Christian Jewish beliefs, dating back to the time of Moses– beliefs
which were later fulfilled in the person of Jesus.

“From what has been already said, you can understand how the devils, in imitation of
what was said by Moses, asserted that Proserpine was the daughter of Jupiter, and
instigated the people to set up an image of her under the name of Kore [Cora, i.e., the
maiden or daughter] at the springheads. For, as we wrote above, Moses said, ‘In the
beginning God made the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and
unfurnished: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ In imitation,

88
 therefore, of what is here said of the Spirit of God moving on the waters, they said
that Proserpine [or Cora] was the daughter of Jupiter. And in like manner also they
craftily feigned that Minerva was the daughter of Jupiter, not by sexual union, but,
knowing that God conceived and made the world by the Word, they say that Minerva
is the first conception; which we consider to be very absurd, bringing forward the
form of the conception in a female shape. And in like manner the actions of those
others who are called sons of Jupiter sufficiently condemn them.”31

Justin's intention in mentioning supposed parallels between the Gospels and pagan
mythology was not for the purpose of explaining them or proving they did not exist; but
rather, to draw attention to them so that he may show how the devil had imitated the
ancient prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah. Such intention is evident in
the sixty-ninth chapter of his Dialogue with Trypho:

“I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those

counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the
Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false
prophets in Elijah’s days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was
begotten by [Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the
vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again,
and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not
perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob,
and recorded by Moses? … And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as
the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter
likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?

Here, it is clear that Justin's intention was to show that in imitating the Old Testament
prophecies, not the Gospel accounts of Jesus, the devil had successfully created such
parallels (which are very remote, at best). This he did in order to show the hypocrisy of
the pagans in accusing Christians of believing in that which Justin thought to be similar
to Christian beliefs.
Also, Justin’s comments regarding pagan deities do not correctly reflect the myths
themselves. Neither Perseus nor Jupiter shared biographical characteristics similar to
Jesus. Neither of these pagan deities were said, or believed, to be virgin-born, crucified,
or resurrected from the dead. In his book The Virgin Birth of Christ J. Gresham Machen,
comments, “When Justin…refers to the birth of Perseus as a birth from (or through) a
virgin, he is going beyond what the pagan sources contained. There seems to be no clear
evidence that pagan sources used the word ‘virgin’ as referring to mothers of heroes,
mythical or historical, who were represented as being begotten by the gods.”32.
Justin Martyr is also quoted as saying, “Christ — if He has indeed been born, and
exists anywhere — is unknown. ... And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent
a Christ for yourselves.” The quote is taken from chapter eight of his Dialogue with
Trypho, in which he debates with the non-Christian Jew named in the title of the work.
The line in question is a line attributed to Trypho, who can hardly be considered as an
advocate for Christianity, The context in which the line is placed can be seen in the
following elongated section:

89
 “I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study
divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of
some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be
deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. ... Christ
— if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere — is unknown. ... And you,
having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves ...”
Trypho’s accusation here against the Christians is not that they believe in a Christ who
did not exist. Rather, he is accusing them of applying to the man Jesus, whose historical
existence Trypho never calls into question, a false Messiahship. Trypho’s perspective is
that the Christians misapplied Messianic prophecies to the person of Jesus of Nazareth,
who Trypho regarded as a mere man, not God incarnate.
Critics also claim that Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History) quotes Justin as saying,
"There exists not a people, civilized or semi-civilized, who have not offered up prayers in
the name of a crucified Savior to the Father and Creator of all things." This statement
reduces Jesus to one of any number of unidentified crucified saviors. They cite a passage
in Eusebius' history (Hist. Eccl, Book 1, ch 4) in which they say the historian provides the
above quote from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, however, the fact is that the quote, in
this form, does not exist. First of all, the quote, in any form, is not found in the work of
Eusebius. Pick up a copy of Eusebius' History, read it from cover to cover, and you will
find no such statement in the text. Second, the quote, in this form, is found nowhere in
Justin's Dialogue. What is found in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho is the following
statement:

“For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever
they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom
prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified
Jesus.”33

The statement, rather than standing as a confession that Christianity is merely a rehash
of other religions, stands as a testament to the enduring character of the Gospel of Christ.
That Jesus was worshiped and prayers were offered in His name by peoples of every race
and class speaks to the victory of the one who is not just a crucified Savior, but the
crucified Savior of man. The above misquote is yet another example of the critics'
fabricated “evidence” in an attempt to cast a shadow on the validity of the Christian faith.
Justin was a devout Christian, as reflected in his writings, despite the baseless
accusations of the critics who delight in intentionally taking his words out of context.
Justin Martyr stands as a staple in the writings of the early church. Read his writings for
yourself and you will see a man who had a heart for God and a commitment to the truth.
Justin’s works may also be read at the following web site:
www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

90
II. Concerning the similarities between the Epic of
Gilgamesh and Noah’s Flood

From the Zeitgeist movie: “The story of Noah and Noah’s Ark is taken directly from
tradition. The concept of a Great Flood is ubiquitous throughout the ancient world, with
over two hundred different cited claims in different periods and times. However, one
needs look no further for a pre-Christian source than the Epic of Gilgamesh written in
2600 B.C.”

The Gilgamesh Epic

Background
The Epic of Gilgamesh was discovered in 1853 during an excavation in the
ancient city of Nineveh. The finding consisted of twelve tablets on which were
inscribed a poem about a great flood. The tablets were dated to only 650 B.C.,
but the poem is much older, since fragments of the same story are found on other
fragments dated about 2,000 B.C. Both oral and written forms of the poem are
thought to have existed well before the discovery of these fragments.
The main figure of the poem is Gilgamesh, who was a Sumerian king during
the first dynasty of Uruk. In the poem, it was not Gilgamesh who experienced
the flood; but rather, Utnapishtim, an immortal, who relates his tale of the flood
to Gilgamesh. After his friend was struck down and killed by the gods,
Gilgamesh became fearful for his own life and sought a way to avert possibility
of divine judgment. He soon learned of Utnapishtim, a man who has become
immortal, and sets out on a quest to find this one and learn his secret to eternal
life. When they do meet, Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh a tale of a great flood and
his subsequent acquisition of immortality. After telling his story, Utnapishtim
tests Gilgamesh to see if he is worthy of immortality. Gilgamesh failed the test,
but, in pity, Utnapishtim told him where he could find the plant which grants
immortality. Gilgamesh successfully located and retrieved the plant, but the
plant was later carried off by a serpent while Gilgamesh was bathing in a spring,
causing Gilgamesh much sorrow.

Utnapishtim’s story of a great flood (The Epic of Gilgamesh, tablet XI)

The gods decided to flood the earth to destroy mankind. The god Ea, the
same god who fashioned man, came to Utnapishtim in a dream to warn him of
the impending cataclysm. Ea instructed Utnapishtim to build a great vessel by
which he would survive the flood. The shape of the vessel was to be a large
cube, having equal dimensions both in height and width. Utnapishtim built the
vessel as instructed, sealed it with pitch, and gathered all kinds of animals. Then,
he, along with his family and other select few, entered the vessel. Once inside,
water began to flood the earth, so much that “the gods were frightened by the
flood.” For six days and seven nights the waters continued with great ferocity.

91
The poem reads:

“Six days and seven nights

came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land.
When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding,
the flood was a war—struggling with itself like a woman
writhing [in labor].”

When the deluge came to an end, Utnapishtim‘s ark came to rest on Mt. Nisir.
Utnapishtim sent out birds to see if the waters had receded enough for them to
leave the ark. He sent a dove, then a swallow, but both returned to the ark,
finding no land on which to rest. He then sent a raven. When the raven did not
return, he released the animals from the ark and offered a sheep in sacrifice to
the gods.

“The gods smelled the savor,

and collected like flies over a [sheep] sacrifice.”

The god Enlil was outraged when he saw that some humans survived the flood.
Ea rebuked Enlil for destroying mankind (save a few) by causing the flood.
Enlil, in remorse, granted immortality to Utnapishtim and his wife, after which
they retired in seclusion.
Here, its entirety, is the portion of the Epic which recounts Utnapishtim’s tale
of the flood:
(This translation is taken from www.ancienttexts.org and is based on the
standard Akkadian version)

Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying:

"I will reveal to you, Gilgamesh, a thing that is hidden,
a secret of the gods I will tell you!
Shuruppak, a city that you surely know,
situated on the banks of the Euphrates,
that city was very old, and there were gods inside it.
The hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the Flood.
Their Father Anu uttered the oath (of secrecy),
Valiant Enlil was their Adviser,
Ninurta was their Chamberlain,
Ennugi was their Minister of Canals.
Ea, the Clever Prince(?), was under oath with them
so he repeated their talk to the reed house:
'Reed house, reed house! Wall, wall!
O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build,

92
its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
its length must correspond to its width.
Roof it over like the Apsu.
I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea:
'My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered
I will heed and will do it.
But what shall I answer the city, the populace, and the Elders!'
Ea spoke, commanding me, his servant:
'You, well then, this is what you must say to them:
"It appears that Enlil is rejecting me
so I cannot reside in your city (?),
nor set foot on Enlil's earth.
I will go down to the Apsu to live with my lord, Ea,
and upon you he will rain down abundance,
a profusion of fowl, myriad(!) fishes.
He will bring to you a harvest of wealth,
in the morning he will let loaves of bread shower down,
and in the evening a rain of wheat!"'
Just as dawn began to glow
the land assembled around me-
the carpenter carried his hatchet,
the reed worker carried his (flattening) stone,
... the men ...
The child carried the pitch,
the weak brought whatever else was needed.
On the fifth day I laid out her exterior.
It was a field in area,
its walls were each 10 times 12 cubits in height,
the sides of its top were of equal length, 10 times It cubits each.
I laid out its (interior) structure and drew a picture of it (?).
I provided it with six decks,
thus dividing it into seven (levels).
The inside of it I divided into nine (compartments).
I drove plugs (to keep out) water in its middle part.
I saw to the punting poles and laid in what was necessary.
Three times 3,600 (units) of raw bitumen I poured into the bitumen
kiln,
three times 3,600 (units of) pitch ...into it,
there were three times 3,600 porters of casks who carried (vegetable)
oil,
apart from the 3,600 (units of) oil which they consumed (!)
and two times 3,600 (units of) oil which the boatman stored away.
I butchered oxen for the meat(!),
and day upon day I slaughtered sheep.
I gave the workmen(?) ale, beer, oil, and wine, as if it were river water,
so they could make a party like the New Year's Festival.
... and I set my hand to the oiling(!).

93
The boat was finished by sunset.
The launching was very difficult.
They had to keep carrying a runway of poles front to back,
until two-thirds of it had gone into the water(?).
Whatever I had I loaded on it:
whatever silver I had I loaded on it,
whatever gold I had I loaded on it.
All the living beings that I had I loaded on it,
I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat,
all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I had go up.
Shamash had set a stated time:
'In the morning I will let loaves of bread shower down,
and in the evening a rain of wheat!
Go inside the boat, seal the entry!'
That stated time had arrived.
In the morning he let loaves of bread shower down,
and in the evening a rain of wheat.
I watched the appearance of the weather--
the weather was frightful to behold!
I went into the boat and sealed the entry.
For the caulking of the boat, to Puzuramurri, the boatman,
I gave the palace together with its contents.
Just as dawn began to glow
there arose from the horizon a black cloud.
Adad rumbled inside of it,
before him went Shullat and Hanish,
heralds going over mountain and land.
Erragal pulled out the mooring poles,
forth went Ninurta and made the dikes overflow.
The Anunnaki lifted up the torches,
setting the land ablaze with their flare.
Stunned shock over Adad's deeds overtook the heavens,
and turned to blackness all that had been light.
The... land shattered like a... pot.
All day long the South Wind blew ...,
blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water,
overwhelming the people like an attack.
No one could see his fellow,
they could not recognize each other in the torrent.
The gods were frightened by the Flood,
and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu.
The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall.
Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth,
the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed:
'The olden days have alas turned to clay,
because I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods!
How could I say evil things in the Assembly of the Gods,

94
ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people!!
No sooner have I given birth to my dear people
than they fill the sea like so many fish!'
The gods--those of the Anunnaki--were weeping with her,
the gods humbly sat weeping, sobbing with grief(?),
their lips burning, parched with thirst.
Six days and seven nights
came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land.
When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding,
the flood was a war--struggling with itself like a woman writhing (in
labor).
The sea calmed, fell still, the whirlwind (and) flood stopped up.
I looked around all day long--quiet had set in
and all the human beings had turned to clay!
The terrain was as flat as a roof.
I opened a vent and fresh air (daylight!) fell upon the side of my nose.
I fell to my knees and sat weeping,
tears streaming down the side of my nose.
I looked around for coastlines in the expanse of the sea,
and at twelve leagues there emerged a region (of land).
On Mt. Nimush the boat lodged firm,
Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
One day and a second Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
A third day, a fourth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
A fifth day, a sixth, Mt. Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.
When a seventh day arrived
I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a swallow and released it.
The swallow went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a raven and released it.
The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.
It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.
Then I sent out everything in all directions and sacrificed (a sheep).
I offered incense in front of the mountain-ziggurat.
Seven and seven cult vessels I put in place,
and (into the fire) underneath (or: into their bowls) I poured reeds,
cedar, and myrtle.
The gods smelled the savor,
the gods smelled the sweet savor,
and collected like flies over a (sheep) sacrifice.
Just then Beletili arrived.
She lifted up the large flies (beads) which Anu had made for his
enjoyment(!):

95
 'You gods, as surely as I shall not forget this lapis lazuli around my
neck,
may I be mindful of these days, and never forget them!
The gods may come to the incense offering,
but Enlil may not come to the incense offering,
because without considering he brought about the Flood
and consigned my people to annihilation.'
Just then Enlil arrived.
He saw the boat and became furious,
he was filled with rage at the Igigi gods:
'Where did a living being escape?
No man was to survive the annihilation!'
Ninurta spoke to Valiant Enlil, saying:
'Who else but Ea could devise such a thing?
It is Ea who knows every machination!'
La spoke to Valiant Enlil, saying:
'It is yours, O Valiant One, who is the Sage of the Gods.
How, how could you bring about a Flood without consideration
Charge the violation to the violator,
charge the offense to the offender,
but be compassionate lest (mankind) be cut off,
be patient lest they be killed.
Instead of your bringing on the Flood,
would that a lion had appeared to diminish the people!
Instead of your bringing on the Flood,
would that a wolf had appeared to diminish the people!
Instead of your bringing on the Flood,
would that famine had occurred to slay the land!
Instead of your bringing on the Flood,
would that (Pestilent) Erra had appeared to ravage the land!
It was not I who revealed the secret of the Great Gods,
I (only) made a dream appear to Atrahasis, and (thus) he heard the
secret of the gods.
Now then! The deliberation should be about him!'
Enlil went up inside the boat
and, grasping my hand, made me go up.
He had my wife go up and kneel by my side.
He touched our forehead and, standing between us, he blessed us:
'Previously Utanapishtim was a human being.
But now let Utanapishtim and his wife become like us, the gods!
Let Utanapishtim reside far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers.'
They took us far away and settled us at the Mouth of the Rivers."

Noah’s Flood (Genesis chapters 6-9)

During the days of Noah, mankind reached a level of wickedness which exceeded
any that had existed before or since. God determined to punish mankind by bringing
a universal flood upon them. However, there was one righteous man, Noah, whom

96
God chose to spare from this calamity. He spoke to Noah and instructed him to build
a great vessel, seal it with pitch, and place two of every kind of animal in the ark. He
was also instructed to take additional animals for sacrifice. Once completed, God
told Noah to take his family in the ark, after which God shut the door and the waters
began to flood the earth. The waters pounded the earth for forty days and nights. In
the seventh month of the flood, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. In
the tenth month, the tops of the mountains were seen. Noah sent a raven and a dove,
but neither found land. Seven days later, he sent a second dove, which returned with
an olive branch. Seven days later, he sent a third dove, which did not return. After
releasing the animals from the ark, he and his family again set foot on land, at which
time God commanded Noah to go forth and multiply on the earth. Noah built an alter
and offered burnt offerings to God, after which God blessed him and promised He
would never again destroy the world with a flood, giving the rainbow as the sign of
His promise.

Which came first?

The oldest written account we have of Noah’s flood was written by Moses, who
lived in approximately 1400-1500 B.C. The account of the flood likely existed in
oral and written tradition long before Moses, having been handed down through
Noah and his descendants. The real question is not whether the Epic of Gilgamesh
pre-dates the book of Genesis; but rather, does the account of Gilgamesh pre-date
Noah? The question of when Noah lived depends on one’s chronological view of
Biblical history.

The chronology of Usher and Lightfoot

A widely-used and accepted version of Biblical chronology is the timetable
set forth in 1642 by Archbishops Usher and Lightfoot (usually referred to,
unfortunately for Lightfoot, as “Usher’s chronology”), using the genealogical
records found in Scripture. According to this timetable, the flood is placed
between 2300-2400 B.C., approximately three thousand years earlier than
geological data suggests (c.5400 B.C.).

The history of the world according to Usher:

4004 B.C.- Creation

2348 B.C.- Noah's Flood
1921 B.C.- God's call to Abraham
1491 B.C.- The Exodus from Egypt
1012 B.C.- The founding of the Temple in Jerusalem
586 B.C.- The destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the beginning of
the Babylonian Captivity
4 B.C.- The birth of Jesus

There is no way to date the age of the earth, even by using the genealogies
found in Scripture. Taken literally, the Biblical data suggests Usher’s chronology
to be fairly accurate. However, such accuracy is dependent on Usher and
Lightfoot correctly translating and evaluating the data, with a proper

97
understanding of Hebrew idioms regarding relationships between fathers and
sons. At times, a man mentioned to be another’s “father” may actually be a
grandfather or even much later descendant, thus making the genealogy stretch
over a longer period of time than is suggested on the surface.

Scientific dating
According to the best scientific research, using methods such as radiocarbon
dating, the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. But, as author R.
Christopher explains, “… scientists are aware that C-14's half life (5,700 years)
quantifies carbon based material to approximately 3692 B.C. They are also
aware earlier dates must be obtained in unison with a preconceived,
evolutionary, geological stratigraphy that only exists in carefully edited secular
textbooks and are never quite so obvious when working within the actual
geological column. … Science also posits a universe that is some 14-18 billion
years old. It quantifies these estimates by way of extrapolating measured results
of background radiation, etc., back to a theoretical, protracted point in time. But
the premise on which these theories are constructed may be wrong—at least to
some degree. Recent astronomical observations attest to a universe that is
anything but homogeneous and isotropic as Big Bang proponents hypothesize.
Science is also aware that we cannot precisely measure astronomical phenomena
beyond a few hundred or thousand light years from earth without a series of
assumptions being added to the equation. Anything further is no more than an
estimated guess at distance or age.”1

Internal characteristics of the narratives

However old both accounts are in their written form, they are most assuredly
older in their oral form. The bottom line is that the age of both flood accounts
cannot be determined through either the best genealogical or scientific data;
therefore, other factors must be considered when determining which account
came first.

1. Both flood accounts must have a basis in an actual historical event,

since the story of a universal flood exists in practically every culture, and
so it has been since before world travel was possible. The Australian
Aborigines even have their own flood legend. Linguist Dr. Alexandra
Aikhenvald stated, “… without their language and its structure, people
are rootless. In recording it you are also getting down the stories and
folklore. If those are lost a huge part of a people’s history goes. These
stories often have a common root that speaks of a real event, not just a
myth. For example, every Amazonian society ever studied has a legend
about a great flood.”2

2. The comparison between the two accounts, while bearing some

similarities, are strikingly different, both in content and character (for
more on this point, see the following section “Comparison of the two
accounts”). The elements contained in the Gilgamesh record stand out as
elements of myth and fiction, rather than historical data.

98
 3. Historians generally view the book of Genesis as an historical record,
while the Epic of Gilgamesh is considered to be an ancient myth, with
basis in an actual historical event. However one regards the book of
Genesis, it must be considered either legend or history. Given certain
characteristics of the Gilgamesh account, as noted above, the Genesis
record comes out on top as being the one which is historical. As Dr.
Jonathan Sarfati notes, “it is common to make legends out of historical
events, but not history from legends.”3

4. In the epic of Gilgamesh, it appears that Utnapishtim is the only person

on earth who remembers or is even aware that there was a great flood. If
the Gilgamesh epic were an historical record, then why did Gilgamesh
not already know that there was a flood before Utnapishtim related the
tale to him? If mankind knew of Utnapishtim’s immortality, how did they
not also know of the flood? If such a flood was a reality, it would have
surely been known and reflected in cultures throughout the world, as is
the Noahic account.

Comparison of the two accounts4

Similarities between Genesis and Gilgamesh

Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim

Extent of flood …………………….Global…………………...Global

As stated above, if the Gilgamesh legend were true, then there would
have been widespread knowledge of such an event, yet the only one in the
story who possesses such knowledge is Utnapishtim. Also, apart from the
tablets on which the poem is inscribed, there exists no written account
which corroborates the flood of Utnapishtim. However, there is evidence in
ancient literature which supports the Genesis account.

Warned by ………………………...Yahweh (God) …………...Ea

How else would either Noah or Utnapishtim know of a coming global
flood unless he was so informed by a deity? Again, we have here an element
which is necessary in both accounts.

Ordered to build an ark?…………..Yes…………………….....Yes

How else is one going to survive a global flood?

Outside coating ……………………Pitch …………………....Pitch

Pitch, or bitumen, was a common resin is ancient times. According to the
Dictionary of Archeology, “Also known as asphalt or tar, bitumen was
mixed with other materials throughout prehistory and throughout the world
for use as a sealant [and] adhesive. … The material was also useful in
waterproofing canoes and other water transport.”5 The Bible gives two
instances of the use of pitch in the construction of a waterproof vessel.

99
 Noah used pitch when building an ark, and Moses’ mother used pitch when
waterproofing a basket in which to place her son. It is not unthinkable that
both accounts of a flood would list such a common, readily available
substance used in the building of an ark. Rather than serving as a cause for
raised eyebrows, the element of pitch in both accounts should come as an
expectation.

Similarities between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued)

Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim

Doors……………………………….One………………….....One
Why would there need to be more than one door? Only one entrance and
exit would have been needed in a vessel intended for such a purpose. Also,
a vessel built to survive for an extended period of time in tumultuous waters
(to say the least!) would need to be as watertight as possible, with only as
many doors as would be required for entering the ark.

Windows ………………………....At least one …………...... At least one

Test to find land ………………......Release of birds ……...... Release of birds

Again, this element should come as no surprise. In a world covered with
water, a bird would be the most logical choice.

Boat rests on mountain……………Yes …………………...... Yes

Given that both flood accounts were global, covering even the mountains
themselves, it is only logical that when the waters recede, that each ark
comes to rest on a mountain, being the first portions of land to re-emerge.

Mountain in the Middle East…...…Yes …………………..... Yes

The Middle East was the hub for human existence in ancient times.
Genesis describes the first humans living in the Fertile Crescent, or
Mesopotamia, a notation which is supported by archaeology. An account of
a global flood occurring in very ancient times should be expected to come
out of this region.

Sacrificed after flood? ..…………. Yes, by Noah ………...... Yes, by

Utnapishtim
Yes, both accounts mention an offering being made following the flood,
but this exists as an element standing in stark contrast between the two
accounts, since the offerings differed greatly in both type and
characteristics. More will be said on this below, but here the only item of
interest is that there is an offering of some sort mentioned in both accounts.
Offerings were common practice in ancient times, and are even used today
in less civilized cultures. Offerings serve many purposes, including giving
thanks or acknowledging one’s dependence on or servitude to a higher
power. After surviving a global flood, it would be commonplace, especially
in ancient times when offerings were more widely practiced, to give an

100
 offering to the deity on whom one’s survival was dependent. Today, when
surviving a near-death experience, it would be a common thing for the
survivor to attribute his/her survival to a deity in whom he/she has faith, and
to do so in accordance with his/her belief system, whether it involves saying
a prayer, crossing oneself, or making a particular vow to that deity. As in the
case of the offering mentioned in both flood accounts, it would come as a
natural response from anyone who has faith in a higher power.

Similarities between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued)

Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim

Blessed after flood? ..………….....Yes ……………………. Yes

The blessing on Noah (From Genesis 9:8-17)

And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed
after you;
And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the
cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of
the ark, to every beast of the earth.
And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut
off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a
flood to destroy the earth.
And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between
me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual
generations:
I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant
between me and the earth.
And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the
bow shall be seen in the cloud:
And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and
every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become
a flood to destroy all flesh.
And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may
remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living
creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I
have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

The blessing on Utnapishtim (From The Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI)

“Previously Utanapishtim was a human being.

But now let Utanapishtim and his wife become like us, the gods!
Let Utanapishtim reside far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers.”

These two blessings differ greatly. The gods confer a blessing on

Utnapishtim, whereas God established a covenant with Noah. In ancient

101
 times, there was a vast difference between a blessing and a covenant. A
blessing could merely signify a once-and-done- deal, and did not
necessarily involve a binding contract. However, a covenant was an oath
which was binding to the death. The substance of that which was conferred
upon Noah was that God made an oath which He alone would keep. It was
an oath made with the whole of future mankind. Ancient covenants
typically included some sort of sign, or seal, as an evidence of the binding
nature of the contract. It served as a signature on a legal document that the
person(s) making the covenant would keep their end of the deal. God’s sign
of the covenant made with mankind was the rainbow, a sign which remains
to this day, signifying the permanent nature of the oath God made to Noah.

Noah –
Covenant made with Noah and all forthcoming generations of man
God promised never again to destroy the world with a flood
The Noahic covenant stands in succession with other redemptive
covenants found in Scripture (namely, Abraham, Moses, David,
and the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ).
No one is granted “god-like” qualities

Utnapishtim –
The blessing is given only with Utnapishtim and his wife
The gods never say they will not cause another global flood
The blessing stands alone and is not a part of a greater promise
Utnapishtim and his wife are granted “god-like” status as
immortals

Similarities between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued)

Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim

Reason for flood ……… human wickedness …...... excessive human noisiness
(extreme violence)

Sender ………………… Yahweh ………………… Assembly of "gods"

The Epic of Gilgamesh relates a polytheistic belief system, whereas the
Genesis account relates a monotheistic system. The Bible describes man as
originally monotheistic, a description which is supported by archeology.
Polytheism originated during the days of Nimrod, following the flood of
Noah.

Response of deity ……… Lord was sorry He …....... The gods could not sleep
made man because of
his wickedness
Since when does a god need sleep? The gods of the Gilgamesh Epic are
selfish deities who destroyed mankind because they were merely annoyed
with man. It was not due to righteous anger in response to man’s
wickedness. The Bible describes God as just and good. The justice of God

102
 requires not only that He view wickedness with righteous hatred; but also,
that He respond to such wickedness by bringing judgment upon the wicked.

Differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued)

Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim

Means of announcement ..Direct from God …………………in a dream

Main character …………. Noah (name means "rest")…….....Utnapishtim

(name means
"finder of life")

Why character chosen … . a righteous man …………………no reason given

The God of the Bible does not act on a whim. Nothing happens by chance.

Did the hero complain? ....No ………………………………..Yes

Intended for …………… All humans except Noah and …... all humans except
his family Utnapishtim, his
family, and some
craftsmen

Decision to send flood … Yahweh (God) …………………… council of the

gods (primarily
Enlil)

Builders………………… Noah and family ………………… Utnapishtim, his

family, and many
craftsmen from
the city

Character's response …… Noah warned his neighbors …...... Told by Ea to lie

of upcoming judgment as to neighbors so
"Preacher of righteousness" that they would
help him build the
boat
Who wants a god who lies? The Christian has the security of knowing a
God who does not go back on His word. The God of the Bible is faithful
and true, unlike the gods described in the account of Utnapishtim.

Building time ………… 100 years …………………………7 days

A vessel the size of Utnapishtim’s ark being built in ancient times within
seven days? Does this really sound like anything more than a legend?

Ark size ……………… 450x75x45 feet ………………… 200x200x200 feet

103
Differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued)
Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim

Shape of ark ………… Rectangular ………………………Square

The ark of Noah:

The ark built in the Genesis record would be a vessel capable of

sustaining tumultuous waters. The shape of the vessel was such that it
would not have capsized even in such violent conditions. Physicist Dr.
Jonathan D. Sarfati has determined that even if the ark was topped over 60°,
it would still return to an upright position.6

Scientists and naval architects at the Korea Association of Creation

Research have confirmed that “a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would
have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm
thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m.
Compare this with a tsunami, which is typically only about 10 m high.”7

The ark of Utnapishtim:

104
 Utnapishtim’s ark was cubical in shape. Such a design is not at all
seaworthy, even under normal nautical conditions, as it would be prone
to tip on any one of its sides. Such a vessel would certainly not have
prevented the extinction of the human race in the event of a global
flood.

Differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued)

Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim

Ark roof ……………… wood ………………………………slate

Reiterating what was said above, a vessel in the shape of a square, with
its top portion covered with slate, would be top-heavy and not at all
seaworthy.

Number of Decks ……… 3 ……………………………………12

Passengers ………………Noah and his family ……………....Utnapishtim, his

family, and
craftsmen from
the city

Cargo ……………………All species of animals and food …All species of

animals, food,
gold, jewels, and
other valuables
The inclusion of animals on the ark, in both accounts, is an element
merely to be expected, in order to prevent the extinction of all animal life on
earth in the event of a global flood.

Ark launched by ………the floodwaters ……………………..pushed to the

river
According to the Gilgamesh Epic, the ark was launched by men
“carrying a runway of poles front to back, until two-thirds of [the ark] had
gone into the water.” A vessel this size, filled with every kind of animal (the
poem indicates the animals were loaded onto the ark prior to the launch),
could not be pushed by mortal means. Even if such a feat were possible,
who would have aided in the great shove? Certainly Utnapishtim’s
contemporaries would have only helped him if they took him seriously and
believed that such a catastrophic event as the flood was about to occur. If
this were the case, then why did they not board the ark with Utnapishtim?

Door closed by ………… Yahweh (God) ……………………Utnapishtim

105
Differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued)
Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim

Sign of coming flood ……none ………………………………extremely bright

light sent
by the god
Annanuki

Waters sent by ………… Yahweh (God) ……………………the gods Nergal

and Ninurta

Means of flood ………… Ground water & heavy rain ………Heavy rain

Reaction of deity ............. God controlled the waters ………..the gods

scrambled to get
away from the
water like
"whipped dogs"
In the Gilgamesh account, we have gods who are fearful of their own
judgments and capable of being harmed. Moreover, we see in this account,
gods who are not sovereign – and therefore not supreme beings. In the
whole of Scripture, God is portrayed as a sovereign Deity. When we say
that God is sovereign, we admit the following: 1) that God has the right to
do as He pleases, 2) that God has the ability to do as He pleases, 3) that
God’s actions are never thwarted, and 4) that all which God does is in
accordance with who God is – that is, He acts according to His nature. As
God’s person is good and just, so are His ways and purpose. If the will of
God could be challenged by another being or force, then there would be
another entity as powerful as God. If that were true, neither being would be
sovereign, for neither would possess full authority, both in heaven and in
earth.

Duration of rain ……… 40 days ………………………………7 days

Would heavy rains, even to this extent, really cover the earth in only
seven days? The repetitive use of the number seven in the Gilgamesh Epic
bears the characteristic of a legend.

Duration of flood ……… 60 days ………………………………14 days

Would the flood waters recede from the earth in only fourteen days?

Ark landing …………… Mt. Ararat ……………………………Mt. Nisir

almost 500 km
(300 miles) from
Mt Ararat
The close proximity of the mountains mentioned in both accounts was
previously discussed.

106
 Differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh (continued)
Characteristic Noah Utnapishtim

Deity's reaction to
human deaths…………… no regret mentioned ………………regretted that they
had killed all the
humans

Birds sent out …………...Raven & three doves ……………. dove, swallow,
and a raven

Offering after flood …… every clean animal and bird ………wines and a sheep

Aftermath ……………… God promises not to destroy ......... gods quarrel

humanity by flood again among
themselves, Ea
lies to Enlil.
Utnapishtim and
his wife
given immortality
like the gods
If the Gilgamesh account is the historical account, then a global flood
can occur at any time when the gods get up on the wrong side of their beds.
Anyone who considers the Gilgamesh account to be historical may want to
begin building an ark of his own – you never know what mood the gods
may be in tomorrow.

Re-population ……………Noah and family told .................... Ea and Mami

to multiply and repopulate created 14
the earth human beings to
help repopulate
the earth

Mythic elements in the Epic of Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh is described as two-thirds god and one-third human (Tablet I)
Gilgamesh’s confrontation with the demon Humbaba (Tablet V)
Ishtar’s father sending the "Bull of Heaven" to avenge sexual advances rejected by
Gilgamesh (Tablet VI)
Gilgamesh’s confrontation with the "Bull of Heaven" (Tablet VI)
Gilgamesh confronted by two scorpion-beings and stone-giants en route to see
Utnapishtim (Tablet IX)
The untouchable Waters of Death (Tablet X)
The immortality of Utnapishtim (Tablet XI)
The durability of the square ark (Tablet XI describes the dimensions of the ark,
common sense does the rest)
The plant at the bottom of the ocean which will grant immortality (Tablet XI)
Gilgamesh’s journey to the bottom of the sea (Tablet XI)

107
 Gilgamesh and Nimrod
The story of Gilgamesh is the result of uniting the account of Noah's Flood with
the accounts of Nimrod. Gilgamesh mirrors both the character and personage of
Nimrod. As Nimrod is said to have erected the Babel tower in defiance against the
God who sent the great flood, Gilgamesh sets out in like defiance, in an attempt to
kill the god Huwawa, derived from the name Yahweh, the God of Israel. Also, the
names Kish and Uruk in the Gilgamesh record mirrors the names Cush and Erech in
the Biblical record. The Epic of Gilgamesh is just one example in which the accounts
of Nimrod have influenced culture and myth.

Conclusion
As stated at the outset, critics claim that the Genesis account is so close in
comparison to the Epic of Gilgamesh, that it serves as proof the Genesis account is a
mere fabrication of a previous story. As shown above, the similarities are few in
comparison to the differences. Additionally, the similarities which are present exist
as necessary elements given the nature of each account. These considerations, along
with the obvious mythical elements present in the Gilgamesh account, attest to the
Genesis account being the one which stands as the historical record.

III. Concerning the claim that the account of Moses’ life in

the Pentateuch is a fabrication of existing motifs

Comparisons between Moses and Sargon

From The Zeitgeist Movie: “And then there is the plagiarized story of Moses.
Upon Moses' birth, it is said that he was placed in a reed basket and set adrift in a
river in order to avoid infanticide. He was later rescued by a daughter of royalty and
raised by her as a Prince. This baby-in-a-basket story was lifted directly from the
myth of Sargon of Akkad of around 2250 B.C. Sargon was born, placed in a reed
basket in order to avoid infanticide, and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued
and raised by Akki, a royal mid-wife.”

Regarding Moses
Below is the text describing his birth, taken from Exodus 2:1-10:

And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a
daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and
when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three
months. And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him
an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put
the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink. And
his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him. And the
daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself at the river; and her
maidens walked along by the river's side; and when she saw the ark
among the flags, she sent her maid to fetch it. And when she had
opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had

108
 compassion on him, and said, This is one of the Hebrews' children.
Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter, Shall I go and call to thee
a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?
And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and
called the child's mother. And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take
this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages.
And the woman took the child, and nursed it. And the child grew, and
she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son.
And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him
out of the water.

Regarding Sargon
Sargon was born in the city of Azupiranu on the banks of the
Euphrates River. He was the son of a high priestess and an unknown
father. His mother bore him in secret, placed him in a reed basket, and
set the basket adrift in the river. He was found by Aqqi, a gardener, as he
drew water from the river. Aqqi adopted Sargon, then Sargon later ruled
as king. The text regarding Sargon reads as follows:

“Sargon, strong king, king of Agade, am I. My mother was a high priestess,

my father I do not know. My paternal kin inhabit the mountain region. My
[birthplace] is Azupiranu, which lies on the bank of the Euphrates. My mother,
a high priestess, conceived me, in secret she bore me. She placed me in a reed
basket, with bitumen she caulked my hatch. She abandoned me to the river
from which I could not escape. The river carried me along: to Aqqi, the water
drawer, it brought me. Aqqi, the water drawer, when immersing his bucket
lifted me up. Aqqi, the water drawer, raised me as his adopted son. Aqqi, the
water drawer, set me to his garden work. During my garden work, Istar loved
me [so that] 55 years I ruled as king.”1

Who came first?

Moses lived in approximately 1400-1500 B.C. This date is calculated based on
data given in the Biblical account, using information such as Israel’s four hundred
and thirty year sojourn, beginning with Abraham’s arrival in Canaan and continuing
through the bondage in Egypt (Ex 12:41-42, Gal 3:16-19, cf. Josephus, Antiquities of
the Jews 2.15.2), and also the date when Solomon began the building of his temple.
According to the first book of Kings (6:1), Solomon began construction in the 480th
year of the Exodus. Working backwards, the majority of Biblical scholars arrive at
the date 1012 B.C. for the commencement of the Temple’s construction, and at 1491
B.C. for the date of the Exodus from Egypt.2 Using other historical and
archaeological data, other scholars arrive at the date of 1200 B.C. as the date for the
Exodus, but the majority vote among scholars favors the earlier dating method.
It is generally believed that Sargon of Akkad lived in approximately 2300 B.C.,
however, there is no way to conclusively date the story of Sargon. Some historians
date it as late as 627 B.C. Immanuel Velikovsky in Ages in Chaos presents a timeline
in which Moses predates Sargon. Historians who argue for a later dating of the
Sargon legend make note that his account contains elements (such as idiomatic

109
expressions and the use of bronze or copper picks in the cutting of roads) which
would not be present were the account of an early era. However, proponents of an
early Sargon legend have argued that there are ways in which such elements may be
accounted for. Therefore, for the sake of argument, I will accept the earlier dating
and assume the account of Sargon pre-dates the account of Moses.

Evaluation of the common elements in the Moses and Sargon accounts

The secrecy surrounding their births
Sargon’s mother was a priestess who was forbidden by virtue of her
office to engage in sexual relations.
Moses was born during a time when the Hebrew people were being
persecuted by the Egyptians. In order to control the Hebrew population,
the Pharaoh ordered the death of male Hebrew children. For this
reason, the birth of Moses was shrouded in secrecy.
The only commonality here is that both infants were born in secret:
Sargon, from a selfish mother who carelessly abandoned her son in
order to cover her own sin; Moses, from a woman of virtue who
protected her son from certain death (more will be said on this below).

Both infants were placed in a reed basket covered with pitch and set in a river
The use of pitch as a form of resin was a common practice, and is
therefore no reason to conclude that this is a fabricated element within
the book of Exodus. Also, the waterproof quality of the resin would
make it an obvious choice for both mothers, having the intention to set
the basket in water.
The use of a basket in the account of Moses is a logical element.
W.H. Gispen, in his commentary on Exodus, tells us that idols were
placed in such baskets, which were attached to Egyptian ships.3 Moses’
mother, having placed him in a basket in the river, was likely in the
hopes that the basket would not draw the attention of thieves or
scoundrels who would be wary to snatch a basket thought to have
drifted from a ship, and containing a sacred idol. The suspicion that the
basket may contain an idol would be a deterrent to theft, lest the thief
bring down the wrath of a god upon him for not respecting that which
is sacred.
The placement of the basket in the river takes on different
characteristics in the two accounts. In the case of Sargon, the basket
was set adrift in the river and left to whatever fate the current of the
water had in store for the infant lying inside. Although the basket was
fashioned to sustain water for a time, Sargon’s mother took no
precaution in guaranteeing her son would be found alive and in good
health. In the case of Moses, the basket was placed carefully among the
reeds along the bank of the river, where it lay until found by a bather
frequenting that spot in the river. Whereas Sargon’s mother acted with
no care for the well-being of her infant, Moses’ mother had her son’s
well-being in the forefront of her mind, as indicated by her actions.

110
 Both infants were recovered and adopted.
In the ancient world, adoption was a common practice. Aside from
being a humanitarian cause, it was a means to continue the family line,
as well as fulfill labor needs or secure a caregiver during one’s elder
years. Also, Moses was found when the daughter of Pharaoh was taking
a dip in the river. This was an ancient rite of fertility, and it may be for
such a reason that Pharaoh’s daughter entered the river, in which case
the infant could be seen as a god-send. Again, this emphasizes Moses’
mother’s wisdom in selecting a location in which to place the basket
containing her infant son.

Brian Lewis, in his book The Sargon Legend, mentions that there are at
least seventy-two cases in both ancient and recent lore which have similarities
to both Sargon and Moses. These cases range in date from before Christ to the
eighteenth century A.D. and are found in various cultures (Lewis lists Assyria,
Greece, Persia , Rome, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, China, Turkey and
Albania.) The similarities he lists are as follows:

Abandonment of the infant

Infant of noble birth
Preparations for exposure
The exposure itself
Infant protected in an unusual manner
Discovery and adoption
Accomplishments of the hero

Lewis also noted “in thirty-two of seventy-two stories the child is placed in a
box or basket or chest; in twenty-one of these it is prior to exposure on water;
eight of these add the precaution of the vessel being caulked, though four of
these come from the Hebrew tradition; on the other hand, many containers
were watertight enough already or would not take, and the caulking would not
be used anyway if the intent was to kill the child. In only six stories does
anyone watch the infant after it is left; in one case, to be sure it dies.”4
Yes, the account of Sargon does bear some surface similarities to that of
Moses, as well as other accounts, as noted by Lewis. Are we to assume that
either Sargon or Moses is a fictitious character? Are we to accept one as being
a mere imitation of another by virtue of these similarities? Certainly not –
especially when the similarities are looked at a bit more closely than the critic
would prefer.

Comparisons between Moses and other lawgivers

From The Zeitgeist Movie: “Furthermore, Moses is known as the Law Giver, the
giver of the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law. However, the idea of a Law being
passed from God to a prophet on a mountain is also a very old motif. Moses is just a
law giver in a long line of law givers in mythological history. In India, Manou
[misspelled by Zeitgeist; correctly spelled Manu] was the great law giver. In Crete,
Minos ascended Mount Dicta [misspelled in the Zeitgeist transcript, correct spelling:

111
Dikti], where Zeus gave him the sacred laws. While in Egypt there was Mises, who
carried stone tablets and upon them the laws of god were written.”

Moses and Manu

Tradition holds that Manu wrote the Manusmriti, the sacred Hindu law.
Historians have dated this law anywhere between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D.,5
therefore Zeitgeist’s statement regarding Manu may be discarded without further
mention, since the figure in question post-dates the Ten Commandments by over
a thousand years. Apparently, the Zeitgeist creators “forgot” to mention that fact,
or simply did not do the research.

Moses and Minos

Minos was a son of Zeus, the chief of the Olympian gods, and Europa, a
Phonecian princess. In life, he was the king of the island of Crete, and in death,
he was a judge in the underworld.
Does the myth of Minos pre-date the life of Moses?

As king of Crete, he ruled for three generations prior to the Trojan War.
Ancient Greeks considered the Trojan War to be an historical event, having
occurred between the thirteenth and eleventh century B.C. The historicity of
the war is in debate in modern times, although an excavation in 1870
revealed what many scholars believe to be the remains of the city of Troy.
Eratosthenes, a Greek scholar of the third century B.C., claimed the legend
was based on an historical event occurring between 1194 and 1184 B.C.,6
and this date has often been accepted by historians who believe the legend
to have a basis in history.

As stated above, Moses lived in approximately 1400-1500 B.C. If the

dates accepted for the Trojan War are accurate, then the account of Moses
pre-dates that of the war. However, since the dates cannot be firmly
established for the war, which is said to occur three generations after Minos
ruled Crete, I will assume the story of the Minos is earlier than that of
Moses and argue on that assumption.

Was Minos a lawgiver?

Minos lived at Knossos, located on the island of Crete, for nine years,
after which he entered a cave and was instructed by Zeus in legislation
which he was to pass on to the inhabitants of the island. The cave in
question exists today as a tourist site and is located fifteen kilometers east of
Malia on the slope of the Kastellos mountain. The law Minos received
formed the constitution for Crete and also concerned a means to control the
population by encouraging men to engage in sexual relations with
adolescent males outside of their immediate family.7
Minos was considered a cruel tyrant. In order to reconcile his cruelty
with his more benevolent traits, later poets developed a second king Minos
(the bad Minos), a grandson of the first Minos (the good Minos). This good
king Minos was so highly favored by the gods of Olympus that after his

112
 death he was made a judge of the underworld, along with his brothers
Rhadamanthys and Aiakos (or Aeacus). Rhadamanthys became the lord of
Elysion, Aiakos was entrusted with the keys of Hades, and Minos ruled as
supreme justice, casting the final vote when Rhadamanthys and Aiakos
were at odds in their judgment.
Critics are correct that Josephus, the most famous of the Jewish
Historians during the first century, has admitted that Minos is the only
figure who deserves to be compared to Moses,8 however, this admission
does not constitute a belief that Moses was a derivative of Minos. On the
contrary, by this admission, Josephus is naming Moses as a precursor to
Minos, and one who was an even greater lawgiver than Minos.

Does Minos’ role as a giver-of-law mimic the role of Moses?

There have been many lawgivers throughout history and mythology.
Zeitgeist can only name one who received the law on a mountain. This is
certainly not a reason to assume Moses is a fabrication based on Minos.
Also, the law of Minos was unlike the law given to Moses in the following
regards:

1. The Mosaic Law was a code which governed every aspect of life:
family and social values, health and cleanliness requirements, politics,
and, of course, religion.

2. It contained elements which had been in existence prior to its

establishment, such as blood sacrifice.

3. The Mosaic Law pointed towards the Messiah in its sacrificial

system, whereas the law of Minos had no far-reaching significance.

4. The Law of Moses was a moral law, whereas the law of Minos was
immoral. If the Mosaic account was a fabrication, would the Jews, In
selecting a “source” on which to base their own giver-of-the-law, have
chosen a lawgiver such as Minos, who instructed his people to engage
in immoral practices? One can only reasonably answer in the negative.

5. Minos was a lawgiver by virtue as king of Crete. It is part of the role

of a monarch to institute legislation. This should come as no striking
surprise to those who seek in Minos a basis for Moses.

Moses and Mises

I could find no mention of a figure named Mises anywhere in encyclopedias
of mythology or in online sources (except those web sites attempting to claim
Moses was copied from Mises). The Zeitgeist Movie mentions Mises as an
Egyptian deity, however, the book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story
Ever Sold, which was one of the sources for The Zeitgeist Movie, names Mises
as a Syrian deity. In that work, the author’s only cited source for Mises was
another book titled Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, written by Lloyd Graham

113
 in 1991. Since research in both Egyptian and Syrian mythology unearthed no
source from which to give any credit to this claim, and since the critics are not
even decided to which pantheon of mythology Mises belongs, the burden of
proof remains in the hands of the critic.

Concerning inscription on stone as the mode of transmission

The Ten Commandments were written on stone tablets (after all, Moses was
on a mountain). The Book of the Dead was written on Papyrus or leather scrolls,
or carved in the tombs of officials. The earliest known versions of the Book of
the Dead are on burial shrouds. Critics say that the Ten Commandments were
engraved in stone because ancient Egyptians inscribed their laws in stone as
well, and the Hebrews simply borrowed this practice when “writing” the Ten
Commandments. While they are correct in relating the Egyptian practice of
inscribing laws on stone, they are in error when they assume this is the origin of
the mode in which the Ten Commandments was transmitted to the wandering
Hebrews. In revealing truth to man, God often uses what is familiar to and
understandable by man. For example, Scripture makes reference to the hands,
face, and arms of God, but also speaks of Him as being in spirit form and
everywhere present. Such mentions of God’s physical form are
anthropomorphisms, the application of bodily characteristics to that which has
no body or form. It is the same manner that the Ten Commandments were
written on stone – to impress their legal character onto the people. God gave
Moses the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Suggestions, and the penalty for
breaking a commandment was at times severe, to the point of making one
worthy of the death penalty. The Hebrew people needed to see the importance of
keeping the Law, and the inscription of this Law onto stone was one such
manner in which that was accomplished.

Comparisons between the Ten Commandments and the Egyptian Book of the
Dead
From The Zeitgeist Movie: “And as far as the Ten Commandments, they are taken
outright from Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. What the Book of the
Dead phrased ‘I have not stolen’ became ‘Thou shall not steal,’ ‘I have not killed’
became ‘Thou shall not kill,’ ‘I have not told lies’ became ‘Thou shall not bear false
witness,’ and so forth.”
The Book of the Dead was written c.1800 B.C., some three hundred years before
God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. The main teaching of the Book of the
Dead was that the deceased had to undergo trials after death as they proceeded
towards the underworld. One of these trials was the confession that certain deeds
were not committed in life. This confession took the following form9 (emphasis
mine, when added, to indicate similarity to the Ten Commandments):

"Hail, Usekh-nemmt, who comest forth from Anu, I have not committed sin.
Hail, Hept-khet, who comest forth from Kher-aha, I have not committed
robbery with violence.
Hail, Fenti, who comest forth from Khemenu, I have not stolen.

114
Hail, Am-khaibit, who comest forth from Qernet, I have not slain men and
women.
Hail, Neha-her, who comest forth from Rasta, I have not stolen grain.
Hail, Ruruti, who comest forth from heaven, I have not purloined offerings.
Hail, Arfi-em-khet, who comest forth from Suat, I have not stolen the property
of God.
Hail, Neba, who comest and goest, I have not uttered lies.
Hail, Set-qesu, who comest forth from Hensu, I have not carried away food.
Hail, Utu-nesert, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have not uttered
curses.
Hail, Qerrti, who comest forth from Amentet, I have not committed
adultery, I have not lain with men.
Hail, Her-f-ha-f, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have made none to
weep.
Hail, Basti, who comest forth from Bast, I have not eaten the heart.
Hail, Ta-retiu, who comest forth from the night, I have not attacked any man.
Hail, Unem-snef, who comest forth from the execution chamber, I am not a
man of deceit.
Hail, Unem-besek, who comest forth from Mabit, I have not stolen cultivated
land.
Hail, Neb-Maat, who comest forth from Maati, I have not been an
eavesdropper.
Hail, Tenemiu, who comest forth from Bast, I have not slandered [no man].
Hail, Sertiu, who comest forth from Anu, I have not been angry without just
cause.
Hail, Tutu, who comest forth from Ati (the Busirite Nome), I have not
debauched the wife of any man.
Hail, Uamenti, who comest forth from the Khebt chamber, I have not
debauched the wife of [any] man.
Hail, Maa-antuf, who comest forth from Per-Menu, I have not polluted
myself.
Hail, Her-uru, who comest forth from Nehatu, I have terrorized none.
Hail, Khemiu, who comest forth from Kaui, I have not transgressed [the law].
Hail, Shet-kheru, who comest forth from Urit, I have not been wroth.
Hail, Nekhenu, who comest forth from Heqat, I have not shut my ears to the
words of truth.
Hail, Kenemti, who comest forth from Kenmet, I have not blasphemed.
Hail, An-hetep-f, who comest forth from Sau, I am not a man of violence.
Hail, Sera-kheru, who comest forth from Unaset, I have not been a stirrer up
of strife.
Hail, Neb-heru, who comest forth from Netchfet, I have not acted with undue
haste.
Hail, Sekhriu, who comest forth from Uten, I have not pried into matters.
Hail, Neb-abui, who comest forth from Sauti, I have not multiplied my words
in speaking.
Hail, Nefer-Tem, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have wronged none, I
have done no evil.

115
 Hail, Tem-Sepu, who comest forth from Tetu, I have not worked witchcraft
against the king.
Hail, Ari-em-ab-f, who comest forth from Tebu, I have never stopped [the
flow of] water.
Hail, Ahi, who comest forth from Nu, I have never raised my voice.
Hail, Uatch-rekhit, who comest forth from Sau, I have not cursed God.
Hail, Neheb-ka, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not acted with
arrogance.
Hail, Neheb-nefert, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not stolen the
bread of the gods.
Hail, Tcheser-tep, who comest forth from the shrine, I have not carried away
the khenfu cakes from the Spirits of the dead.
Hail, An-af, who comest forth from Maati, I have not snatched away the bread
of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city.
Hail, Hetch-abhu, who comest forth from Ta-she (the Fayyum), I have not
slain the cattle belonging to the god.” (From the Papyrus of Nu, Brit. Mus.
No. 10477, Sheet 22)

The following is from twentieth chapter of Exodus, which recounts Moses

receiving the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve
them.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his
ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

116
Consideration of the two texts together:
The Ten Commandments The Book of the Dead

Monotheistic in nature: Thou shalt have . . . . . . . . . . Polytheistic in nature,

no other gods before me referencing many
deities

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God . . . . . . “I have not in vain
blasphemed” and “I
have not cursed God”
Redundancy occurs in the Egyptian text, as in the mention of
various types of theft. No such redundancy occurs in the Ten
Commandments.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image idols. . . No such mandate is
given
Egyptian culture was loaded with idols and visual
representations of deities, whereas the Hebrew Law forbade the
creation and worship of idols.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. . . . . . . . . . . . No such mention of a

holy day exists in the
Book of the Dead

Honor thy father and thy mother. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Book of the Dead
lists no sin relating to
the dishonor of
parents.

Thou shalt not kill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “I have not slain men

and women”

Thou shalt not commit adultery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “I have not committed

adultery”

Thou shalt not steal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “I have not stolen”

(mentioned several
times in different
forms)

Thou shalt not bear false witness against . . . . . . . . . . . . . “I have not slandered”
thy neighbor (misquoted by
Zeitgeist as "I have not
told lies")

Thou shalt not covet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Covetousness is not

mentioned

117
Conclusion:
There are five sins which these texts have in common – blasphemy, theft, murder,
slander, and adultery. The Zeitgeist Movie mentions three of these sins (theft, murder,
and slander or “lies”) as commonalities between the two texts, thereby expecting the
reader to assume that the remaining five sins of the Ten Commandments are found in
the Book of the Dead, when in fact such is true of only two other sins (blasphemy
and adultery).
Additionally, the five sins which the texts have in common are so universally
understood as wrongdoings, any moral code should be expected to contain them. As
the apostle Paul makes note: “When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do
instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to
themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which
their own conscience bears witness…” (Romans 2:14-15, NRSV) That a pagan moral
code should contain similar commandments found in the Ten Commandments of
Exodus is no great surprise. Such commonality is due to the God-given conscience
of man which “bears witness” to what is good and right. One does not need to read a
Bible or be raised from a Christian background to know that such things as murder,
theft, and adultery are wrong. If mankind did not possess such inherent knowledge,
then the judicial system commits a heinous injustice every time it convicts a man of
murder, even after the evidence has proven conclusive that the defendant has
willfully and intentionally committed the act. The concept of an inherent conscience
is illustrated even in cartoons, when someone is shown with an angel on one
shoulder and a devil on the other, each attempting to persuade the person to good or
evil action. Such depiction is reflective of the inner sense of right and wrong which
exists in every person. A concept of morality is something which is not taught; rather,
it is something contained in the hearts and minds of men, placed there by his Creator.
As such, the commonality between the Ten Commandments and the Book of the
Dead, or any other legal code, serves as evidence to God’s existence, rather than a
reason to conclude the Ten Commandments is a code borrowed from a similar pagan
code of law.
Three of the five sins exclusive to the Ten Commandments relate to the concept of
worship: idolatry, monotheism, and the keeping of a Sabbath, or a holy day. These
are exclusive to the Ten Commandments for a reason. The Hebrew people were the
only people whose religion was monotheistic at the time. Pagan cultures worshiped
many gods, but the Hebrew people were strictly forbidden to do so. They were also
forbidden to worship an idol, even one made in the name of Yahweh, the singular
God of the Hebrew people. As far as the commandment relating to the holy day,
other cultures did have such a day, but they were not called a Sabbath, nor did any
pagan holy day have the same significance as the Hebrew holy day.
The existing text of the Book of the Dead is no indication that the same body of
work existed in such form prior to the time of Moses. The text may have been altered
significantly over time.
The nature of the confession found in the Book of the Dead and the nature of the
Ten Commandments are significantly different. The former is a confession by a
deceased individual regarding deeds from which he abstained in life, whereas the
latter is a code of conduct to be followed by living persons.

118
IV. Concerning the proposed relationship between Jesus
and the signs and ages of the Zodiac
The Zeitgeist Movie suggests that the Christian faith is based on beliefs which have
their origin in astrology rather than history. The theory states that the Jews looked to the
stars and formed their religious history and doctrine on deductions formed from the
figures of the Zodiac.
From The Zeitgeist Movie: “Now, of the many astrological-astronomical metaphors in
the Bible, one of the most important has to do with the ages. Throughout the scripture
there are numerous references to the ‘Age.’ In order to understand this, we need to be
familiar with the phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. The ancient
Egyptians, along with cultures long before, them recognized that approximately every
2150 years the sunrise on the morning of the spring equinox would occur at a different
sign of the Zodiac. … [Ancient cultures] referred to each 2150 year period as an ‘age.’
From 4300 B.C. to 2150 B.C., it was the Age of Taurus, the Bull. From 2150 B.C. to 1
A.D., it was the Age of Aries, the Ram, and from 1 A.D. to 2150 A.D. it is the Age of
Pisces, the age we are still in to this day, and in and around 2150, we will enter the new
age: the Age of Aquarius.”

What is astrology?
Astrology is not to be confused with astronomy. Astronomy is a study of the stars
and space, and is a study based on observation and scientific methods. Astrology,
although it is a study of the stars, is a study based on deduction and interpretation,
and concerns the application of the heavenly bodies to the human experience and
history. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines astrology as “a type of divination that
involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and
interpretation of the fixed stars, the Sun, the Moon, and the planets.” Astrologers
look to the heavens for insight into personality traits and human affairs, past, present,
and future. “As above, so below,” is the basic philosophy of the astrologer.

The astrological ages of the earth

Astrology recognizes what is known as the Great Year, a period encompassing
twelve successive astrological ages, or World Ages, each age being represented by a
sign of the zodiac. The passage from one age to the next is believed to occur when
the north pole shifts, due to a slight backward shift in the earth's axis, toward a new
constellation, or zodiac sign, approximately every two thousand years. Since the shift
of the axis is a backward shift, the earth passes through the signs of the zodiac in a
backward succession. Thus, rather than moving from the Age of Gemini to the Age
of Cancer (see the succession below), the earth would move from the Age of Gemini
to the Age of Taurus, the sign preceding Gemini. Since each age entails a little more
than two thousand years, each Great Year takes about 26,000 years to complete. As
stated in The Zeitgeist Movie, “[Ancient man] referred to each 2150 year period as an
'age.' From 4300 B.C. to 2150 B.C., it was the Age of Taurus, the Bull. From 2150
B.C. to 1 A.D., it was the Age of Aries, the Ram, and from 1 A.D. to 2150 A.D. it is
the Age of Pisces, the age we are still in to this day, and in and around 2150, we will
enter the new age: the Age of Aquarius.”

119
 The successive signs of the zodiac:

Aries, the Ram: March 21 - April 20

Taurus, the Bull: April 21 - May 20
Gemini, the Twins: May 21 - June 20
Cancer, the Crab: June 21 - July 20
Leo, the Lion: July 21 - August 20
Virgo, the Virgin: August 21 - September 20
Libra, the Balance: September 21 - October 20
Scorpio, the Scorpion: October 21 - November 20
Sagittarius, the Archer (a centaur - half man, half horse): November 21 -
December 20
Capricorn, the Sea-goat (often depicted as an animal with the body of a goat and
the tail of a fish): December 21 - January 19
Aquarius, the Water-bearer: January 20 - February 18
Pisces, the Fish: February 19 - March 20

Concerning the sign of Pisces, the fish

Qualities inherent in Pisces

The sign of Pisces is commonly associated with the following traits:
gentleness, compassion, sympathy, sensitivity, spirituality, and selflessness.

Jesus as the avatar of the Age of Pisces

The Age of Pisces is said to entail the period of time from 1 A.D. to 2150
A.D. Jesus lived from approximately 5 B.C. to 29 A.D. Critics claim He ushered
in a new age, the Piscean Age, which will conclude at 2150 A.D. According to
this view, Jesus becomes the avatar, or incarnation, of the Age of Pisces, thus
making Him the “alpha and omega,” the “beginning and the end” of this age.

“I [Jesus] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first
and the last.” (Rev. 22:13)

The word “Pisces” comes from the Latin word for “fish,” and the sign for the
Pisces constellation is a pair of fish shown swimming in opposite directions. In
an attempt to strengthen their argument, critics note the references to and use of
fish in the Gospels, such as certain of Jesus’ miracles (the feeding of the five
thousand, the great drought of fish, etc), fishermen (some of His disciples were
fishermen, He described His disciples as “fishers of men,” etc.), and water
(walking on water, calming the storm, water baptism, etc), as well as the symbol
of the fish used by the early church and found today on many bumper stickers
(below).

120
 Also, they note that the constellation Pisces is a symbol for the kingdom of
the sun, and that Jesus is named in Scripture as the Son of God and Light of the
World. The teachings and works of Jesus are then believed to entail the highest,
most noble aspects of Pisces, such as universal love.

“Christ” as a higher consciousness, not a promised Messiah

Astrologers view Jesus as a normal man who merely came to a greater
realization, or higher consciousness, which they term “Christ Consciousness,” a
state of mind said to be a type of divinity inherent, but not fully realized, in
every person. The Christ of astrology is not identified as the Messiah promised
in Scripture, as the “Anointed one” (the literal translation of the word “Christ”)
who would save man from sin. Rather, the Christ of astrology is a deep-seated
awareness or potential which anyone can awaken at will. It is the inborn
potential for divinity: to be our own god. Rather than man being made in the
image of God, God is fashioned into the image of man. “I am god” is the
awareness that this Christ Consciousness gives to anyone who chooses to think
and act according to his or her fullest potential. Thus, as Jesus became the Christ
in His awareness of man's highest potential, so can anyone become the Christ by
the realization of the same potential. The Christ of astrology lies within every
person, hidden in the sub-conscious until a person somehow finds or awakens
his inner divine self. As Luke Skywalker became strong in the Force when he
realized his full potential as a Jedi, so can anyone become the Christ when he
realizes his full potential for divinity. As Jesus claimed to be one with God, His
Father (“I and the Father are one,” He said), so can anyone make the same claim
once he becomes aware of this oneness with divinity.
The above illustrates how astrologers attempt to link Jesus with the ages of
the Zodiac. His message of love and compassion, as well as His ultimate
sacrifice on the cross, is seen to fit very nicely with the qualities embodied in the
sign of Pisces.

The Bible and astrology

Astrology is explicitly condemned in Scripture. The practice of divination
and worshiping or “observing” (for the purpose of spiritual guidance) the stars is
a sin (Scripture likens it to an “evil” or an “abomination”) for which God
punished the people of Israel and eventually caused them to fall into Babylonian
captivity. The sin was so abhorrent that the punishment for such practice was
death by stoning.

And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the
sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest
be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God
hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. (Deut 4:19)

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD
thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in
the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath
gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun, or

121
moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And
it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and,
behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is
wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman,
which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man
or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (Deut
17:2-5)

When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth
thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his
daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an
observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a
consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. (Deut
18:9-11)

Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and he reigned
fifty and five years in Jerusalem: But did that which was evil in the
sight of the LORD, like unto the abominations of the heathen, whom
the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. For he built again
the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down, and he
reared up altars for Baalim, and made groves, and worshiped all the
host of heaven, and served them. (2 Chr 33:2-3)

And [the people of Israel] left all the commandments of the LORD
their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a
grove, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. ...
Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out
of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. (2 Kings
17:16-18)

And [you – Jeremiah] shalt say unto [Israel], Thus saith the LORD of
hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a
potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again: ... because of all the
houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of
heaven, and have poured out drink offerings unto other gods. (Jer
19:11-13)

And he brought me [Ezekiel] into the inner court of the LORD’s house,
and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch
and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward
the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they
worshiped the sun toward the east. Then he said unto me, Hast thou
seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that
they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have
filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger:
and, lo, they put the branch to their nose. Therefore will I also deal in

122
 fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they
cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them. (Ez
8:16-18)

Critics suggest that the Hebrew prophet Daniel was an astrologer and that his
religion was the religion of astrology. Daniel’s influence on the pagan magi, or
“wise men,” has been addressed in a previous section of this work. Here, it
needs to merely be further stated that Daniel himself was not of the same
theological persuasion as pagan astrologers and soothsayers. Despite being
made head of the king's “wise men,” or astrologers, Daniel himself was not an
astrologer. In fact, he attributed his wisdom and interpretation of dreams to the
God of the Bible, not to any insight gleaned from observing a constellation or
celestial body. Additionally, Daniel called out the failures of the astrologers as
compared to knowledge given by the one, true God.

As for these four children [Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego

– of fiery furnace fame] , God gave them knowledge and skill in all
learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and
dreams. (Dan 1:17)

Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which
the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the
magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king; But there is a God in
heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king
Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. (Dan 2:27-28)

Any suggestion that the Gospel accounts of Jesus are based on pre-existing
astrological beliefs denies the fact that the writers of the Gospels belonged to a
religious system which forbade such astro-theological beliefs (as shown in the
above passages). In fact, the apostle Paul was among those most educated in,
and practicing of, Jewish law and traditions, as the passages below describe. He
was a student of Gamaliel, a Pharisee noted in the book of Acts (5:34) as “a
doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people,” and also named in
numerous extra-Biblical sources as one of the top leading Hebrew scholars in
antiquity. For Paul to have studied Judaism under Gamaliel's tutelage is akin to
an artist studying under Rembrandt or a scientist studying under Sir Isaac
Newton. Paul possessed a level of understanding of Judaic laws and traditions
which rivaled the understanding of many of his peers, and the zeal with which
he lived according to the law was his undying compulsion. Such a man would
not have been a proponent of the astro-theology which critics care to apply to
his writings.

I [Paul] am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in

Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught
according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was
zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way
unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and

123
 women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate
of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and
went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto
Jerusalem, for to be punished. (Acts 22:3-5)

Though I [Paul] might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other
man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of
Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness
which is in the law, blameless. (Phil 3:4-6)

For ye have heard of my [Paul's] conversation in time past in the Jews’

religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and
wasted it: And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in
mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of
my fathers. (Gal. 1:13-14)

Astrology is a form of idolatry in that it seeks to grant divine attributes to the

sun, moon, and stars. In contrast, Scripture declares the stars are the product of
God’s creation and the seasons are set in motion by God’s design and decree.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. (Gen 1:16)

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the
stars, which thou hast ordained. (Ps 8:3)

Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the
shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night:
that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the
face of the earth: The LORD is his name. (Amos 5:8)

Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and
winter. (Ps 74:17)

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs*, and for
seasons, and for days, and years. (Gen 1:14)

* The “signs” which the stars provide are those by which man
determines the natural (as opposed to astrological) progress and
divisions of time, or uses as maps and guides to course their
travels, sail the seas, and till the ground with proper direction.

And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart,
I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the

124
 imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again
smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth
remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and
winter, and day and night shall not cease. (Gen 8:21-22)

He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.
(Ps 104:19)

Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and
ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the
seasons: (Dan 2:20-21)

Man as “divine”
According to astrology, every man has the potential for divinity through the
awakening of his inner Christ Consciousness. The person who is awakened to
such potential becomes one with the Godhead. However, astrology does not
define of what this Godhead consists. Astrology declares man to be god, rather
than recognizing a Supreme Being. If there is no Supreme Being, then there is
no Godhead. If there is no Godhead, then there is no God with whom to unite in
oneness. If divinity is inherent, although unrealized, within every man, then
there is no standard by which divinity is measured. If there no such standard for
divinity, then anyone can be divine based on his own merit and disposition.
Thus, Charles Manson or David Koresh may say, “I am god. I am divine,” and
no one would have the right to deny either of them their divinity. After all,
according to the astrologer, it is man himself who is divine based on his own
intrinsic nature, rather than being recognized as divine in accordance with an
absolute, pre-existing standard for divinity or deity. According to this view, any
concept of deity or divinity becomes meaningless, since there is no absolute
ideal of what it is to be divine.
Astrologers point to the following passages in which they claim Scripture
ascribes deity to man.

… your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good
and evil. (Gen 3:5 NASB)

[Jesus said] I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones
again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I
shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not;
but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself
God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods? [quoted from Ps 82:6] If he called them gods, unto whom the
word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him,
whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou
blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works
of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me,

125
 believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in
me, and I in him. (Jn 10:30-38)

And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh:
and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Ex 7:1)

In the first passage, the words were spoken by Lucifer as he tempted Eve. In
the first place, one can hardly attribute truth to the words of the great deceiver.
Second, Adam and Eve did not become “like God” when they ate the fruit of the
forbidden tree. They did not suddenly become aware of any inherent divinity.
Rather, they became sinners, and they immediately became aware of their new-
found shameful state of being.
The second set of passages is an example of a couple instances in Scripture
where man is likened to deity. The word translated “gods” in this passage is the
same word translated “God” in Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth.”). In the original text, the word used is the Hebrew word
Elohim, the plural form of deity, and the same word is translated as “gods” in
Psalm 82:1 (“God presides in the great assembly; He gives judgment among the
‘gods’.”) Here, the reference is not concerning ones who possess divinity; but
rather, ones who have been granted positions of authority, as ones whose
authority is given by God Himself, and as ones who serve as a type of the Great
Judge. This same word (Elohim) is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8,
9, and 28. In the case of Moses, God sent him before Pharaoh as his
representative, delivering the word of God to the monarch of Egypt, thus
becoming “as God” to Pharaoh. Although Moses was God’s representative, he
was neither God himself, nor had the potential to become God.
Jesus quoted the passage from Psalms after declaring oneness with God and
consequently being accused of blasphemy. In so doing, He was criticizing the
hypocrisy of the ruling religious authority by using an argument a minori ad
majis – from the less to the greater. He reminded the Jews that the “gods”
referred to in the Law, the Old Testament Scriptures, were mere men placed in
God-ordained positions of authority. He was arguing that if these men can be
referred to, in their own written code, as “gods,” then how much more so can
Jesus be called the Son of God and the one promised Messiah?
Also, in this passage, Jesus identifies Himself as being one with His Father.
Such a reference does not denote a sudden awakening of the “Christ” within
Him, but is a reference to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine which
will be discussed in Part four of this work. Here, it will suffice to say that Jesus
identified His Father (or the “Christ Consciousness,” as the astrologer would
declare) as a being separate from Himself, not inherent and awakened within
His humanity.

The effect of the Christ Consciousness vs. the effect of the work of Christ
The Christ Consciousness of astrology provides no salvation from sin,
whereas the Christ of Scripture, Jesus the Christ, provided salvation from sin
through His shed blood. It is by the name of Jesus, and no other, that men are
redeemed from sin. Additionally, if the Christ Consciousness of astrology is

126
inherent divinity believed to be in every man, then man is in no need for a
savior, for he would possess all that is needed to redeem himself. Moreover,
there would even be no need for redemption, for true divinity is without guilt by
virtue of its own nature. The Christ of astrology is merely an ideal, not a savior.
If man is sinful as well as in possession of divinity, then it is by his own working
and of his own merit that salvation is attained. In contrast, Scripture describes
man’s inherent righteousness as filthy rags, not able to cleanse even the slightest
blemish of sin.

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as
filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the
wind, have taken us away. (Isa 64:6 NASB)

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that
understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone
out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that
doeth good, no, not one. (Rom 3:10-12)

Additionally, salvation is through faith alone and by the grace of God. The
benefits of the Christ of astrology come by one’s own realization of inner
potential, not at all by a gracious act, bestowing upon man that of which he is
the least deserving. Neither does the Christ of astrology provide eternal benefit.
The Christ Consciousness dies with man, whereas the benefit imparted by the
work of the Biblical Christ continues throughout all eternity. According to
Scripture, man, through faith in Jesus, is clothed with the righteousness of
Christ, thus making him spotless and one with Christ, through identification
with His nature. Jesus, in becoming man, took upon Himself the likeness of
sinful flesh, so that He may die for the sin of those who could not redeem
themselves. In the same fashion, it is His likeness – His righteousness – which
covers those who believe in His saving work, so that when they are presented
before God the Father, they stand clothed not in their own righteousness, which
merits condemnation, but they stand clothed in the righteousness of Christ, by
which they are adopted as sons of God by virtue of identification with the only
begotten Son of God.

The standard of truth

The Christ Consciousness of astrology is that level of consciousness which
embraces the qualities of the sign Pisces: gentleness, compassion, sympathy,
sensitivity, spirituality, and selflessness. However, if the ultimate expression of
such qualities is inherent in every person, then by what standard is anything
considered gentile, or compassionate, or sensitive? For an act, thought, or word
to be truly described as gentle or compassionate, it must be compared to the
absolute ideal of such quality. If that absolute ideal rests in every man, then the
ideal of these qualities is relative to the individual, rather than to what is truly
gentle or compassionate. Thus, what is gentle is based on what is relative, rather
than on what is real. In other words, for the astrologer, what is gentle is based on
what one recognizes as gentle, thus making truth relative. For the Christian, true

127
gentleness finds its definition in the gentleness displayed by Christ. Scripture
declares “God is love.” In order for something to truly be termed love, it must be
in accordance with the love of God, not some universal form of love which has
no absolute standard. True love is the love of Christ, and all forms of expression
recognized as “love” is only as loving as it is in conformance to the love of
Christ. To the astrologer, the “Christ” is the awakening within oneself of the
highest form of love, but without the Christ of Scripture, any concept of love is
stripped of that which defines what love really is.

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we
should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not,
because it knew him not. (I Jn 3:1)

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his
Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 Jn 4:10)

The Christ of astrology vs. the Christ of Scripture

The Christ of Scripture is identified as the person of Jesus, not as some
abstract inner knowledge hidden in the deep recesses of the human mind. The
prophecies of the Old Testament foretold the coming of a Deliverer, not a higher
consciousness. In Scripture, the Christ, which is said to be indwelling the
Christian, is the person of Jesus Himself. As shown in the following examples
from the apostle Paul, the Christ of Scripture is identified as a tangible person
(by the designations “Jesus” and “Whom”), not merely an ideal.

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.

Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except
ye be reprobates? (2 Cor 13:5)

Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God

which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God; Even the
mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now
is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what
is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is
Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man,
and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man
perfect in Christ Jesus. (Col 1:25-28)

The writers of the New Testament were clearly aware that the knowledge and
understanding they have been given came through the person of Jesus the
Christ. The word “Christ” means “Anointed One.” The apostles were aware that
the Christ was the “Anointed One” whose coming had been foretold in ages
past. The writers of the Old Testament foretold many events which characterized
the life of Jesus (more on this in Part four), such as His birthplace, His sojourn
in Egypt, and His manner of death. If the Christ is not the Messiah foretold
before His coming; but rather, a form of higher consciousness, then in what
sense if this consciousness “anointed,” and who is it who performs the

128
anointing? The very meaning of the word “Christ” becomes void when
separated from the person of Jesus. Jesus is the Christ, not just one of many
Christs, or “anointed ones.” The Old Testament foretold one Messiah, not one
who merely ushered in an age filled with anyone who realized an inherent
capacity to be one of many Messiahs.
The biographical characteristics of Jesus’ life cannot be attributed to a mere
awakening of a higher consciousness. Such characteristics include the
following: He was without sin. He performed miracles. He raised the dead. He
foreknew the time of His death. He knew the thoughts of others. He fulfilled
many prophecies found in the Old Testament. The list goes on and on. If the
Christ is a consciousness which lies hidden in every man, then once that
consciousness is realized, anyone would have the ability to raise the dead, walk
on water, or perform any other feat attributed to Jesus in the Gospel accounts.
The Christ of Scripture was not a higher consciousness which was awakened
within Jesus. Rather, it was His identification and oneness with a divine mission.
The Christ, or Messiah, was one who would redeem God’s people. More than
being their Redeemer, Jesus the Christ was also their God. He was the
incarnation of God Himself, not the incarnation of the sign of Pisces. Jesus is
described in Scripture as the only begotten Son of God, not as one who
possessed a potential equal to the potential of anyone else in the “Age of
Pisces.”
The Christ of astrology knows no resurrection. As stated above, this
presumed higher consciousness perishes with man. The Christ of Scripture
experienced a bodily resurrection from the dead (see Part four for evidences
concerning Jesus’ resurrection), not just an elevation into a higher form of
awareness.
If Jesus was a mere man and His arrival ushered in the Age of Pisces, then in
what way could He be said to complete the Age? If He is indeed the avatar, or
incarnation, of Pisces, then He would have had to continue, in some sense, the
spirit of Pisces throughout the span of the present Age of the Zodiac, believed to
expire in 2150 A.D. Jesus died in approximately 29 A.D., so He cannot be said
to represent the present age in a physical or tangible sense, and if not tangible,
then His representation must be believed to assume a spiritual sense. However,
if Jesus was a mere man, as astrologers believe, then He could in no way
guarantee that the consciousness which He is said to embody would continue
throughout the duration of the Age, nor could He guarantee the awakening of the
Christ Consciousness in anyone but Himself. The astrologer may consider the
coming of the Holy Spirit at the day of Pentecost as the continuation of the
Christ Consciousness, but this Spirit is described in Scripture as proceeding
from the person of Jesus Christ, and no mere man can rightly be thought of as
responsible for sending the Holy Spirit.

The “age” referred to in the New Testament is not the Age of Pisces
The Zeitgeist Movie makes note of the following New Testament references
to the “age,” however, as a comparative reading of Bible versions reveals, “age”
does not hold the same meaning that the producers of Zeitgeist would like.

129
"Either in this age or the age to come." (Mt 12:32 KJV)
(Also translated as “neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.”
NASB)

"The harvest is the end of the age." (Mt 13:39 KJV)

(Also translated as “the harvest is the end of the world.” NASB)

"Sign of your coming and the end of the age." (Mt 24:3 KJV)
(Also translated as “the end of the world?” NASB)

"I am with you always to the very end of the age." (Mt 28:20 KJV)
(Also translated as “the end of the world.” NASB)

"In this age and the age to come" (Lk 18:30 KJV)
(Also translated as “in the world to come eternal life.” NASB)

"Wise by the standards of this age" (1 Cor 3:18 KJV)

(Also translated as “If any man thinketh that he is wise among you in
this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise.” NASB)
The context of the passage attributes wisdom not as being associated
with a particular period of time, but with a pattern of thought.

"On whom the fulfillment of the ages has come." (1 Cor 10:11 NASB)
(Also translated as “upon whom the ends of the world are come.” KJV)

"Not only in the present age but the age to come" (Eph 1:21 KJV)
(Also translated as “not only in this world, but also in that which is to
come.” NASB)

"And the powers of the coming age" (Heb 6:5 NASB)

(Also translated as “and the powers of the world to come.” KJV)
"He has appeared once and for all at the end of the ages" (Heb 9: 26
KJV)
Comparative readings of Bible versions render this passage as “ages.”
However, the broader context is a reference to the work of Christ, of
whom it says: “but now once at the end of the ages hath [Christ] been
manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (NASB). The
passage describes the work of Christ as “once for all,” which,
unfortunately for astrologers, does not fit into the pattern of the
procession of the equinoxes, which denotes a shift from one age to the
next approximately every two thousand years. Nowhere in astrology is
an age believed to continue indefinitely.

"King of the ages" (Rev 15:3 NIV)

(Also translated as “King of the saints.” KJV, with a note in the margin
indicating an alternate translation as “King of the nations,” a possible
reference to Jer 10:7)

130
 The word “age” in Scripture has various meanings, and each passage must be
read in context. However, none of the meanings of the word refers to the
procession of the equinoxes. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament
Words lists the following Greek words that have been translated as “age” in the
New Testament:

“Aion”
The word aion means "an age,” or “era." Vines connects this word with
the Greek word aei, which means "ever," indicating “a period of
indefinite duration, or time viewed in relation to what takes place in the
period.” It is further explained that “the force attaching to the word is
not so much that of the actual length of a period, but that of a period
marked by spiritual or moral characteristics. The phrases containing
this word should not be rendered literally, but consistently with its
sense of indefinite duration.” As the Ages of the Zodiac are each
defined as a definite period of time, any translation of “age” from
“aion” cannot properly be likened to the procession of the equinoxes.

“Genea”
The word genea means "to become," and signifies "a begetting, or
birth." As such, the word describes successive generations in one’s
ancestry. The word may be used to describe an “age,” but only within
the limits of genealogy, thus making an “age” constituting a period of
time spanning thirty to forty years. Thus, in Colossians 1:26 the word is
translated as both “generations” and “ages.” While this word does
denote a period of definite duration, the duration to which it refers is no
more than about forty years, rather than the two thousand years
contained in each of the Ages of the Zodiac.

“Helikia”
Helikia refers to "a certain length of life,” or “a particular time of life,"
and is synonymous with such expressions as “prime of life” or “age of
maturity.” The connotation is a reference to a certain period of time in
one’s lifespan, be it infancy, the various stages of adolescence and
adulthood, or maturity. The word refers to the “ages” through which an
individual passes during his or her lifetime, not to the “ages” through
which astrologers believe the earth passes every two thousand years.
The remaining three words refer to the elder years of a person’s
lifetime, thus bearing no reference to the Ages of the Zodiac.

“Hemera”
Hemera literally means "a day." Its use in Luke 2:36 denotes someone
being "of a great age," or "advanced in many days."

131
 “Huperakmos”
Huperakmos refers to the elder years of one’s life, as in 1 Corinthians
7:36 where it is rendered "past the flower of her age." The literal
translation of this word is "beyond the bloom or flower of life."

“Teleios”
Teleios means to "complete,” or make “perfect." The word carries the
idea of a person coming to “an end,” and is literally translated as being
"of full age.”

In addition, the concept of the Ages of the Zodiac, or procession of the

equinoxes, was not known in ancient times, and therefore cannot possibly
be linked to Christianity. The procession of the equinoxes was discovered in
the second century A.D. by Hipparchus.1 Dr. Noel Swerdlow, Professor of
Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, comments that
"In antiquity, … within which group of stars the vernal equinox was
located, was of no astrological significance at all. The modern ideas about
the Age of Pisces or the Age of Aquarius are based upon the location of the
vernal equinox in the regions of the stars of those constellations. But the
regions, the borders between, those constellations are a completely modern
convention of the International Astronomical Union for the purpose of
mapping . . . and never had any astrological significance. … It is simply
anachronistic to believe that what is important to twentieth century
astrology was of importance to ancient astrology. … The modern
astrological beliefs are not identical to the ancient astrological beliefs.”2 D.
M. Murdock, a staunch critic of Christianity, claims that “while the
procession of the equinoxes was only ‘discovered’ during the second
century [B.C.] by the Greek scientist Hipparchus; nevertheless, it is quite
evident that the precession was well known, by the ruling elite and priestly
faction, for millennia prior to its purported ‘discovery.’ That the ancients
followed processional ages is revealed abundantly in the archaeological
record.”3 As much as she would like her assertion to be true, the fact is that
there is no ancient evidence to support her claims. Even Aristotle declares
that such beliefs were not known prior to Hipparchus’ discovery.4 Her so-
called “ruling elite and priestly faction” remains unidentified and therefore
serves as no form of evidence to back her claim. She attempts to back her
claim by likening the instance of Moses’ reaction to the Hebrews’ golden
calf to the shift of the ages of Taurus and Ares, and such an interpretation of
that event will be refuted later in this book.
Astrologers sometimes refer to the Model Prayer (often called the
“Lord’s Prayer”) as a means to tie Scripture in with astrology. As stated
before, the basic principle of astrology is “as above, so below.” In the
Model Prayer, where Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, He used the
expression “as in heaven, so on earth.” (Mt 6:10) Critics jump at the chance
to use this passage to claim that Jesus was teaching astrological principles,
however, the reference in the prayer of Christ refers to in what manner the
will of God is to be accomplished: as it is in heaven; that is, without

132
 challenge or hesitation. The passage does not at all refer to a means of
predicting or interpreting human affairs or events by looking to the stars or
planets.

Observations regarding the “Piscean” symbolism in Scripture and church

history
Critics claim that Jesus’ miracles (i.e., the feeding of the five thousand with
bread and fish), His disciples’ occupations (two of His disciples were
fishermen), and His orations (He said His disciples were fishers of men) are also
fabrications which have their origin in the sign of Pisces.

First, Jesus had many disciples from various lines of work, and the
number of His disciples who engaged in the occupation of fishing numbered
more than two (remember, there are only two fish in the sign of Pisces). Also,
it is not unthinkable that some of His disciples would be engaged in the
occupation of fishing, a commonplace occupation in that region. Many
events related in the Gospels take place in the region of the Sea of Galilee.
This was an area where fishing was a primary occupation and fish was
widely used as food. Throughout the Bible, God uses what is common to
man in order to relate spiritual truth, and it is as such that Jesus called His
disciples “fishers of men.”

Second, the miracle of feeding the five thousand with bread and fish (Jn.
21.25) was just one of His many miracles, not all of which are recorded in
Scripture. In the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus did use
two fish (the same number of fish found in the Pisces constellation), but He
also used five loaves of bread (not found in any constellation), and the
number of each was greatly multiplied to feed all those present to hear His
teaching. Of all the miracles He performed, only some involved fish. Below
is an example of the various types of miracles recorded in Scripture and
performed by Jesus.

1 Changing water into wine Jn 2:1-11

2 Healing of the nobleman's son Jn 4:46-54
3 Healing of demoniacs Mt 8:16-17, Lk 4:40-41
4 Healing of Peter's mother-in-law Mt 8:14
5 Catching a large number of fish Lk 5:1-11
6 Healing a leper Mt 8:1-4
7 Healing a centurion's servant Lk 7:1-10
8 Healing a paralytic Mk 2:1-12
9 Healing a withered hand Lk 6:6-11
10 Raising the dead Lk 7:11-16, Mt 9:18-19, Jn 11:1-54
11 Calming the stormy sea Mt 8:23-27
12 Healing the Gerasene demoniac Mk 5:1-20
13 Healing a woman with internal bleeding Mt 9:20-22
14 Raising Jairus' daughter Mk 5:35-43
15 Healing blind Mk 8:22-36

133
 16 Healing a mute demoniac Mt 9:27-31
17 Healing a 38 year invalid Jn 5:5-17
18 Feeding 5,000 men and their families Mt 14:15-21
19 Walking on water Jn 6:16-21
20 Healing a demoniac girl Mt 15:21-28
21 Healing a deaf man with a speech impediment Mk 7:31-37
22 Feeding the 4,000 men and their families Mk 8:1-9
23 Healing a blind man Mk 8:22-26
24 Healing a man born blind Jn 9:1-41
25 Healing a demoniac boy Mt 17:14-20
26 Catching a fish with a coin in its mouth Mt 17:24-27
27 Healing a blind and mute demoniac Mt 12:22-45
28 Healing a woman with an 18 year infirmity Lk 13:10-17
29 Healing a man with dropsy Lk 14:1-6
30 Healing ten lepers Lk 17:11-19
31 Raising of Lazarus from the dead Jn 11:43-46
32 Healing Bartimaeus of blindness Mk 10:46-52
33 Restoring a severed ear Lk 22:49-51
34 Catching a great number of fish Jn 21:6

Third, Jesus related many truths orally and gave many sermons. It is
absolutely reasonable that some of these would relate to the occupation of
fishing, for reasons stated above. Critics’ claims that fish and fishing
metaphors are “abundant” in the account of Jesus, simply need to read a
Bible. If they took the time to do so, they would see the truth that Jesus’
speech and action took on many characteristics and the elements He used in
both were also widely varied in nature. When they say that “fish symbolism
is very abundant in the New Testament,” they are merely relying on the hope
that those unfamiliar with the New Testament will read the Scriptures in
order to see just how “abundant” the imagery really is.

Early Christians’ selection of the fish as a symbol of faith was not due to a
belief that Jesus ushered in a particular age of the zodiac. Rather, they did so
because the fish symbol did not readily identify them in public as followers of
Christ, as would, say, a cross. It is for this reason that we see the fish icon
engraved in or marked on ancient relics. Another significance early Christians
attributed to this symbol is that the Greek word for “fish” was “ichthys.”
Christians used this word as an acronym for the phrase “Iesous Christos, Theou
Uios, Soter,” translated "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior." The fish symbol also
served to identify places where ancient believers would gather in secrecy from
Rome.
Finally, while it is true that the Gospels make references to fish, water, and
other “Piscean” characteristics, the Gospels also makes reference to other non-
Piscean elements. For example, Jesus is identified as the Lion of Judah, so why
not identify Him as the avatar of the sign Leo, the Lion? Since He was born of a
virgin, why not name Him the avatar of Virgo, the Virgin? The New Testament
also mentions camels, donkeys, and other animals, but to which Zodiacal sign to

134
 we attribute these references? While He did exemplify characteristics of love
and compassion, characterized by the sign Pisces, He also displayed righteous
anger because of the money-changers in the Temple, and it is He who will judge
everyone according to his deeds (so why not name Him as the avatar of Libra,
the balance). The apostle John, while in exile on the Isle of Patmos, was granted
a vision of the wrath of Christ, as described below. I invite the astrologer to read
this description and indicate which Piscean qualities are being exemplified in
this image of Christ – gentleness? Hardly. What about sympathy or sensitivity?
Certainly such a person does not fit the image of one who would usher in an age
such as the Age of Pisces.

And I [John] turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being
turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven
candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment
down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head
and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were
as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in
a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his
right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged
sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And
when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand
upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he
that liveth, and was dead. (Rev 1:12-18 NASB)

And I {John] saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that
sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth
judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head
were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but
he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his
name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven
followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite
the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth
the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he
hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS,
AND LORD OF LORDS. (Rev. 19:11-16 NASB)

Regarding the other signs of the Zodiac, the following hypotheses are suggested

Taurus, the bull

From The Zeitgeist Movie: “Now, the Bible reflects, broadly speaking, a
symbolic movement through three ages, while foreshadowing a fourth. In the
Old Testament when Moses comes down Mount Sinai with the Ten
Commandments, he is very upset to see his people worshiping a golden bull
calf. In fact, he shattered the stone tablets and instructed his people to kill each
other in order to purify themselves. Most Biblical scholars would attribute this
anger to the fact that the Israelites were worshiping a false idol, or something to

135
that effect. The reality is that the golden bull is Taurus the Bull, and Moses
represents the new Age of Aries the Ram. This is why Jews even today still blow
the Ram's horn. Moses represents the new Age of Aries, and upon the new age,
everyone must shed the old age. Other deities mark these transitions as well, a
pre-Christian god who kills the bull, in the same symbology.”
When Moses descended from Mt. Sinai following his reception of the Ten
Commandments, he observed the Hebrew people worshiping an idol of gold
fashioned in the image of a calf. The Hebrews constructed this idol in the belief
that Moses may have died while on the mountain. Their faith grew dim and they
turned to pagan practices as a result. Upon Moses’ return, he became angry at
the paganism he observed and broke the tablets of the Law, being indignant
because of their sin. Critics suggest that this event signifies the transition from
one age to the next, and that the golden calf represents the age of Taurus, the
bull, whereas Moses represents the next age – the age of Ares, the ram. The
event is recorded in Exodus chapter thirty-two, and some believe the golden calf
was fashioned as a representation of the Egyptian god Apis, a deity represented
by a bull. The inspiration for the image did indeed come from the religion of
Egypt, as indicated in the following two passages written by the prophet
Ezekiel:

But they [the Hebrew people] rebelled against me [the Lord], and
would not hearken unto me: they did not every man cast away the
abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt:
then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger
against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. (Ez 20:8)

Neither left she [the Hebrew people] her whoredoms brought from
Egypt: (Ez 23:8)

While the words of Ezekiel indicates the calf was fashioned as a

representation of an Egyptian idol, the passage in Exodus identifies the calf as
being a physical representation of Jehovah, not an Egyptian deity.

... and they said, “These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up
out of the land of Egypt.” And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar
before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, “To morrow is a
feast to the LORD.” (Ex 32:4-5)

Therefore, the worship of the golden calf was not condemned as a sin of
apostasy, for the calf was fashioned with the intention of it being a physical
representation of the one true God, Jehovah. Rather, the sin committed by the
Hebrews was that of idolatry, for it was forbidden that any graven image should
be fashioned after Jehovah. They were using a pagan form of worship to honor
the true God. This was the cause of Moses' anger – not that the Hebrews forsook
Jehovah, but that they were likening Him to a pagan deity and employing pagan
practices as their mode of worship. The procession of the equinoxes had nothing
to do with Moses' actions, especially since such a belief was not yet fashioned

136
by mankind. Finally, the use of the ram's horn signifies nothing more than the
use of a common type of instrument. In antiquity, rams' horns were often used as
trumpets. It should also be noted that Moses himself is never portrayed as
blowing a ram’s horn, which is key in the critics’ identification of Moses as Ares
the ram. Finally, even as admitted by Zeitgeist, the Age of Ares did not begin
until 2150 B.C., whereas Moses, who Zeitgeist claims ushered in the Age of
Ares, is regarded to have lived between 1400-1500 B.C. It therefore remains to
be seen exactly how someone can be said to have inaugurated an age which
began 650-750 years before his birth. Such a chronology provides an
insurmountable obstacle in the critics' “Moses was Ares” thesis.

Sagittarius and Capricorn, the archer and sea goat

The following three propositions are made concerning these two astrological
signs –

1. As stated in the film, “According to legend, Jesus was born in a stable

between a horse and a goat, symbols of Sagittarius and Capricorn.” The
Gospel narratives of Jesus do not mention what animals, if any, were
present in the manger when Jesus was born. The inclusion of animals in any
manger scene is the result of a later addition resulting from church tradition.
While there would have likely been animals present in the manger, they are
simply not mentioned in the Gospel nativity.

2. Also stated in the film, “The sun is 'crucified' between the two thieves of
Sagittarius and Capricorn.” The association between the sun and the
solstices, as well as the assumed relationship between the Crux constellation
and crucifixion, has been previously discussed in this work, and I refer the
reader to those sections in response to the “crucifixion” of the sun (see Part
one). Here, it only needs to be said that the signs of Sagittarius and
Capricorn are a centaur (half man, half horse) archer and sea goat (half goat,
half fish), respectively, not thieves.

3. The film continues, “In Sagittarius, Jesus was wounded in the side by the
Centaur, or centurion.” In the Gospel account, the body of Jesus is pierced
in the side by a Roman centurion in order to confirm that He was dead. A
centaur is a mythological figure with the body of a horse and the torso of a
man. The centurion in the Gospel narratives is a Roman soldier, with the
body of a man and the torso of a man. The images of a centaur and a
centurion bear no resemblance, either physically or figuratively. Also, the
zodiacal sign Sagittarius is not depicted as being wounded in the side, nor
does he cause another figure of the zodiac to be wounded in such a fashion.
On the wheel of the zodiac, Sagittarius (the one Zeitgeist claims is pierced
in the side) is positioned between Scorpio, the scorpion, and Capricorn, the
sea goat, neither of which holds any figurative correlation to a Roman
centurion and neither of which is depicted as wounding Sagittarius.

137
Ares, the ram
From The Zeitgeist Movie: “[Jesus] became the Good Shepherd and the Lamb
in Aries, the Ram.”
First, even according to Zeitgeist’s own admission, the Zodiacal sign Ares is
neither a shepherd nor a lamb; but rather, is a ram.
Second, Jesus identified Himself as a shepherd in order to illustrate that He is
the Guide for the people of God. The subject of His illustrations and parables
were things familiar to His audience, including common occupations such as
shepherding or fishing (as previously mentioned). Also, in saying He is the Great
Shepherd, Jesus alluded to the Old Testament references of God being a
shepherd, and those who place their faith in Him, being His sheep.

Cancer, the crab

From The Zeitgeist Movie: “In Cancer, ‘the celestial Sea of Galilee,’ he
calmed the storm and waters, spoke of backsliders, and rode the ass and foal in
triumph into the City of Peace, Jerusalem.”
The sign of Cancer is never referred to in antiquity as “the Sea of Galilee.”
Even in modern times, the only references to the sign as “the Sea of Galilee” are
by those who attempt to erroneously and illogically tie Christianity’s roots to the
signs of the Zodiac. As far as the “calming of the storm,” this is likely derived
from the description of someone born under the sign of Cancer, whose
horoscope (for those who believe in such things) describes such a person as
gentle and desirous of safety and stability, not seeking to cause conflict or stir
trouble. As far as the reference to riding of an ass in a triumphal entry into the
“City of Peace,” no such thing was ever associated with Cancer.

Libra, the balance

From The Zeitgeist Movie: “In Libra, Christ was the true vine in the Garden
of Gethsemane, the 'wine press,' as this is the time of the grape harvest.”
The symbol for Libra is scales, not vines, grapes, wine, wine presses,
gardens, or harvest. The association simply does not exist.

Scorpio, the scorpion

From The Zeitgeist Movie: “Jesus was betrayed by Judas, the 'backbiter,' or
Scorpio.”
The sting of a scorpion bears no similarity to any illustration or allusion to
the act of “backbiting.” Also, Judas did not “backbite” Jesus. Rather, Judas
betrayed Jesus and became an accomplice to murder – and this He did with
Jesus’ full knowledge of the act before it even occurred. In the upper room the
night on which Jesus was delivered into the hands of the Romans at the kiss of
Judas, Jesus told his disciples that one would betray Him, and that he would
hand the sop to the betrayer. He then handed the sop to Judas and told him,
“What you do, do quickly.” (Jn 13:26) Jesus was in full knowledge and
awareness of Judas’ intention and attempt to conspire against Him. As a side
note, some critics have claimed that the figure of Judas was based on the figure
of Typhon in the Egyptian myth of Horus. Typhon (the Greek name for Set),
they say, betrayed Horus, and it is this myth which made its way into the Jesus

138
“myth” when Jesus is said to have been betrayed by Judas. In the Gospels, Judas
was a follower of Jesus, one of His inner circle of twelve disciples. He acted as
Jesus’ friend until his greed set in and he determined to betray Jesus for thirty
pieces of silver. In the Horus legend, Typhon was neither a follower nor friend
of Horus; but rather, was Horus’ enemy. As such, Typhon’s actions cannot
properly be viewed as a betrayal, any more than can Lee Harvey Oswald’s
actions be viewed as a betrayal of John F. Kennedy.

Aquarius, the water bearer

From The Zeitgeist Movie: “The water bearer mentioned in Luke 22:10 was
really an allusion to the constellation Aquarius.” Below is the passage in
question:

Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we
may eat. And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? And he
said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man
meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he
entereth in. And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master
saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover
with my disciples? And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished:
there make ready. And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and
they made ready the passover. (Lk 22:7-13)

I will give Zeitgeist credit for getting one thing right: the man bearing a
pitcher of water was intended as a sign, but the significance of the intended sign
was not of an astrological nature. Rather, the man bearing the pitcher signified in
whose lodging the disciples would observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
During times of festivity, Jerusalem was a bustling city. Josephus describes
nearly two and a half million people converging on the city for the Passover
feast.5 In such a time, the residents of Jerusalem would invite strangers into their
guest rooms, generally located on the roof, in what was known as the “upper
room,” so that guests may come and go as they please via a separate entrance, so
as not to disturb the residents of the household.6 The custom of the day was to
hang a curtain in front of the door of one's residence, in order to indicate there
was still a vacancy in the upper room of the residence. This was the purpose the
water bearer served – not to point to a forthcoming astrological age; but rather,
to merely lead the disciples to the man who would be their host for the
upcoming feast.7
The apparent reference in Luke’s Gospel is to a living human being carrying
an actual pitcher filled with actual water, not a metaphorical water bearer. The
church, as early as the first century A.D., acknowledged Jesus and the disciples
as historical figures. For example, Clement of Rome, writing around 95 A.D.,
said concerning Peter and Paul, widely considered as those primary among the
apostles, “Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation.
Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the
church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the

139
 illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but
numerous labors; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the
place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of
patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to
flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the
illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole
world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under
the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place,
having proved himself a striking example of patience.”8 Other extra-Biblical
writers testify to the historicity of Jesus, speaking of Him as a real flesh-and-
blood man, not a personified representation of any zodiacal sign. More on this
will be said in a later section relating to the historicity of Jesus.

As an endnote to this section, the images of Jesus in the Zodiac depicted in the film all
post-date the Apostolic Age, dating (as even the film itself admits) to the eleventh century
A.D.

V. Concerning the proposed similarity between various

Biblical concepts and pre-existing beliefs and icons
From The Zeitgeist Movie: “In fact, the Egyptian religion is likely the primary
foundational basis for the Judeo-Christian theology. Baptism, afterlife, final judgment,
virgin birth, resurrection, crucifixion, the ark of the covenant, circumcision, saviors, holy
communion, the great flood, Easter, Christmas, Passover, and many, many more, are all
attributes of Egyptian ideas, long predating Christianity and Judaism.”

O.k., here we go …

Baptism – see Part three of this work

Afterlife and final judgment

The concept of an afterlife and a final judgment permeates cultures
throughout the world and is an integral of any religious system. The fact
that one system of belief holds to some form of afterlife or judgment should
surprise no one. Rather, such a concept should stand as a necessity to that
system, not a parallel “linking” that system to another. For example:
Ancient Egyptians bathed in water. Early Christians bathed in water too –
maybe they got that idea from the early Egyptians. Sound ridiculous? Sure.
Yet, this is the same type of logic which critics employ in their arguments.

Virgin birth – previously discussed

Resurrection – see Part three of this work

Crucifixion – previously discussed

140
The Ark of the Covenant
An ark, aside from being a vessel (as was the case with the ark of Noah),
may also be a chest or a box, and as such is not identified strictly with a
particular culture or belief. Ancient Egyptians did have boxes which
contained engravings or inscriptions and were used in ritual practices and
ceremonies, such as the chest used in the Festival of Apet. Therefore, such
items may correctly be called an ark. Ancient Egyptian rulers did have a
chest-like throne which was portable and could be carried from one place to
another, in similar fashion as the Hebrews’ Ark of the Covenant. However,
neither the ritual chests nor the Egyptian “ark-thrones” mirror the Hebrew
Ark of the Covenant in appearance (as shown at the top of next page) or
significance, nor were they called an “Ark of the Covenant, Ark of God,” or
“Ark of the Testimony,” as was the Hebrew ark. While some Old Testament
texts do suggest the imagery of the ark being a throne (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam
6:2; 2 Kings 19:15), more so it was a sign of God’s presence among His
people. As such, the ark became sacred, to the extent that it was not even
allowed to be touched by man or looked upon (when transporting the ark,
the ark was covered with a veil). Additionally, the Ark of the Covenant did
not sit out in the open; but rather, sat in solitude, behind a large veil, within
the Holy of Holies, the room within the Tabernacle where only the High
Priest could enter and only when so required for presenting an offering to
God. When being transported, the ark was covered with a veil, so it could
not be looked upon. The passage in which God instructs Moses to build the
Ark of the Covenant is found in Exodus 25: 10-22. The specifications for
the ark, as given by God, are as follows:

It was to be made of shittim wood

Length: two cubits and a half
Width: a cubit and a half
Height: a cubit and a half
It was to be overlaid with pure gold, within and without
They were to fashion a crown of gold round about the throne
It was to have four rings of gold on each of the four corners (posts,
by which the ark was carried, were inserted through these rings)
A golden cherubim with outstretched wings was to be placed on
either side
Inside the ark was to be placed the stone tablets of the Law

God then said to Moses, “I will commune with thee from above the mercy
seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the
testimony. “

Such is the description of the Ark of the Covenant. The following is a

visual comparison between a typical Egyptian ark-throne and the Hebrew
ark. You will see they differ drastically in appearance. Also, the winged
creatures on either side of any Egyptian throne were never cherubs (a

141
 strictly Hebrew concept), but were rather depictions of Egyptian winged
deities.

The Hebrew Ark of the Covenant

Typical Egyptian “ark-thrones” Cave painting

depicting
the throne of
Rameses III

Circumcision
Ancient Egyptians did practice circumcision, as evidenced in temple
reliefs and on the bodies of unwrapped mummies. Their reason for
circumcising males is unknown. It was most certainly not for moral
purification, since sex was not recognized as a sin within their religion.
Based on Egyptian reliefs, most scholars agree that circumcision was
merely a sign of fertility in the circumcised male, having no religious
attachment whatsoever in ancient Egypt. In fact, the practice first gained
spiritual significance with the Hebrews, and was a means of making them
distinct from the heathen people and separated unto God. It is also true that
Egyptian priests were said to have been circumcised in accordance with
their office, but such practice does not exist until after the time of Moses.
According to Alan B. Lloyd, in his work Ancient Egypt: A Social History,
“Thanks to Herodotus we are well informed on the priests’ mode of life
during the mid fifth century B.C., and we need not doubt that his comments

142
 held true for the entire period under discussion [i.e., The Late Period, 664 –
323 B.C.] Not surprisingly, he lays great stress on their obligation to
maintain a high level of ritual purity: they shaved their bodies every other
day, had to be circumcised, wore only linen garments and sandals of
papyrus, and washed twice a day and twice a night.”1

Savior – see Part three of this work

Holy communion – see Part three of this work

The great flood – previously discussed within the present section

Easter – previously discussed within the present section

Christmas – previously discussed within the present section

It is absolutely absurd to think that the ancient kings and queens of
Egypt celebrated anything bearing even a close resemblance to Christmas or
Easter – especially since neither observance existed in any form until
thousands of years after ancient Egyptians passed off the scene.

Passover – previously discussed within the present section

It is equally absurd to believe that a strictly Hebrew observance was
practiced by Egyptians, or any other culture for that matter. How can a
Judaic observance pre-date Judaism? Also, given the account in Exodus
chapters eleven and twelve describing the event which the Passover Feast
signifies, one can only imagine how “festive” an Egyptian Passover Feast
would be!

“... and many, many more.” – Bring it on!

VI. Concerning the claim that the life of Jesus is merely a

revision of the life of Joseph
From the Zeitgeist movie: “The Bible is nothing more than an astro-theological
literary fold hybrid, just like nearly all religious myths before it. In fact, the aspect of
transference, of one character's attributes applied to a new character, can be found within
the [Bible] itself. In the Old Testament there's the story of Joseph. Joseph was a prototype
for Jesus. Joseph was born of a miracle birth, Jesus was born of a miracle birth. Joseph
was of 12 brothers, Jesus had 12 disciples. Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, Jesus
was sold for 30 pieces of silver. Brother "Judah" suggests the sale of Joseph, disciple
"Judas" suggests the sale of Jesus. Joseph began his work at the age of 30, Jesus began
his work at the age of 30. The parallels go on and on.”
The supposed parallels between Jesus and Joseph are not as evident as the critic would
prefer. The film in question mentions the following common elements:

143
 A miracle birth
The birth of Joseph is told in the book of Genesis (30:22-24). Joseph’s birth
was the result of God’s response to Rachel’s longing, but no supernatural
character is assigned to the birth. The text only reads that God “opened her
womb,” but the same is said of Leah in a previous section (Gen 29:31)
describing the birth of Reuben, and does not imply anything other than a natural
birth.

Twelve brothers, twelve disciples

By Zeitgeist’s own admission, Joseph did not have twelve brothers; but
rather, was one of twelve brothers. Rather than this likening Joseph to Jesus, the
comparison (if one was to be made) should be that of Jacob and Jesus, since
Jacob, Joseph’s father, had twelve sons.

Sold for 20-30 pieces of silver

Given the use of silver as a common form of currency, and a form which has
been used throughout many ages, this element becomes a moot point.

Brother Judah, disciple Judas

These names were the fourth most commonly used names among the Hebrew
people.1 Also, were the critic to actually read the Bible, he would find the actions
of Judah in the Genesis account and the actions of Judas in the Gospels do not
bear as close a connection. Genesis chapter thirty-seven tells the story of
Joseph’s betrayal by his brethren at the age of seventeen. According to the text,
all of Joseph’s eleven brothers, not just Judah, conspired against him. Their
original intent was to kill him, but it was Judah who suggested that Jospeh’s life
be spared in favor of selling him into slavery. Judah acted out of compassion for
his brother, whereas Judas acted without regard for Jesus’ well-being. Also,
Judah’s actions were not pre-meditated; but rather, was a spontaneous notion
which arose as he saw a band of Ishmaelites pass by while he and his brothers
sat down to eat bread.

Each began his work at the age thirty

The reason for Jesus beginning His ministry at age thirty has already been
addressed (refer to Part one).

The Old Testament contains many “types,” or foreshadows, of the promised Messiah.
Types have the following characteristics:

1. Both the type and its fulfillment must be rooted in history, referring to an historical
person, place, object, or event in both ages.

2. Types must be prophetic, in anticipation of a future fulfillment.

3. Types are Christ-centered, all pointing towards the Messiah to a greater or lesser
degree.

144
Of these Old Testament types, Joseph is widely recognized by Christian scholars as one
of the most prominent. Torrey's Topical Index lists the following Old Testament types of
Christ (the list is not all-inclusive, but serves to illustrate the point):

Adam - Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:45

Abel - Gen 4:8,10; Heb 12:24
Abraham - Gen 17:5; Eph 3:15
Aaron - Ex 28:1; Heb 5:4,5; Lev 16:15; Heb 9:7,24
Ark - Gen 7:16; 1 Pet 3:20,21
Ark of the Covenant - Ex 25:16; Ps 40:8; Isa 42:6
Atonement, sacrifices offered on the day of - Lev 16:15,16; Heb 9:12,24
Brazen serpent - Num 21:9; Jn 3:14,15
Brazen altar - Ex 27:1,2; Heb 13:10
Burnt offering - Lev 1:2,4; Heb 10:10
Cities of refuge - Num 35:6; cf. Heb 6:18
David – 2 Sam 8:15; Ez 37:24; Ps 89:19,20; cf. Ph 2:9
Eliakim - Isa 22:20-22; cf. Rev 3:7
First-fruits - Ex 22:29; cf. 1 Cor 15:20
Golden candlestick - Ex 25:31; cf. Jn 8:12
Golden altar - Ex 40:5,26,27; cf. Rev 8:3; Heb 13:15
Isaac - Gen 22:1,2; cf. Heb 11:17-19
Jacob - Gen 32:28; cf. Jn 11:42; Heb 7:25
Jacob's ladder - Gen 28:12; cf. Jn 1:51
Joseph - Gen 50:19,20
Joshua - Josh 1:5,6; cf. Heb 4:8,9; Josh 11:23; cf. Acts 20:32
Jonah - Jonah 1:17; cf. Mt 12:40
Laver of brass - Ex 30:18-20; Zech 13:1; cf. Eph 5:26,27
Leper's offering - Lev 14:4-7; cf. Rom 4:25
Man - Ex 16:11-15; cf. Jn 6:32-35
Melchizedek - Gen 14:18-20; cf. Heb 7:1-17
Mercy-seat - Ex 25:17-22; cf. Rom 3:25; Heb 4:16
Morning and evening sacrifices - Ex 29:38-41; cf. Jn 1:29,36
Moses - Num 12:7; Heb 3:2; Deut 18:15; cf. Acts 3:20-22
Noah - Gen 5:29; cf. 2 Cor 1:5
Paschal lamb - Ex 12:3-6,46; cf. Jn 19:36; 1 Cor 5:7
Peace offerings - Lev 3:1; cf. Eph 2:14,16
Red heifer - Num 19:2-6; cf. Heb 9:13,14
Rock of Horeb - Ex 17:6; cf. 1 Cor 10:4
Samson - Judges 16:30; cf. Col 2:14,15
Scape goat - Lev 16:20-22; Isa 53:6,12
Sin offering - Lev 4:2,3,12; cf. Heb 13:11,12
Solomon – 2 Sam 7:12,13; cf. Lk 1:32,33; I Pet 2:5
Tabernacle - Ex 40:2,34; cf. Heb 9:11; Col 2:9
Table and show bread - Ex 25:23-30; cf. Jn 1:16; 6:48
Temple – 1 Kings 6:1,38; cf. Jn 2:19,21
Tree of life - Gen 2:9; cf. Jn 1:4; Rev 22:2
Trespass offering - Lev 6:1-7; Isa 53:10

145
 Veil of the tabernacle and temple - Ex 40:21; cf. 2 Chr 3:14; Heb 10:20
Zerubbabel - Zech 4:7-9; cf. Heb 12:2,3

The many types of Christ found in the Old Testament are a source of blessing and
comfort for the Christian. They display God’s progressive revelation of His redemptive
purpose and stand as a witness to the consistency and surety of the message of the Bible
as a whole. The Old Testament types give the Christian greater understanding of New
Testament teaching regarding the person and work of the Messiah (such is expressed in
Hebrews chapter 9, and will be further addressed in a later section). For those who have
faith in God’s truth, there is blessing and joy beyond measure; for those who have no
faith and are left to their own vain imaginings, may it be that one day God will delight in
removing the scales from their eyes and give them the faith to believe in someone greater
than themselves.
Concerning the number of strikingly similar characteristics between Joseph and Jesus,
historian Michael Licona points out that characteristics equally similar exist between
Jesus and John F. Kennedy2, as follows:

Both had followers who adored them.

Both were leaders of a kingdom.
Both were opposed.
Both were killed publicly
Both deaths were in a dramatic fashion
Both died at the pinnacle of their careers
Both died in the presence of the woman closest to them.
Both received head wounds. A crown of thorns was placed on the head of Jesus. JFK
suffered a fatal bullet wound to the head.
Both were pronounced dead by authorities (soldier, physician).
Both were mourned
Both were buried in a tomb
Both had names beginning with the letter “J”
Both were interested in freedom
Both had a father named Joseph
Both fathers were self-employed
Both Jesus and JFK had brothers who were murdered

Based on these characteristics, no one would dare claim that JFK never existed and
was merely a fictional figure based on the Gospel accounts of Jesus. In similar fashion,
compare the following similarities between JFK and Abraham Lincoln (below is a short
list – for more, refer to the citation):3

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846

John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960
The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters
Both of their wives lost their children while living in the White House
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday

146
 Both were shot in the head
Both were assassinated by Southerners
Both were succeeded by Southerners
Both successors were named Johnson
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908
John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839
Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939
Both assassins were known by their three names
Both names are comprised of fifteen letters
Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials
Before Lincoln was assassinated, he visited Monroe, Maryland
Before Kennedy was assassinated, he visited Marilyn Monroe

As shown in the two examples above, one cannot reasonably and accurately claim that
the historicity of one figure is based not on history itself but on that fact that both figures
share like biographical characteristics. The fact that such similarities exist between two
figures neither proves causal connection or dependence of one on the other. As Bruce
Metzger states, "It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced
Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence
moved in the opposite direction."4

VII. Concerning Constantine and the Nicean Creed

The Zeitgeist Movie claims that the doctrines of Christianity were established by the
Roman Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. True, it was by Constantine’s edict
that Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire, but the doctrines
of the Christian faith existed centuries before his time.* It was during the time of
Constantine that the Council of Nicea was convened and the famous Nicean Creed was
formed as a result. Prior to the Nicean Creed, the divinity of Christ, among other
doctrines, was already affirmed in the mind of early writers. The purpose of the Council
of Nicea was not to determine if Jesus was divine, but in what way He was divine,
whether He was as divine as the Father or just shared a portion of the Father's deity.
Regarding the claim that Constantine played a part in the fashioning of Christian
doctrine, Dr. Ben Witherington III writes: “…most theological issues, including those
about Christ’s nature, had taken a rather definite shape and trajectory before Constantine
had anything to do with them…At the Council of Nicea, Constantine seems to have
favored Christ’s true divinity, but he was no theologian, and it certainly wasn’t he who
wrote the Creed of Nicea. Constantine mainly pronounced the benediction on the
deliberations that had already been formulated.”1
As Constantine played no part in the formation of orthodox Christian doctrine, he
likewise played no role in the formation of the canon of Scripture. It is said by some
critics that Constantine suppressed the canonical Gospels in favor of the apocryphal
gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip, among others. First, the
canonical Gospels predate the apocryphal gospels, as will be shown under a later

147
heading, and were already regarded as authoritative. Second, there is no historical
evidence for any such manipulation on the part of Constantine. The early church
historian, Eusebius, wrote that Constantine did commission copies of the Scriptures to be
produced, but there is no mention of any revision or omission which was to be made to
what was already regarded as the authoritative Scriptures, which did not include the
apocryphal gospels. In a letter to Eusebius, Constantine gave his instructions for such a
task to be done as follows:

“I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the
sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful
for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible
manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers
thoroughly practiced in their art. The catholicus of the diocese has also received
instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things
necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special
care that they be completed with as little delay as possible.”2

Prior to Constantine becoming Emperor, the canon of Scripture was already close to
becoming a settled matter (which happened in 397 A.D.), thereby confirming the contents
of the New Testament, as we know it today, had already been established as the
authoritative source for Christian doctrine. The official canon of Scripture simply
affirmed that which was upheld in the first few centuries. This early affirmation of
Scripture is attested to by the writings of the church in the first three centuries. Moreover,
even during the writing of the letters which now form the greater part of the books of the
New Testament, the Apostle Peter recognized that Paul’s own writings were divinely
inspired, as shown in the passage below (emphasis mine):

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved
brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also
in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard
to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the
other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Pet 3:15-16 NASB)

It is clear from Peter’s letter that he was equating the writings of Paul with “other
Scriptures.” Although the word translated “scriptures” in that passage is a word which
could just as easily be translated, in a more general sense, as “writings,” Peter is clearly
using the word within the context of divinely-inspired writings, such as is indicated by
his admission that Paul wrote “according to the wisdom given to him” by divine
revelation (compare the following passage below in which Paul mentions the source of
his inspiration).

For I [Paul] make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was
preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor
was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12
NASB)

148
 The document known as the Muratorian fragment also testifies to early acceptance of
the authoritative character of many of the books which would later be named within the
official canon. Although the fragment itself dates to the seventh century, characteristics of
the fragment suggest that it is copied from a text dating to c.170 A.D.3 The fragment
contains a list of books which were regarded as divinely inspired. Among the books listed
were four Gospels (the Gospels of Luke and John, as well as two unidentified Gospels),
the book of Acts, thirteen of Paul’s letters now contained in the New Testament, the book
of Jude, and two other books attributed to John. Likewise, when the Diatessaron, the first
harmony of the Gospels, was created by Tatian between 160-175 A.D., the only works
which were included therein were the four now-canonical Gospels.
Finally, Constantine was not as devout a Christian as some may think, as he still paid
tribute to pagan deities even after his conversion. Had he been so devoted to the
Apostolic doctrines to the point where he would have formed a creed affirming such
doctrines, he would likely have conducted himself without any regard for false gods.
* Constantine ruled from 313-337 A.D., but did not assume full control of the Empire
until 324 A.D.

VIII. Concerning the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and the

Inquisition
Christianity, like any religion, has had its share of black eyes. There have been many
zealots and sheep-in-wolves’-clothing within the body of the church. These ones have
taken it upon themselves to disregard the teachings of Jesus and act according to their
own passions and judgment, rather than looking to the Scriptures as their code of
conduct. Such was true in ages past, as in the case of the Inquisition, such was true in
more recent eras, during the time of the Salem witch trials, and such is true in more
modern times, such as the hostilities between Irish Protestants and Catholics. Jesus
referred to the church as His flock and His sheep, but, as with every fold, there are those
sheep which go astray. Such straying does not negate the true nature of the fold nor does
it discredit the shepherd. One cannot claim that because evils have been done in the name
of Christ, that the whole of Christianity is a violent religion whose aim is to crush its
opposition. Such efforts do not reflect the commission Jesus gave to His disciples, and to
His followers throughout all ages, as shown below:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me
in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am
with you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen. (Mt 28:18-20, NIV)

All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for
this is the law and the prophets. (Mt 7:1, NIV)

“Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And

149
 the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the
Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Mt 22:37-40, NIV)

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved
you, that ye also. (Jn 13:34, NIV)

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I
tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek,
turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic,
let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with
him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one
who wants to borrow from you. (Mt. 5:38-42, NIV)

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes
you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do
not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if
anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you
would have them do to you. (Lk. 6:27-31. NIV)

In addition, when one of Jesus’ disciples acted violently, Jesus responded with
compassion, as in the passage below. The scene was the garden of Gethsemane and Judas
had just betrayed Jesus. What followed was an act of violence by Peter, followed by
Jesus’ rebuke and compassion.

While [Jesus] yet spake, behold, a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one
of the twelve, went before them; and he drew near unto Jesus to kiss him. But
Jesus said unto him, ‘Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?’ And
when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said, ‘Lord, shall
we smite with the sword?’ And a certain one of them [Peter] smote the servant of
the high priest, and struck off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, ‘Suffer
ye them thus far.’ And he touched his ear, and healed him. (Lk. 22:47-51)

Simon Peter therefore having a sword drew it, and struck the high priest’s
servant, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant’s name was Malchus. Jesus
therefore said unto Peter, ‘Put up the sword into the sheath: the cup which the
Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?’ So the band and the chief captain, and
the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus and bound him. (Jn 18: 10-12 NASB)

These teachings of Christ reflect the conduct which is expected of a Christian. Anyone
who acts in contrast does so apart from the Biblical mandate and is not reflective of the
true spirit of the Christian faith.

150
IX. Concerning the historicity of Jesus
The following claim is made in The Zeitgeist Movie: “Furthermore, is there any non-
Biblical historical evidence of any person, living with the name Jesus, the Son of Mary,
who traveled about with 12 followers, healing people and the like? There are numerous
historians who lived around the Mediterranean either during or soon after the assumed
life of Jesus. How many historians document this figure? Not one. However, to be fair,
that doesn’t mean defenders of the Historical Jesus haven’t claimed the contrary. Four
historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus’ existence. Pliny the Younger,
Suetonius, and Tacitus are the first three. Each one of their entries consists of only a few
sentences at best and only refer to the Christus or the Christ, which in fact is not name,
but a title, meaning ‘Anointed one.’ The fourth source is Josephus and this source has
been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years. Sadly, it is still sited as truth.”
In the spirit of fairness, I will grant Zeitgeist this much: the works of Pliny the
Younger and Suetonius are said to include a reference of Jesus, but these serve more as a
reference to Christianity in general, rather than the historical Jesus.

The Negative Evidence Principle

Critics appeal to what is known as the Negative Evidence Principle in their attempt to
discredit the Gospels as being the account of an historical person known as Jesus of
Nazareth. The Negative Evidence Principle is the principle that a claim should be
regarded as false if it does not meet three basic criteria.

The first criterion is that the supporting evidence for the claim has been
proven unreliable.
In attempting to use the Negative Evidence Principle to disprove the
historicity of Jesus, critics point to the lack of reliable references to Jesus found
in ancient writings. At the top of the list are the writings of Josephus, in which
are found two references to Jesus of Nazareth. While the Josephan references
will be addressed hereafter, I will here briefly preview that address by stating
that the first of these references displays characteristics which prove the
reference is only partially unauthentic to the hand of Josephus himself. Still,
while not serving as the stalwart reference to Jesus that Christian apologists
would prefer, it does stand as a reference to an historical figure known as Jesus
of Nazareth, and any attempt to regard the whole of this passage as a Christian
forgery is unsupported by the evidence contained within the passage itself. The
second Josephan passage, in which both Jesus and His brother James are
referenced, is rarely contested by critics to be a forgery. Also, there exist
references to Jesus in the writings of Tacitus and Lucian, as well as the writings
of the church fathers and men regarded as heretics by the church. The silence of
other writers concerning Jesus is easily accounted for when one considers that
the qualities characterizing the life of Jesus were such that would not have
appealed to pagan writers, nor would have been in line with the subjects with
which their writings were concerned. The fact that there exists the number of
ancient references, as modern man has available to him, concerning Jesus, is
more than what should likely exist, in all truthfulness.

151
 Critics also point to the New Testament itself as an unreliable source of
information concerning Jesus. For instance, the letters of the New Testament
(Romans through Revelation) are largely silent (or so the argument goes)
concerning the biographical aspects of the Son of God. For instance, Paul, so they
say, never mentions the virgin birth of Jesus, yet the virgin birth is at the core of
Paul’s view of Jesus’ sinlessness. Also, the letters were not intended to be
biographical sketches of Jesus; but rather, were written to address certain
problems or issues facing the churches to whom the letters were addressed. The
lack of mention of any of Jesus’ miracles or discourses is absolutely in line with
the purpose for which the letters were composed.

The second criterion is the lack of evidence which should exist to support
the claim, were the claim true.
“Why are there so few ancient references to Jesus?” is the cry of the critic.
Such a cry is grounded in the supposition that ancient writings should abound
with mentions of Jesus, but such an expectation is absolutely unfounded based
on the intentions of ancient writers. Again, these writers, and their purposes for
writing, will be discussed hereafter; therefore, only prefatory remarks are
required here. Many of the writings of ancient times have been either lost or
destroyed, yet the references to Jesus within the writings still extant are more
than substantial to validate Him as a person of history.

The third criterion is that an exhaustive attempt has been made to uncover
supporting evidence, wherever such evidence should be found.
Among ancient non-Christian historians, there exist a few references to Jesus
of Nazareth. Critics delight in pointing to the lack of abundance of such
mentions of Jesus, not taking into account the reasons for such silence, and
begging the question, “How much water does a glass need to contain before the
glass can be said to contain water?” In disregarding the evidence which does
exist, critics employ a logical fallacy known as “moving the goalpost,” a form of
argumentation which constantly raises the bar on the amount of evidence one
needs to present before a claim is to be considered valid. The references to Jesus
which does exist within ancient writings are certainly sufficient evidence to
conclude the Gospels’ account of Jesus is an account of an historical person
from Nazareth and who was crucified in Jerusalem, and it is to these references
that our attention will now turn.

Ancient non-Christian references to Jesus

As stated above, the references by Pliny the Younger and Suetonius are often appealed
to by sincere yet overeager apologists who search for references to Jesus among ancient
writings. Notable references to Jesus as an historical figure are provided by the historians
Tacitus and Josephus

The testimony of Tacitus

The Roman historian Tacitus spoke of Jesus, referring to Him by His title Christus
(the Latinized form of “Christ”) rather than His name, then goes on to describe the
persecution suffered by His followers under the thumb of Rome.

152
 “Christus, from whom the name [Christianity] had its origin, suffered the
extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our
procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus
checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of
the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every
part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest
was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an
immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city,
as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their
deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and
perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt,
to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered
his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he
mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car.
Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment,
there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public
good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.”1

Although Tacitus refers to the “Christ,” rather than to the name Jesus, it is clear by
the references which follow (and the fact that “Messiah,” or “Christ” was not a title
commonly assigned to a person by the Jews) that he is referring to Jesus, rather than
another “Christ.” In fact, no one else was referred to as “Christ” until c.132 A.D,
fifteen years after Tacitus' death in 117 A.D.. Even so, the only one ever referred to
by Christians as the Christ was Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified by Pilate, as
Tacitus noted in his record. Also, his use of the title Christus was to indicate the
name which resulted in the designation of Jesus’ followers as Christians. In this
context, it makes more sense than if he had said, “Jesus, from whom the name
[Christianity] had its origin …,” since the title “Christian” comes from the title
“Christ,” not the name Jesus.
Tacitus researched his subject thoroughly, through the use of personal interviews,
the written record, and carefully-guarded Roman archives, which he was privileged
to have access. His reputation relied on his adherence to accuracy, and had he written
a report concerning a man who did not exist, that reputation would be scarred as a
result. Thus, his mention of Jesus as an historical figure testifies to his belief that
Jesus did in fact exist, a belief which he would have subjected to the same evidential
criteria as his other subjects. In other words, he considered the evidence for Jesus’
existence as a valid reason to accept Jesus as an historical personage. Furthermore,
had Tacitus regarded the evidence concerning Jesus to be in error, he would have
noted such error in his own testimony regarding Jesus. If the critic wishes to consider
Tacitus’ testimony to Jesus’ historicity as being contrary to the truth, then all of
Tacitus’ historical writing should be regarded as false information, for the same care
was given to each subject to which he devoted research.
Finally, the tone of the text does not suggest that a Christian copyist inserted this
passage at a later date. The text lacks the glosses which would be present if such a
passage had been written by one who was devoted to Jesus. Such glosses are evident
in the writing of Josephus, which will be discussed immediately hereafter, but in

153
Tacitus’ testimony there is no effort to praise Jesus, nor to decry His execution and
offer a defense of the Christian cause.

The testimony of Josephus

The Jewish historian Josephus wrote twice concerning Jesus:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a
man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive
the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many
of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the
principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved
him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the
third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other
wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from
him, are not extinct at this day.”2
“And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea
as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and
bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also
himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a
most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a
high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time
formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this
younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood,
was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the
Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the
Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this
disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his
authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he
assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of
Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and
when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he
delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable
of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws,
they disliked what was done.”3

In the above two quotations from the writings of Josephus, the first, often known
as the “Testimonium Flavianum,” has long been the subject of criticism. Critics
believe, with varying conviction, that this particular passage is a forgery, not having
been penned by Josephus himself; but rather, is falsely attributed to him. While some
believe (most often in an attempt to discredit Christianity) the passage in its entirety
is a forgery, others believe that Josephus did write this passage concerning Jesus, but
the form in which this passage exists today is an alteration from its original form,
having been added to or changed by later copyists. Among reputable historians and
Josephan scholars, the major consensus is that the work does contain a few minor
alterations, but that the work as a whole is authentic and does stand as a testimony
from Josephus to the historicity of Christ. Louis Feldman, a leading Josephan
scholar, states, “We must start with the assumption that the Testimonium Flavianum

154
is authentic until proven otherwise, inasmuch as the manuscript tradition, late though
it be, is unanimous in including it.”4 Some obvious Christian revisions include the
phrases, “if it be lawful to call him a man,” “He was [the] Christ,” and “He appeared
to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten
thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” Josephus did not regard Jesus as
the Christ, and would have offered no praise or acknowledgment to that effect.
Still, other marks of the passage refute the theory that the text was composed by a
Christian copyist. The reference to Jesus as a “wise man” does not befit the tone of
an early Christian writer. Jesus was considered by the Apostles to be the
personification of wisdom, not just one who was merely wise in reputation. In fact,
human wisdom is portrayed in Scripture in lowly terms and in sharp contrast to the
wisdom of God. Additionally, a Christian copyist would not have referred to Jesus as
a man, without further addressing His deity. Jesus was not just a man, he was the
God-Man, fully human and fully divine. Even the very presence of the phrase “if it
be lawful to call him a man” is out of tone with the term “wise man.” If the writer
considered Jesus to be more than a man, then why did he make mention of Him as a
man in the first place? While the term “wise man” accurately describes Josephus’
view of Christ, the subsequent phrase bears the mark of one other than Josephus.
Had a Christian copyist forged this passage entirely, there would not remain
mentions of Jesus which correctly reflects Josephus' views, for the whole purpose of
forging a document such as this is to make the author say something which he would
not have said in the original work. Also, the description of Jesus’ teaching as
“pleasing” greatly diminishes the importance of His message and as such does not
bear the mark of a Christian writer. Nor is Christ's crucifixion mentioned in terms of
its redemptive value; but rather, is merely a passing notation. Had a Christian copyist
forged this passage, he would have likely elaborated on the cross as the saving work
of Christ, so as not to portray his Lord as a failed Messiah and a convicted criminal
Finally, it is unlikely that a Christian copyist would draw attention to the disciples'
abandon of Jesus in His hour of trial. Not only would such a statement be
embarrassing, but also could possibly serve to diminish Apostolic authority.
The earliest extant copy of the Testimonium Flavianum dates to the ninth century,
however, early writers, such as Eusebius, Jerome, and Origen, testified to its
existence. It has been asked why more early writers did not refer to Josephus’
mention of Jesus. The answer to that question is also a question itself: Why would
they feel the need to make use of such a reference? The historicity of Jesus was not
in debate in the first few centuries. Other than a testament to the historicity of Jesus,
Josephus’ reference holds little to no significance. However, among the early
references to Josephus’ testimony, of particular note is the mention of this passage in
the writings of the third century church father Origen:

“For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to
John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who
underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the
Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction
of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus
was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death
Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless — being, although against his

155
 will, not far from the truth — that these disasters happened to the Jews as a
punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called
Christ), — the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most
distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he
regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their
relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his
virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the
desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be
more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the
death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses,
composed of those who have been converted from a flood of sins, and who
have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His
good pleasure.”5

The second passage quoted above does not bear the weight of criticism as does
the first quoted passage. This second quote is commonly recognized by scholars as
authentic to the hand of Josephus. Those who reject its authenticity are among those
who propose that the Gospel of Christ is nothing more than a copycat of earlier
religions. A noteworthy mark of this passage is the mention of James, Jesus’ brother
(Matthew 13:55), as well as the identification of this Jesus as the Christ, the
"Anointed One.” As with the Tacitus passage, the lack of Christian glosses account
stands against the supposition that a Christian composed this passage. In contrast
with the first passage attributed to Josephus, in which it is said, “[Jesus] was [the]
Christ,” here it is said that He was “called the Christ,” a statement which does not
mimic the language of early Christian writers.

The earliest non-canonical Christian records

The following passages show an early belief not only in the resurrection of Christ,
but also in the bodily resurrection of Christ, in stating He was raised from the dead.

Barnabus (first century convert)

Barnabas, mentioned throughout the book of Acts, was an early
Christian, and the first of the Jerusalem Christians to accept the apostle
Paul in their congregation (c.35 A.D.), following his transformation as
one who persecuted the church to one to preached the Gospel of Christ
(Acts 9:27). He accompanied Paul on numerous missionary journeys
and participated in the Council of Jerusalem in c.50 A.D. Some believe
it was Barnabus who authored the book of Hebrews, a belief held by
the Church Father Tertullian. Concerning the historical Jesus, Barnabus
states the following:

“Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day
also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had
manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.”6

156
Clement (died c.99 A.D.)
While the date of his death is fairly certain, the date of his birth is
unknown. Clement, also known by Catholics as Pope Clement I, was a
Bishop of Rome and is the earliest of the Church Fathers. His
succession as Bishop of Rome is believed to have occurred in 88 or 92
A.D. His letter to the Corinthian church is one of the oldest Christian
documents still in existence, outside of the cannon of Scripture. He was
martyred by drowning in the sea.

“Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us

that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered
the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.
“Wherefore, girding up your loins,” “serve the Lord in fear” and
truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of
the multitude, and “believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus
Christ from the dead, and gave Him glory,” and a throne at His
right hand. To Him all things” in heaven and on earth are subject.
Him every spirit serves. He comes as the Judge of the living and
the dead. His blood will God require of those who do not believe in
Him. But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us
also...”7

Ignatius (c.35-110 A.D.)

Ignatius was the third Bishop of the church in Antioch and a disciple
of the apostle John, as was Polycarp. A good number of his letters have
survived to the present day.

“Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance
with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was descended from David,
and was also of Mary; who was truly begotten of God and of the
Virgin, but not after the same manner. … He truly assumed a body;
for “the Word was made flesh,” and lived upon earth without sin.
… He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and
not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of
beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. … He also
rose again in three days, the Father raising Him up; and after
spending forty days with the apostles, He was received up to the
Father, and “sat down at His right hand, expecting till His enemies
are placed under His feet. … At the dawning of the Lord’s day He
arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself,
‘As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so
shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart
of the earth.’”8

“And I know that He was possessed of a body not only in His

being born and crucified, but I also know that He was so after His
resurrection, and believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He

157
 came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, ‘Lay hold,
handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. For a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have.’ And He says to
Thomas, ‘Reach hither thy finger into the print of the nails, and
reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side;’ and immediately
they believed that He was Christ. Wherefore Thomas also says to
Him, ‘My Lord, and my God.’ And on this account also did they
despise death, for it were too little to say, indignities and stripes.
Nor was this all; but also after He had shown Himself to them, that
He had risen indeed, and not in appearance only, He both ate and
drank with them during forty entire days. And thus was He, with
the flesh, received up in their sight unto Him that sent Him, being
with that same flesh to come again, accompanied by glory and
power. … But if they say that He will come at the end of the world
without a body, how shall those ‘see Him that pierced Him,’ and
when they recognize Him, ‘mourn for themselves?’ For
incorporeal beings have neither form nor figure, nor the aspect of
an animal possessed of shape, because their nature is in itself
simple.”9
“… may I be perfected through your prayers, and become a
partaker of the sufferings of Christ, and have fellowship with Him
in His death, His resurrection from the dead, and His everlasting
life.”10

Polycarp (c.69-c.155 A.D.)

Polycarp was the second Bishop of the church in Smyrna and a
disciple of the apostle John. He, along with Clement and Ignatius, is
recognized as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers. The only of his
writings still extant is his letter to the church in Philippi. He was
martyred by stabbing, following a failed attempt to burn him at the
stake.

“I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of

righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen
[set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius,
and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and
in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the
assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and
righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the
presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved
not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes
was raised again by God from the dead.”11

Papias (early second century A.D.)

Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis (modern day Pamukkale,
Turkey) in c.130 A.D. None of his writings exist in their complete
form, although fragments have remained extant. These fragments serve

158
 as a testimony to early acceptance of the accuracy, integrity, and
apostolic authorship of the books of the New Testament, as well as the
events and doctrines contained therein as that which was traditionally
believed within the early church.

“But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my

interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any
time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory,
assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the
multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those
who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange
commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments
given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If,
then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked
minutely after their sayings, — what Andrew or Peter said, or what
was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by
Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things
Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For
I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so
profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.”12

“Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down

accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in
exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he
neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I
said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to
the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a
regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no
mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of
one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard,
and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”13

Justin Martyr (c.100-165 A.D.)

Justin Martyr is recognized as one of the earliest Christian
apologists. His Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew is a discourse with a
non-believer concerning the truths of the Christian faith. Whether this
dialogue is a transcript of an actual conversation or a contrived
discourse with a fictional character, Trypho, remains in dispute. Many
of Justin’s writings have survived to this day.

“… after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook

Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from
the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the
prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to
pass.”14

159
 “But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed
holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have
adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of
that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of
Sabaoth for the eternal salvation. In order, therefore, that the matter
inquired into may be plainer to you, I will mention to you other
words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will
perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of
prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him
again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He
makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the
time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose
again from the dead, the times now running on to their
consummation.”15

Profession of the presbyters at Smyrna (c.180 A.D.)

The church in Smyrna confronted an early heretic named Noetus
(c.130-c.200 A.D.) who denied the Trinity and held to a form of
doctrine known as patripassianism, which states there is one God who
manifests Himself not in three persons, but as one performing three
functions. According to this view, the Father, Son, and the Spirit are all
the same person, and when the Son died on the cross, the Father and
Spirit died with Him. Noetus was summoned before the presbyters of
the Smyrna and was questioned concerning his beliefs. During this
examination, he denied ever professing such doctrine. Later, after
converting others according to his manner of faith, he was summoned
again by the presbyters, who then excommunicated him from the
church. It was during this examination that the presbyters in Smyrna
formulated a profession of faith in their condemnation of Noetus’
heresy.

“We also know in truth one God, we know Christ, we know the
Son, suffering as He suffered, dying as He died, and risen on the
third day, and abiding at the right hand of the Father, and coming
to judge the living and the dead. And in saying this we say what
has been handed down to us.”16

Irenaeus (died c.202 A.D.)

Irenaeus was Bishop of the church in Lugdunum, Gaul (modern day
Lyons, France). As was Justin, Irenaeus is named among the early
Christian apologists. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who, as stated
above, was a disciple of the apostle John. The passage below is
evidence not only of his belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ, but
also that the church accepted the accounts of Jesus as recorded in the
Gospels.

160
 “For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were
invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came
down [upon them. … Matthew also issued a written Gospel among
the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were
preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After
their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also
hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke
also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel
preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who
also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel
during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”17

The Apostles’ Creed and the creed of Hippolytus

The earliest Christian statement of faith, outside of Scripture, is the
Apostles’ Creed, an early extra-Biblical Christian article of faith,
expressing belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The present form
of the creed is as follows:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the
Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was
buried.
He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the
Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic [universal] Church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

The above form of the creed dates back to the sixth or seventh
century.15 Tradition states the original form of the creed was formed by
the apostles themselves during the first century, on the tenth day
following the ascension of Christ, but no evidence exists to support that
claim. The substance of the creed does reflect theological formulas
found in the writings of the early church during the first two centuries
of Christianity. The creed has its foundation in the Interogatory Creed
of Hippolytus, a baptismal confession used by the Hippolytus (c.170-
c.236 A.D.), a Bishop of Rome around the end of the second century.
He is believed to have been a disciple of Irenaeus. Under his
ministration, a candidate for baptism would be asked to reply to a series
of questions concerning specific tenants of his faith. Hippolytus’ creed

161
 dates to c.215 A.D. This creed was submitted by Marcellus to Julius I
c.340 A.D., then was later adopted c.404 AD by Rufinus, who used the
creed in his own church.16 It is from Rufinus that the present form of
the Apostles’ Creed bears its closest resemblance. Hippolytus' account
of his baptismal confession is as follows:

When the person being baptized goes down into the water, he who
baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say: "Do you believe
in God, the Father Almighty?" And the person being baptized shall
say: "I believe." Then holding his hand on his head, he shall
baptize him once. And then he shall say: "Do you believe in Christ
Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and was
crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose
again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven,
and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the
living and the dead?" And when he says: "I believe," he is baptized
again. And again he shall say: "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit,
in the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?" The person
being baptized shall say: "I believe," and then he is baptized a third
time.18

If Jesus was so great, why is not first century literature filled with mention of His
words and deeds?
The above heading represents a legitimate question. One would naturally think that if
Jesus really performed the miracles He did and really rose from the dead, then early
written documentation attesting to such deeds should exist in abundance. Since the death
of men like Abraham Lincoln, Henry VIII of England, and even Houdini, the written
record of their words and deeds is quite extensive. Why should it not be so for Jesus if He
did indeed do the work the Gospel writers attribute to Him? In answer to this question,
the following factors must be considered:

1. Much of what was written during the time of Christ is now lost, be it due to
intentional or accidental destruction or natural decay. For this reason, there exists no
official government document relating to Jesus’ execution.

2. The Biblical books are historical books. They contain the record of real people
existing in real places. In fact, the Bible contains record of people and places which
were believed to have never existed (such as the town of Nazareth), which later
archaeological excavations and discoveries have revealed as people and locations
which really did exist. The Bible does not invent its own history. Rather, history
validates the Bible. As historical books, the books of the New Testament contain the
writings of at least eight first century authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul,
Peter, James, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews (which most scholars believe to be
Paul or Barnabus). There is no reason why these authors’ works should be
discredited as valid historical documents. The historical character of the Gospel
accounts of Jesus’ life is not subject to the reader’s faith. The Gospels stand as
historical records despite any effort to debunk their integrity. Historian Michael

162
Grant states, “But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the
same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing
historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the
existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never
questioned.”19 The critic may ask: How can one hold as historical documents
writings which contain such a supernatural flavor? This relates to the integrity of the
Biblical books themselves, and this issue will addressed in a later section of this
book.

3. Since the Bible is an historical book, there is no need for non-Biblical written
evidence concerning the life of Jesus. If one is looking for an early first century
historical record, then the books of the New Testament provide the seeker with more
than ample evidence. Even if no other early written work supported the Biblical
record, the Gospel account of Jesus would still stand, by virtue of its character and
integrity, as a record of an historical person.

4. If Jesus did not exist, then opponents to Christianity would surely have supplied us
with documentation to that effect, in efforts to counteract this new religion. Granted,
much of what was written during and shortly following the time of Christ has been
lost; however, many writings have survived the passage of time, and none of these
deny the historicity of Christ. In fact, every early non-Christian text which does
mention Jesus addresses Him as an historical figure, not a mythical character, and
any attack on Him in such texts is an attack on His deity, not his humanity. The lack
of such documents denying His existence stands as further evidence that Jesus was
an historical person. Also, would the lack of any extra-Biblical documents serve as
evidence that Jesus did not exist? For instance, there are more ancient texts regarding
Jesus as an actual person than there are regarding Socrates.20 Do we hear anyone
claiming that Socrates was a fictitious figure?

5. The fact that that early literature contains any references at all to Jesus is
astounding in the least. In the eyes of the non-believer, He was a poor carpenter from
a lowly region who gained notoriety as a great teacher, only to be executed as a
criminal at the hands of His enemies prior to the establishment of His kingdom.
Early historians would observe that Jesus raised no army in His effort to overtake
Rome and establish Himself as King of the Jews. For the early pagan historian, Jesus
story was an insignificant biography, a biography which would simply not have been
on the “bestseller list” among early books. Historians preferred to write concerning
heroes or men considered to be nobler or of more import than was Jesus. He was a
Jewish Messiah in a Roman Empire. In the mind of the historian of antiquity, Jesus
just did not fit among those on a list of people who stood out above others as
deserving of literary attention. In order for such a historian to make mention of
Jesus, there needed to have been something about this “failed” Messiah which would
warrant literary attention, but the fact is that Jesus was despised and rejected by men,
and even by the Jews to whom He preached His message of salvation. Additionally,
inclusion of Jesus in an early historical writing may have caused the writer to fall out
of favor with the populace or, worse, the authority of Rome. It is no secret of history
that the Roman Empire, for the first few centuries of the church, was violently

163
 opposed to Christianity. The floor of Roman arenas flowed red with the blood of
those put to death in the name of Christ. As the early Christian Tertullian wrote, “The
blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.”21

6. Critics are so eager to regard the number of early literary references to Jesus as a
testament against His existence, yet the silence of early authorship speaking out
against the historicity of Jesus stands as even greater evidence to His existence than
does the written testimony that does exist. If Jesus is a figment of imagination, then
His enemies would have spoken out against any claim to the contrary, but the fact is
that no such denial exists. Early writers rejected His message, but did not deny His
existence.

Concerning the so-called “lack” of early literature mentioning Jesus, Dr. Gary
Habermas and Michael Licona respond: “What we have concerning Jesus actually is
impressive. We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New
Testament. … Another twenty early Christian authors and four heretical writings mention
Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross. Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian
sources mention Jesus within the 150 years: Josephus, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the
Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who
wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; and probably
the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion. In all, at
least forty-two authors, nine of them secular, mention Jesus within 150 years of his
death.”22 Concerning the small number of early texts as “conclusive evidence” that Jesus
did not exist, the above authors apply the same factors to another figure – Tiberius
Caesar, whom no critic would suggest did not exist as an historical figure: “…Let’s look
at an even better example, a contemporary of Jesus. Tiberius Caesar was the Roman
emperor at the time of Jesus’ ministry and execution. Tiberius is mentioned by ten
sources within 150 years of his death: Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch,
Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Josephus, and Luke. Compare that to
Jesus’ forty-two total sources in the same length of time (the nine New Testament writers,
twenty early Christian writers, four heretical writers, and nine secular writers). That’s
more than four times the number of total sources who mention the Roman emperor
during roughly the same period. If we only considered the number of secular non-
Christian sources who mention Jesus and Tiberius within 150 years of their lives, we
arrive at a tie of nine each.”23

First and second century writers who did not mention Jesus, and why
The Zeitgeist Movie lists the following first century writers who lived in proximity to
the Mediterranean, yet make no mention of Jesus in their writings. This list is based on a
list created by John E Remsberg (1848-1912) and published in his book The Christ: A
Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence. In that work, the author
stated, "The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a
century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful
works ... Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to
form a library [when considering the actual works produced by these authors, some of
which only have one extant title attributed to his name, one must wonder what size
library Mr. Remsberg had in mind]. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside

164
from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author [Josephus], and two disputed
passages in the works of Roman writers [Tacitus and Pliny the Younger], there is to be
found no mention of Jesus Christ."24 A brief look at each of these individuals (some
writing prior to Jesus' public ministry) will shed some light as to why the subject of a
Jewish teacher would not have relevance to their topics of interest. One could not expect
these writers to make mention of Jesus any more than one could expect Stephen King to
write a biography of Gandhi, since the subject matter and genre is simply out of his
normal sphere of writing. Additionally, many of these men not only neglect to mention
Jesus, but also neglect to mention Christianity in general, yet their silence regarding
Christianity is not regarded a testimony against the existence of early Christians. Still,
this is the type of inconsistent reasoning that the critics use in order to validate a premise
that is in error from the start.
Appion of Alexandria (wrote during the second century A.D.)
Appion was a Roman historian who chronicled Rome's conquests
through the time of Emperor Trajan.

Appolonius
Remsberg does not specify to which “Appolonius” he was referring
when compiling his list. After eliminating those by this name who lived
prior to Jesus' ministry, the following individuals remain for consideration.
Apollonius Dyscolus (second century A.D.), a grammarian who wrote
prolifically on the parts of speech. Only four of his writings are extant,
works concerning themselves with syntax, adverbs, conjunctions, and
pronouns.

Apollonius (writing between 180-210 A.D.), Bishop of Ephesus. His

work has been lost; however it has received praise by the early church
writer Jerome. Certainly Remsberg did not have this writer in view, for
if his writings were extant, they would surely be found to contain
mention of Jesus, and perhaps at great length.

Apollonius of Tyana (c. 40-c.120 A.D.), Greek philosopher and teacher.

Most of his writings are lost to this day, and those which do exist
remain so as fragments, the authenticity of which is in dispute.
Philostratus, who wrote a biography of Apollonius, describes him as a
traveling teacher of Hellenistic philosophy, and also attributed to him
miracles and a postmortem assumption to heaven (perhaps in mimic of
the growing spread if Christianity and the popularity of Jesus' post-
resurrection ascension to His Father). Due to the god-like praise
Apollonius received by Philostratus, he was afterwards worshiped by
some as a deity. The subject of Apollonius' teaching was that God does
not seek prayer or the worship of man, but rather desires to be reached
through contemplations of the mind. As such, a Jewish miracle-worker
did not fit into his agenda. It serves to note that Philostratus is the only
ancient source regarding Apollonius, and, interestingly, among ancient
writers, less mention is made of Apollonius than Jesus of Nazareth, yet

165
 “Jesus myth” proponents cite Apollonius' lack of mention of Jesus as
further evidence that Jesus did not exist. By their own logic, it should
be argued that Apollonius did not exist, yet Remsberg and those
following in his footsteps delight in naming Apollonius* among early
writers who did not mention Jesus, a practice which for the reason just
noted does not serve to further their cause.

* It seems likely that this is the same Apollonius whom Remsberg had
in view- after all, what “Jesus myth” proponent can resist a good
biography in which he or she can unjustly see a reason to cry, “Jesus
parallel!”

Apollonius the Sophist of Alexandria, a famous grammarian who

probably lived towards the end of the 1st century A.D.

Apollonius (died c.186 A.D.), an early Christian martyr mentioned by

Eusebius and Jerome. It is said of him that he was executed after
delivering before the Roman Senate an argument for the Christian faith,
for which he was sentenced to death.

Arrian (c.86-c.146 A.D.)

Lucius Flavius Arrianus, also known as Arrian a Roman military
historian who focused the subject of his writing on Alexander the Great.

Aulus Gellius (c.125-c.180 A.D.)

Aulus Gellius was a Latin grammarian, philosopher, and lawyer. A single
work, Attic Nights, is attributed to him. This work is a collection of his
gleanings from conversation or literature, and involves a wide variety of
subjects, such as grammar, philosophy, law, history, and many others.
Gellius also included in this work numerous excerpts from authors whose
writings are now lost. Of the twenty books contained in this volume, only
the eights remains lost. The context of his memoirs was limited to the
society in which he lived; therefore, the topic of a Jewish Messiah who
lived nearly one hundred years before him was out of his scope of interest.

Aulus Persius (34-62 A.D)

Aulus Persius Flaccus was a Roman poet and satirist. His first satire is a
criticism that the literary habits of his contemporaries were a reflection of
their own moral inadequacies. Additional satires deal with one’s relation to
the gods, the value of one’s “life’s goal,” liberty, and financial prudence.

Caecilius Statius (writing during the first century A.D., according to The
Zeitgeist Movie)
The truth is that Caecilius Statius died in 166 or 168 B.C. It is certainly
no wonder why he didn't mention Jesus.

166
Columella (4-c. 70 A.D.)
Lucius Moderatus Columella devoted his later life to farming, following
a stint in the military. He wrote De Re Rustica, a twelve volume work on
agriculture, in which he discusses fruits, trees, livestock, and the
management of one’s personal affairs. A smaller work bearing his name, De
Arboribus, was a work strictly devoted to trees.

Damis (early second century figure)

Damis is said to have been a lifelong student of the philosopher
Apollonius of Tyana (see above). The only written work attributed to him is
a diary, not extant, of Apollonius' words and deeds. All that is known of
Damis is due to Philostratus, an early third century writer, who penned a
biography of Apollonius (Life of Apollonius of Tyana). Due to Philostratus'
reputation for inaccuracy and his tendency to fictionalize and embellish his
accounts, many scholars today believe Damis was merely a figment of
Philostratus' imagination. Concerning Damis' diary, scholarship varies in
opinion, but the general consensus is that it is a forgery.12 Some scholars
believe the work to be Philostratus' creation, while others believe it was
written by an earlier author (not Damis) and used by Philostratus in his
biography.

Dio Chrysostom (40-112 A.D.)

Dio Cocceianus, whose surname was Chrysostom (meaning “golden-
mouthed”) was a Greek orator, philosopher, writer, and historian. He
composed eighty orations on such subjects as the virtues of sovereignty (as
regards to Emperor Trajan), slavery and freedom, and advice to fellow or
prospective orators. He also wrote political essays addressing the virtues
and vices of particular towns, essays on ethics and the application of
philosophy, and various mythological subjects. While he did compose
works of an historical character, none of these writings have survived to this
day.

Dion Pruseus
Dion Pruseus is an enigma, for I could find no source of information
except by Jesus myth proponents, that he was an historical figure. Until a
reliable source surfaces, this so-called early writer will remain in the minds
of the mythicists.

Epictetus (55-135 A.D.)

Epictetus was a Greek philosopher who emphasized the practical aspects
of philosophy, teaching it as a way of life. He taught that the events which
occur happen by fate and that both prosperity and calamity should be
accepted with equal resign. Attempting to fix that which is beyond an
individual's control, he said, was the cause of personal distress. No writings
are attributed to him, however a pupil by the name of Arrian is said to have
preserved Epictetus's teachings in his Discourses of Epictetus, which is

167
 believed to have been compiled from lecture notes taken by Arrian while
under Epictetus' tutelage.

Favorinus (c.80-160 A.D.)

Favorinus of Arelata was an early philosopher and a prolific writer,
although his writings exist today as only a few fragments. A member of the
skeptical school of philosophy, his most recognized work was the
Pyrrhonean Tropes, ten books devoted to showing how the philosophy of
Pyrrho applied to legal matters.

Gaius Valerius Flaccus (died c.90 A.D.)

Gaius Valerius Flaccus was a Roman poet. Only one of his works
survives today – The Argonautica, an epic poem recounting Jason's quest
fort the golden fleece.

Hermogones
As with Apollonius, it is unclear to whom the critics are referring when
listing him as an early writer. Using the same process of elimination as
before, the following two candidates remain:

Hermogenes of Tarsus (writing during the latter half of the second

century A.D.), was a Greek rhetorician. He is known for writing on
such topics as legal issues, effective speaking, styles of argumentation,
and rhetorical exercises.

Hermogenes, a first century heretic, mentioned by Paul in his second

letter to Timothy (1:15). Aside from Paul's mention, no further
information is given about Hermogenes, and no writing is ever
attributed to him.

Gaius Valerius Flaccus (died c.90 A.D.)

Gaius Valerius Flaccus was a Roman poet who wrote during the reign of
Vespasian and Titus. Only one of his works is extant, the Argonautica, a
poem narrating Jason's (of Argonaut fame) quest for the Golden Fleece.

Justus of Tiberius (lived during the second half of the first century A.D.)
Justus was a Jewish historian and rival of Josephus. He wrote a history
of the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 A.D.), in which he blamed Agrippa
and Josephus for national calamities, as well as for his own personal
troubles during the war. He also wrote A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews,
a history of the Jews from Moses to the time of Agrippa II. Today, both of
these works exist only in fragments. Although Jesus was called King of the
Jews, this was done in mockery by His accusers. No early historian
regarded Jesus among those regarded as kingly rank, and therefore would
not name Him in a work devoted to Hebrew royalty.

168
Juvenal (wrote during the late first and early second century A.D.)
Juvenal was the author of the Satires, a collection of sixteen poems
divided into five books, written to the Roman elite, focusing on threats to
their social well-being. Since Jesus did not pose a threat to the social
structure of Rome's upper class, there was no place for Him in Juvenal's
satires.

Livy (59 B.C.-17 A.D.)

Zeitgeist is correct is saying that Livy was a contemporary of Jesus
Christ; however, Livy did not live after Jesus nor during His public
ministry. When Livy died, Jesus was only about twenty-two years of age
and still just an obscure carpenter, not one recognized as the Jewish
Messiah. Since Livy died prior to Christ’s public ministry, the content of his
writing is irrelevant. Jesus was not heralded publicly as the Messiah until
after His baptism just prior to age thirty, in 25 or 26 A.D.

Lucius Florus (c.70-c.140 A.D.)

Lucius Florus was a Roman historian. His history of Rome concerned
the time from Rome’s foundation to the closing of the temple of Janus by
Augustus in 25 B.C. He also composed a poem dedicated to the Emperor
Hadrian. His Epitome of the Histories of Titus was an historical work with a
focus on military and warfare.

Marcus Annaeus Lucanus (Nov 3, 39 A.D. – Apr 30, 65 A.D.)

Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, also known as Lucan, was a poet whose only
surviving work is Bellum Civile, also called Pharsalia, a poem concerning
the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. Other writings known to have
been composed by him are De Incendio Urbis, concerning the burning of
Rome in 64 A.D., Catachthonion, concerning the underworld, Iliacon,
concerning the legend of Troy, Medea, an unfinished play, Laudes Neronis,
written in praise of Nero, Saturnalia, Medea, Orpheus, Letters from
Campanalia, and Silvae, a ten volume poetic work. Jewish history and
society were simply not his area of interest.

Martial (born c.38-41 A.D., died c.102-104 A.D.)

Marcus Valerius Martialis, also known as Martial, was a Latin poet,
known for his Epigrams, twelve books satirizing everyday life in the city of
Rome. He was not concerned with the goings-on outside of his own city.

Paterculus (wrote in 30 A.D.)

Paterculus was a historian who concerned himself with the history of
Rome. The time of his writing was just after Jesus' resurrection and before
Christianity became a force to be reckoned with in regions north of
Palestine.

169
Pausanias (second century A.D.)
Pausanias was a Greek geographer. He is known for his Description of
Greece, a collection of observations gleaned during his travels throughout
Greece. At times he engages himself in reflections on the mythology and
history which shaped a certain region as he traveled throughout Greece (as
previously referenced in Part one under the heading of “Virgin birth” -
Attis). His travels did not take him to Palestine, so it is no wonder why we
find no mention of Jesus in his contemplations on Greek religion.

Petronius (c.27 A.D.-c. 66 A.D.)

Petronius was a novelist; therefore, his works were that of fiction. He
was not concerned with writing histories or biographies. His principal work
was Satyricon, describing the antics of a pair of homosexuals, Encolpius
and Giton.

Phaedrus (15 B.C.-50 A.D.)

Phaedrus is widely known as the first writer to translate Greek fables
into Latin. The fables he translated were not his own invention, but were
merely translations of fables already in existence. His writings were neither
historical nor original in nature.

Philo Judeaus (died c.45-50 A.D.)

Philo was a contemporary of Christ and was greatly concerned with the
Hebrew religion as well as Greek philosophy. He wrote numerous
expositions on the Hebrew Scriptures, writing on topics such as creation,
Moses and the Law, anthropology, cosmology, theology, and ethics. He
considered the Hebrew Scriptures the source of truth, although his
acceptance of Greek philosophy did not gain him favor with mainstream
Judaism. Given his literary attention to Judaism, it may seem likely that he
would have written about someone who was heralded as the Jewish Messiah
promised by the prophets of old. However, there is no mention of Jesus in
the writings of Philo, much of which has been preserved thanks to the early
Christian Church Fathers. However, Jesus is not the only first century
person left out of Philo's cast of characters. In addition to Jesus, there is no
mention in Philo’s writings of Gamaliel, a prominent scholarly figure in
Judaism during the time of Christ, nor does he mention the apostles Peter or
Paul, yet the historicity of these men is not in dispute, even by those who
deny the historicity of Christ based on the same so-called evidence from
silence.
Also, Philo died sometime between 45-50 A.D., prior to the time
Christianity became major influence throughout the Mediterranean region.
The public ministry of Christ did not begin until about 26 A.D., when Jesus
was near His thirtieth birthday. The resurrection occurred three years later
around 29 A.D., which only gives fifteen to twenty years for the spread of
the Gospel before Philo’s death. In its infancy, the Christian church was
located in Palestine, whereas Philo resided in Alexandria, Egypt. The
apostle Paul did not embark on his first missionary journey until around 46

170
 A.D., and this journey took him to points north of Palestine, not south
towards Egypt. By the time Christianity was well-known in Alexandria,
Philo had already passed off the scene.
Some have claimed Philo’s philosophy was the forerunner of
Christianity and that the apostles borrowed from his school of thought when
composing the letters which now make up the books of the New Testament.
Particular attention is drawn to Philo’s doctrine of the Logos and his
personification of wisdom. The Greek word “logos” is translated as “Word”
in John’s Gospel where it is said “the Word [Logos] became flesh,” (Jn 1:1)
a reference to the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The
Logos, according to Philo, was the sum of the divine attributes. This Logos
he terms the “word of the eternal God” and the “high priest,” which some
have likened to Jesus’ position as the High Priest, as described in the book
of Hebrews. Philo regarded the Logos as the one through whom sins are
forgiven and who serves as a mediator on the behalf of mankind (again,
bearing a strong similarity to the language of Hebrews). He also believed
wisdom was a form higher than the Logos and that the latter proceeds from
the former. The personification of wisdom is not a new concept in Hebrew
thought. In ancient Hebrew poetry, Proverbs especially, wisdom is often
referred to by the use of personal pronouns. In the Gospel of John, the
apostle states the “Word” (or “Logos”) became flesh and dwelt among man.
The difference between the Logos of Philo and John is that Philo never
conceived the Logos as being incarnated into literal human flesh and blood.
In fact, the very idea of such an incarnation of the divine attributes would
have been blasphemous to someone such as Philo, as it was to the ruling
Judaic religious authorities who sought to have Jesus executed for
blasphemy when He claimed equality with God.

Phlegon (lived during the second century A.D.)

Phlegon was a Greek historian. His primary work was the Olympiads,
composed of sixteen books chronicling the first to the 229th Olympiad,
spanning the time between 776 B.C. to 137 A.D. He also wrote On Marvels,
concerning stories of ghosts, human deformities and abnormalities, and On
Long-lived Persons, concerning individuals who had lived past the age of
one hundred. In addition, he composed works on Roman festivals, Sicily,
and the topography of Rome. However, contrary to critics' claim that
Phlegon did not mention Jesus, we do have secondary sources, in the form
of quotations by other early writers, that indicate Phlegon did in fact
mention Jesus, and these quotations will be addressed shortly hereafter.

Pliny the Elder (c.23-79 A.D.)

Gaius or Caius Plinius Secundus, also known as Pliny the Elder, was a
historian and philosopher. His historical works include History of the
German Wars, composed of twenty books, and History of His Times,
composed of thirty-one books and chronicling the time between the
emperors Nero and Vespasian. He also wrote Studiosus, a work on rhetoric,
and Dubii sermonis, a work not extant to this day, as are many of his

171
 writings. His magnum opus, Naturalis Historia, or Natural History, was an
encyclopedic work in which he draws on much of the knowledge of his day
with regards to such topics as cosmology, astronomy, meteorology,
geography, anthropology, mammals, fish, fowl, insects, botany, agriculture,
horticulture, medicine, diseases, and precious minerals.
In his later life, he turned his attention from natural history to literature.
It was in this interest that he composed three books: The Scholar, a training
manual (of sorts) for orators, Problems in Grammar, and A Continuation of
the History of Aufidius.

Plutarch (46-c.122 A.D.)

Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus was a Greek historian, biographer, and
philosopher. He is best known for his Moralia, or Customs and Mores, and
Parallel Lives, containing biographies of well-known Greeks and Romans.
The former work varies in scope and contains essays on ethics, politics,
literature, and consolation. Moralia is a philosophical work, written for the
purpose of providing moral education to his readers. Essays contained
within this volume include:

On Fraternal Affection - a discourse against sibling rivalry

On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great
On the Worship of Isis and Osiris
On Peace of Mind
Odysseus and Gryllus - a conversation between Odysseus and one of
Circe's pigs.

The latter work, containing the biographies of prominent historical

figures, was also written as a moral treatise. While the subject concerns that
of history, the focus and purpose of the biographies was to illustrate both
good and bad moral character through the lives of the people he portrayed
in his work, such as Solon, Themistocles, Aristides, Pericles, Alcibiades,
Nicias, Demosthenes, Philopoemen, Timoleon, Dion of Syracuse,
Alexander the Great, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Gaius Marius, Sulla, Romulus,
Pompey, Mark Antony, Marcus Junius Brutus, Julius Caesar, and Cicero.
Plutarch’s modus operandi in this work was to pair a Greek and Roman who
shared like biographical characteristics or qualities, write separate
biographies for each, then compare one against the other to examine the
virtues and vices to be learned from each. Biographies of at least twelve
other figures (such as Heracles and Philip II of Macedon) were written, but
are no longer extant. The biographies which have survived, have not
survived without alteration by later writers. Since Jesus was neither Greek
nor Roman, He was of no interest to Plutarch when he composed his
biographies.

172
Pomponius Mela (wrote c.43 A.D.)
Pomponius Mela was the earliest Roman geographer. He is known for a
single work, De situ orbis libri III, less than one hundred pages long
devoted strictly to geography.

Ptolemy (c.83-c.168 A.D.)

Claudius Ptolemaeus, commonly known as Ptolemy, was a
mathematician, astronomer, geographer and astrologer. He was not engaged
in historical writings. It has been asked why he did not mention the star of
Bethlehem or the geological and astronomical occurrences on the day of
Jesus' death. It must be remembered that Ptolmey was not witness to either
of these events. By his time, any mention of such was considered the
babbling of Christians.

Publius Papinius Statius (c.45-96 A.D.)

Statius was a Roman poet known for his epic poems The Thebaid,
recounting the tale of Thebes, and the Achilleid, devoted to Achilles. Statius
also wrote the Silvae, a collection of poems ranging in subject matter,
including flattery for the Emperor, reflections on death, consolation for the
grieving, and congratulatory remarks to his friends, along with descriptions
of his their villas and gardens.

Quintus Curtius Rufus (wrote during 41-54 A.D.)

Quintus Curtius Rufus was a Roman historian with only one extant
work, Historiae Alexandri Magni, a Latin biography of Alexander the
Great.

Quintilian (35-100 A.D.)

Marcus Fabius Quintilianus was a Roman rhetorician. His only extant
work is Institutio Oratoria, a textbook on rhetoric. He is believed to have
written an earlier book, written as a preface to Institutio Oratoria,
delineating views later expressed in work still extant. Institutio Oratoria
deals with various topics strictly relating to rhetoric, such as emotion,
language, delivery, expression, and forms of argumentation.

Seneca the Younger (4 B.C.-65 A.D.)

Lucius Annaeus Seneca was a Roman philosopher, dramatist, and
statesman. In addition to twelve philosophical essays and one hundred
twenty-four letters addressing moral issues, he composed nine tragedies, a
satire, and an essay in meteorology. Some have asked why Seneca would
not have mentioned the star that guided the magi to Bethlehem, or unnatural
the darkness that occurred during the day Jesus died on the cross. Seneca
was concerned with addressing observable natural phenomena, not with
cataloging supernatural occurrences.

173
 Silius Italicus (c.25-101 A.D.)
Tiberius Catius Silius Italicus is known for his epic poetry. The single
extant poem bearing his name is Punica, concerning the Second Punic War,
which may or may not have been scribed by Silius Italicus himself,
although the oral form of the poem is attributed to him.

Theon of Smyrna (c.70-c.135 A.D.)

Theon of Smyrna was a Greek philosopher and mathematician. Of his
three works on Platonic philosophy, only On Mathematics Useful for the
Understanding of Plato remains today. This work is comprised of three
parts: the first, devoted to numerology; the second, devoted to music; the
third, devoted to the “music of the cosmos.” Another work known to have
been attributed to him was a book devoted to astronomy.

Valerius Maximus (20 A.D.)

As with Livy, the early date associated with Valerius Maximus makes his
writings irrelevant to any discussion of Jesus’ influence.

Known early manuscripts verifying Jesus was an historical person

The early church fathers: Tertullian, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Clement, Ignatius,
Polycarp, Irenaeus, Martyr, Origen, etc.

Inscriptions in the Roman Catacombs

The writers of the Apocrypha

The Jewish Talmud

“On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu [the Hebrew spelling of Jesus’ name] was
hanged*. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and
cried: ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and
enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him
come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward
in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.”25

“R. Shimeon ben Azzai said: ‘I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein
was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard** of an adulteress’”26

“[Mary] who was the descendant of princes and governors***, played the harlot
with carpenters.”27

“[Jesus’] mother was Miriam, a women's hairdresser. As they say, ... ‘this one
strayed from her husband.’”28

* Hanging was a term used in reference to crucifixion. (cf Jn 19.14, Acts 5:30,
Gal 3:13)

174
 ** The reference to Jesus as a “bastard” is an attempt to refute the church’s
claim that He was virgin-born.

*** Such a mention corresponds with the New Testament’s claim that Jesus was
a descendant of King David.

The Acts of Pilate, a book of the New Testament Pseudepigrapha. It is not regarded as an
official document from Pilate himself, but is believed to be derived from official
documents preserved in the praetorium at Jerusalem. The oldest section is titled The
Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius, and is dated to the second century A.D. The
text is as follows:

“There befell of late a matter which I myself brought to light (or, made trial of):
for the Jews through envy have punished themselves and their posterity with
fearful judgments of their own fault; for whereas their fathers had promises (al.
had announced unto them) that their God would send them out of heaven his
holy one who should of right be called their king, and did promise that he would
send him upon earth by a virgin; he then (or this God of the Hebrews, then)
came when I was governor of Judea, and they beheld him enlightening the blind,
cleansing lepers, healing the palsied, driving devils out of men, raising the dead,
rebuking the winds, walking upon the waves of the sea dry-shod, and doing
many other wonders, and all the people of the Jews calling him the Son of God:
the chief priests therefore, moved with envy against him, took him and delivered
him unto me and brought against him one false accusation after another, saying
that he was a sorcerer and did things contrary to law.

But I, believing that these things were so, having scourged him, delivered him
unto their will: and they crucified him, and when he was buried they set guards
upon him. But while my soldiers watched him he rose again on the third day: yet
so much was the malice of the Jews kindled that they gave money to the
soldiers, saying: Say ye that his disciples stole away his body. But they, though
they took the money, were not able to keep silence concerning that which had
come to pass, for they also have testified that they saw him arisen and that they
received money from the Jews. And these things have I reported (unto thy
mightiness) for this cause, lest some other should lie unto thee (Lat. lest any lie
otherwise) and though shouldest deem right to believe the false tales of the
Jews.”29

The Didache (c.80-120 A.D.)

Works by Gnostic authors: (The Gospel of Thomas, Treatise on Resurrection and,

Apocryphon of John)

Dead Sea Scrolls, containing over one thousand manuscripts dating prior to 68 A.D.
(“Crucified Messiah” Scroll, “Son of God” Scroll, 4Q246 Scroll, Cave 7 Scroll, 7Q5
Scroll).

175
The Qur'an, the scriptures of Islam.

Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius of Caesarea, an early church historian

The Gospel of Marcion, written by an early second century heretic who was expelled
from the Christian church

Celsus, a second century opponent of Christianity, accused Jesus of being a bastard and a
“mere man.”30

Lucian, a Roman historian who was very concerned with accuracy, made the following
mention of Jesus:

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished
personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…
You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are
immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-
devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them
by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they
are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and
live after his laws.”31

Although Lucian did not mention Jesus by name, it is evident he is referring to Jesus of
Nazareth, since no other crucified individual was worshiped by Christians. If he did not
believe that Jesus was an historical figure, then he would not have mentioned Jesus’
crucifixion as an historical fact. Also, if he regarded the person of Jesus as a non-
historical personage, he would have called attention to the Christians’ misguided belief in
a person who he believed did not exist, as he did with the Christians “misguided” belief
system.

Mara Bar-Seraphon, in a letter to his son (73 A.D.), wrote, “What advantage did the Jews
gain from executing their wise king?...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in
the teaching which he had given." Some critics challenge this claim since it does not
mention which “king” it was who was executed, but in so doing, they are unable to
suggest a person, aside from Jesus, who could be called a “king” and who was executed
by his own people. Only Jesus fits this description.

Phlegon, a first century slave born c.80 A.D. His writings exist today only as quotes
found in other ancient texts, as in the following citations:

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles,

not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into
confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus),
but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.”32

“And with regard to the eclipse in time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus
appears to have been crucified and the great earthquakes which then took place,

176
 Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his
Chronicles.”33

“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a
full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.”34

“He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention;
but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defense,
according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that
these events took place at the time when our Savior suffered. And he goes on to
say, that “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose
after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his
hands had been pierced by nails.”35

Thallus, a Samaritan historian, writing c.52 A.D. While none of his writings have
survived to this day, excerpts have been found quoted in the writings of other ancient
authors. Julius Africanus (c.221 A.D.) quoted Thallus’ contemplation concerning the
darkness which occurred when Jesus hung on the cross, and the subsequent earthquake,
as stated in the Gospel accounts.

And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole land
until the ninth hour, the sun’s light failing: and the veil of the temple was rent in
the midst. And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I
commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost. (Lk 23:44-46
NASB)

Concerning this darkness as described in the Gospels, Julius quotes Thallus as saying:

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were
rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown
down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History calls, as appears to
me without reason, an eclipse from the sun.”36

177
 The Zeitgeist Movie states the following: “The fact of the matter is, there are dozens of
virgin-born, crucified saviors from all over the world who fit these descriptions.” As I
have shown, these claims are false or misconstrued, to say the least. My suggestion to the
critics: go examine your sources. You will see they are not accurate. However, knowing
their sources are inaccurate, many of the proponents of the copycat theory intentionally
misrepresent the truth with the intent to deceive or sway others who they know will not
put their claims to the test. In this section, I will examine some of the practices often
employed by these self-proclaimed scholars.

I. Proper use of terminology is often disregarded in claims

which attempt to liken events in the life of Christ to events
which occur in pagan mythology
Many of the attacks which claim Christian beliefs are fabrications, having their origin
in pagan myth, often use terms out of context in an attempt to suggest that one practice is
merely a mirrored rip-off of another. Critics use terms such as “resurrection” and
“baptism” loosely and in an attempt to strengthen their argument and apply the concepts
to events which do not reflect the true meaning of either term. They do so in order to
establish a false relationship between one thing and another, thereby leading their
audience to consider the critic’s theory is true based on such a fabricated relationship.
They deliberately use terminology heard in Christian churches in order to strengthen their
argument and establish a foundation for their claim, a claim which has no foundation in
truth whatsoever – except in the minds of those who blindly accept their teaching. For
example, the word “resurrection,” or even the concept thereof, may not exist within a
particular myth, yet critics will insert it in their own exposition of the same myth in order
to formulate the correlation they need to back up their words.

Virgin birth
Quite often, as shown in this book, a critic will attempt to liken the birth of Jesus
to the birth of a pagan god by virtue of a virgin birth. In so doing, they loose sight of
the concept of virginity altogether, for the mothers of pagan deities are often married
to a mortal man at the time of insemination, or are women of promiscuity, and
therefore not virgins. In order for a birth to be considered truly virginal, two
qualifications must first be met: first, the mother must not have had any sexual
interaction at any time prior to the birth, and, second, the child’s conception must
have occurred without any male seed, preserved or otherwise. Also, the nature by
which these women are impregnated is quite unlike the placing of the fetal Jesus in
the womb of Mary. Pagan deities impregnate their subjects through sexual
intercourse, which quite often involves some form of deception or rape. In all of
pagan mythology, only a small few deities are said to have been born of a virgin, and
all such attempts at magnifying such a claim of virginal conception is the result of
one’s lack of research in the field or an intentional misrepresentation of the truth.
Also, what many critics claim to be a virgin birth is nothing more than a miraculous
birth, for, while the circumstances of a conception may be considered extraordinary,
the conception itself may have occurred by some form of insemination. Such is the

179
case with the sons of Zeus, who were born as a result of Zeus’ sexual interaction with
women. In other words, a truly virginal birth constitutes a supernatural birth, but a
supernatural birth does not constitute virgin birth. For instance, in the Horus myth
Isis conceives Horus after fashioning a custom-made phallus for her dead husband
Osiris (therefore supernatural birth), then drawing seed (therefore non-virginal birth)
from the dead body, by which she became impregnated. Thus, Horus' conception,
although supernatural, was not a virgin birth since it still involved an interaction of
male seed, the natural agent of insemination. By analogy, in fertility clinics a sample
of male seed may be used to impregnate a woman, regardless of whether the donor is
still living. Also, such modern use of male seed to impregnate a woman constitutes
neither supernatural birth nor virginal birth, since the acquisition of the donor's seed
was through natural, not miraculous, methods and the very presence of male seed in
insemination, artificial or not, is not within the realm of virginal birth.

Baptism
In the New Testament there are three types of baptism mentioned: baptism by fire,
baptism by the Holy Ghost, and baptism by water. In the case of the first two
mentioned, the baptism is symbolic and without a material element, such as fire. The
baptism we are concerned with here in this work is the latter, water baptism. The first
mention in the New Testament of someone baptizing with water was John the
Baptist. Following the ascension of Christ into heaven, Christians began baptizing
with water, as mentioned in the book of Acts where entire families, including infants,
were baptized with water. The mode of baptism employed, whether sprinkling or
immersion, is outside the bounds of this discussion, except to state the element of
water was present. Concerning the symbolic meaning behind the ritual, for now it
will suffice to say that in the New Testament, baptism replaced the Old Testament
rite of circumcision as the sign of the covenant between God and His people. The
meaning of baptism was consecration and a giving of oneself to the will of God. My
purpose here is to simply draw attention to the fact that baptism is not merely contact
with water, as many of the proponents of the “copycat theory” seem to believe.
Baptism cannot be equated with stepping into a bath. Although a cleansing does
occur in both instances, the cleansing achieved through baptism has spiritual
symbolism as its root, not physical cleansing. Many critics of Christianity make
feeble and far-reaching claims that contact with water can be considered parallel to
baptism, and so it is that they liken Christian baptism to a pagan ritual bath. While
water has long been a cross-cultural element used for cleansing and purification,
participation in ritual baths cannot correctly be called baptism.

Communion
Many religions have some form of communal meal, but such is different from the
observance of communion in the Christian church. For the Christian, communion is a
remembrance of the sacrifice Christ made on the cross, with the bread being
symbolic of the body of Christ which was bruised for our iniquities, and the wine
symbolic of His blood, shed for the remission of sin. It is, in essence, a covenant
meal. In the Old Testament when two parties entered into covenant with each other,
they often shared in a meal as a symbolic memorial of the contract. In Jerusalem, the

180
night before Jesus was executed, he shared in a meal with his disciples and in that
room He instituted the ordinance of communion.

For I [the apostle Paul] have received of the Lord that which also I
delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was
betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and
said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in
remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when
he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this
do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye
eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he
come. (1 Cor 11:23-26 NASB)

At the meal Jesus shared with His disciples, He stated He was making a new
covenant with them. The wine represented the blood of the covenant, blood which
He shed on the cross. Thus, Jesus instituted the observance of communion as a
memorial of His redemptive work.
Such communal meals were common among various cultures. In Biblical times it
was common for parties having made a covenant between themselves to sit down for
a meal or feast afterwards, as a means of signifying the covenant between them. In
the case of Abimelech and Isaac, the two sat down for a feast after making a
covenant between themselves (Gen 26:26-31). In the New Testament, the “Last
Supper” Jesus had with His disciples was a covenant meal, signifying the new life
He gave to mankind through His death and resurrection (2 Cor 11:23-25). Such ritual
meals were common in cultures throughout the world, as H. Clay Trumbull notes in
his book The Blood Covenant:

“Among the Araucanian, of South America, the custom of making brothers,

or brothers-friends, is called Lacu. It includes the killing of a lamb and
dividing it — ‘cutting’ it — between the two covenanting parties; and each
party must eat his half of the lamb — either by himself or by such
assistance as he chooses to call in. … if they exchanged names, there would
be a covenant meal. Usually in this covenant meal they would feed each
other bread, saying, ‘You are eating me.’ Then they would drink from the
same cup and say, ‘You are drinking me.’ Sometimes the drink in the cup
was mingled with blood.”1

Manfred Clauss also testifies to the universality of the communal meal:

“The offering of bread and wine is known in virtually all ancient cultures,
and the meal as a means of binding the faithful together and uniting them to
the deity was a feature common to many religions. It represented one of the
oldest means of manifesting unification with the spiritual, and the
appropriation of spiritual qualities.”2

Even in modern times, many people, regardless of faith, have shared in such a
communal meal, even if they have never sat through a church service. When a man

181
and woman are married, they enter into a covenant, complete with oaths and vows.
In some ceremonies the bride and groom sip from a single chalice or cup as they
stand before the crowd of witnesses. Following the ceremony, they host a reception
for the wedding party and guests. During this reception, a meal and beverages of
some sort are provided. Such a gathering reflects a memorializing of the covenant
which just took place between the bride and groom, and it is this same fashion that
covenant makers in many cultures share a ritual meal following the binding of their
covenant. Such traditions testify to the universality of the practice of communal
meals and it should come to no surprise to find such a practice in the Bible and
among a people who placed high regard and importance of the binding of a covenant.
Finally, the significance of the Christian communion service (or Eucharist, in
some denominations), is that the elements represent the body and blood of Jesus,
who, by the giving of His life, made atonement, or reconciliation and reparation
between God and man, for the guilt of sin. The communal meals of pagan religion
and culture hold no such significance, and without that aspect any such practice
becomes devoid of comparison with the Christian communion service.

Savior
Many deities are called savior, but not in the same sense in which the title is
ascribed to Christ. Proponents of the copycat theory often use the word “salvation”
when referring to the benefit provided as a result of the actions of a pagan deity,
however, they use the term in a very loose sense. While there are pagan deities who
do provide salvation from oppression, from darkness, or from some form of
pestilence, they do not provide salvation from sin by the offering of themselves as a
sacrifice for sin. In the case of Christianity, the salvation afforded to believers on
account of Christ is eternal rather than temporal. Neither the annual renewal of
vegetation (which is commonly referred to as the “saving” work of a pagan deity)
nor freedom from tyranny can be considered “salvation” in any theological sense.
Jesus was the Christ, the Anointed One of God. He alone saves from sin and
damnation. He alone provides a kind of salvation unlike that provided by any deity in
world mythology. He alone is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Salvation
Oftentimes, when critics claim that Jesus can be paralleled with a pagan deity
who is said to provide salvation, the term “salvation” is applied to any act which
results in another's rescue, preservation, protection, or deliverance. While salvation,
broadly speaking, is a term which denotes such concepts, simply claiming that one
manner of salvation is capable to be likened to another, regardless of the style or type
of salvation offered, is to draw a parallel based on an improper analysis of the facts.
The “salvation” typically provided by pagan deities is reflective of the annual
regrowth of crops, since many pagan deities are representative of the rotation of the
seasons. Other times, the salvation provided is said to be deliverance from an earthly
king or tyrant, or from a form of natural disaster. Does this rightly constitute a
parallel to Jesus? Of course not! When a mother feeds her child, it can be properly
said that she is saving her child from starvation, but can the mother of the child be
thought of as a parallel to the Son of God, by virtue of the provision she provides to
her infant? Again, the answer is in the negative. Still, critics attempt to create a

182
parallel between Jesus and pagan deities based on such loose association of terms.
The salvation provided by Jesus is an eternal salvation, guaranteeing a restored
relationship with God, the eventual resurrection of the body, the final glorification of
the believer, and the enjoyment of everlasting and unhindered communion with God.
None of the pagan deities can be said to offer an equivalent form of salvation. In
order for a parallel to be drawn between one deity and another, it is not enough to
merely say that each provided salvation. If such a parallel is to exist, the comparison
must lie in the manner and effect on each deity's salvation, not in their mutual
recognition as a “savior.”

Resurrection
Many of the deities who are said to be resurrected did not undergo an experience
which can be likened to the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of many pagan
deities, especially the various sun and sky gods, is merely a metaphor for the
changing of seasons and the renewal of vegetation. The resurrection stories of pagan
deities reflected the changing of the seasons and the regenerative powers of nature,
in regards to the continuance of human generation and the annual renewal of the
natural world through the changing of seasons. Devotees of these deities took
comfort in the myths of resurrection, knowing that they could rely on the deity to
continue his work in bringing relief from annual drought and the dying of crops.
Their faith in these deities gave them strength and confidence in future prosperity
and the continuance of life.
A resurrection in pagan mythology often refers not to a bodily resurrection from
the dead; but rather, merely to one of the following scenarios:

1. The deity enters the Underworld without ever having died in the first
place, then leaves the Underworld as alive and well as he was when he first
entered therein.

2. The deity experiences a postmortem existence in a non-bodily form, such

as reigning in spirit as lord of the dead.

3. The deity is reincarnated or re-created as a different person and/or in a

different body.

4. The deity is raised to life, only to die again at a later time.

5. The deity undergoes a change or experience which was only “likened

unto” death, then is awakened or revived from a suspended state.

As shown above, what the critic typically refers to as a resurrection is, in truth,
not a resurrection at all. For instance, Dionysus is torn apart by the Titans then later
reborn from the side of Zeus. Such an experience does not constitute a resurrection,
since his original body was not restored; but rather, remained in the bellies of the
Titans. Thus, his experience is a re-birth in a new body, not a resurrection of his
original constitution. Turning to Egyptian mythology, Osiris was dismembered by

183
 Set, following which he descended, in spirit, to the underworld as lord of the dead –
an experience which speaks to the immortality of the soul, but not to the resurrection
of the body. Concerning Orpheus, he descended to the land of the dead in order to
persuade Hades to allow his dead wife to return to the land of the living. Since
Orpheus entered the underworld without having died in the first place, his descent
and subsequent return from the underworld is nothing more than a round trip
journey, rather than a resurrection. These are just a few of the many examples where
a critic labels a particular deity’s experience as a resurrection, when in fact the
experience in question is nothing more than a reincarnation, re-birth, or a journey not
involving the death of the traveler.
Also, the so-called “resurrections” in pagan mythology did not result in anyone’s
salvation, nor did they exist within history or were witnessed by hundreds of the
deity's followers, whereas each of these qualities characterizes Jesus’ bodily
resurrection from the dead.

II. Many of the suggested pagan parallels to the life of

Christ are based on non-existent texts or misuse or
alteration of existing texts
Many proponents of the “copycat theory” make their claims on secondary sources
rather than referring to the religious texts. When pressed for the source text on which they
make their claim, they are unable to produce evidence, simply because the evidence does
not exist. The sources on which they do base their statements are versions of the original
source material which have been altered over time. In fact, many of their sources post-
date the time of Christ. When the original sources are examined, their claims are found
wanting for validity. Their case against Christianity is merely a house built on sand, and
when the foundation is easily washed away, the house is reduced to rubble as a result. As
in the case of Horus, the deity to whom critics give much attention, characteristics which
are said to have been true of Horus and copied to Christ simply do not exist in the ancient
texts relating to Horus. These ancient texts are not without abundance, and they are of
varying types: hymns, mortuary texts, ritual texts, Old Coptic texts … the list goes on.
Nowhere in these texts, nor even in Plutarch’s On Isis and Osiris, (c. 46-120 A.D.) the
most complete account of the Horus myth to be found in ancient literature, is it said that
he was born of a virgin, announced by a star, visited by wise men, etc. Such is an
example of a favorite tactic used by critics – to fabricate or alter a myth in order to
establish a false correlation to the account of Christ, then to make absolute statements
based on these lies.

III. Other favorite tactics used by critics of Christianity

Failure to distinguish opinions and theories from what the sources and evidence used
actually state.
Omission of important sources and evidence.
Misuse of the sources employed in backing up their claims.
The use of suspect sources.

184
 Forming conclusions and theories which often far exceed what the evidence justifies.
Speculations and sound theories are treated as having equal value.
Statements grounded solely in the critics’ imagination and their distortions of the truth
are declared on a matter-of-fact basis. They accuse Christians of distorting truth, all the
while acting in that very same fashion.
Critics draw conclusions which cannot logically be drawn from the cited sources. The
conclusions they form are the result of interpreting the source material based on what
they want others to believe, rather than what the source actually states. Rather than
drawing from the source, they input their own subjective ideas into the material and claim
that the source contains ideas not actually found in the material.
Critics often preface statements with the condition of them being spoken in an
“exact,” “broad,” or “general” sense. For example, they will say, “Broadly speaking, the
story of Horus is as follows,” then go on to list things such as virgin birth, crucifixion,
and resurrection as being elements of his story, when, in truth, none of these elements
apply to the subject in question, neither in a broad nor exact sense. When they say “broad
sense,” they are really saying “no sense,” in the hopes that their readers will believe them
blindly rather than searching for the truth themselves.

IV. Logical fallacies employed by the critics

Critics of Christianity employ numerous fallacious forms of logic in their efforts to
persuade others that their claims are valid. In this section, I will briefly list the many
ways in which their arguments take shape, and provide examples in which these
erroneous forms of persuasion are employed by the ever-so-earnest critic.

Ad hominem: An ad hominem (Latin, “to the man”) argument is an attack not on

the claim itself, but on the person making the claim. By attacking the claimant’s
character or level of expertise, the attempt is made to make his or her claim invalid,
without presenting evidence against the validity of the claim itself. An ad hominem
argument is most evident when the claimant’s opponent is unable to present evidence
against the claim and, consequently, must resort to less respectful means of
argumentation in an attempt to render the claim invalid. An example of this is to
attack an opponent’s claims based on a lack of credentials to his name. For instance,
when Christians (to turn the tables for a moment) denounce the documentary
concerning the “lost tomb of Jesus” and bring to light the fact that the film was
produced by a Hollywood movie director and a journalist, neither of whom have
credentials in the field of archaeology, history, or Biblical studies, such information
is irrelevant to the claims of the film. An opponent’s claims must be answered in
light of the evidence itself, not on the level of expertise of the claimant. By contrast,
the claims of one who has doctorate degrees in archaeology or history cannot be
regarded as valid based on the claimant’s credentials. While his credentials speak to
the formal training and education the claimant has received, it said nothing about the
claimant’s application of such knowledge. If the claimant’s application does not
stand up against solid evidence, then his claims must be abandoned, despite the
credentials the claimant has to his name. Credentials are not the same as credibility.
One’s credentials cannot give credibility to his claims, unless his claims are valid. If
his claims are found to be in want of supporting evidence, then all the credentials in

185
the world will not give credibility to his claims. It must be noted there are instances
when the claimant’s character may be brought into question for valid reasons, such
as making known one’s propensity for manipulating information to suit his or her
own purposes, however, this should not be done to the exclusion of the evidence
against the claim itself. Likewise, when responding to an opponent’s claims,
appealing to the claimant’s bias is appropriate only so far as it is evident that such
bias is affecting his claims, otherwise such an appeal is an attack on the claimant
himself rather than on the claim made by him.

Ad populum: An ad populum (Latin, “to the majority”) argument is an attempt to

validate or invalidate a claim based on the number of people who believe it to be true
or false, respectively. This form of argumentation, as with the argumentum ad
hominem, bypasses the evidence for the claim itself in order to appeal to secondary
or circumstantial evidence, which, in this case, is the number of individuals who hold
either to the truth or falsity of the claim. Critics employ this fallacy when discussing
early written evidence for the historicity of Jesus, being hasty to claim that Josephus’
mention of Jesus is “widely” considered among “scholars” to be a forgery. The truth
is that the majority of scholars regard portions of such reference to be a later addition
to Josephus’ original penmanship, but do not regard the whole of the text to be a
forgery. However, regardless of how many do believe the text to be entirely forged,
the textual and contextual evidence speaks to the contrary (as has already been
discussed), making such a view invalid, and thereby making any appeal to majority
no more solid than a house built on sand. An ad populum argument is only valid
when the majority view is accompanied with solid evidence to back its substance.
Finally, validating a proposition on the claim that “many” scholars hold a proposition
to be true, without naming who those “many” ones are, does not lend to the
credibility of the proposition itself. Such an appeal is only valid as a statistic, rather
than as supporting evidence by a given authority. A statistic, as such, should not be
presented as a form of proof, but rather as a notation to support a premise which is
just as solid without the statistic being presented. For instance, claiming that
“everyone” loves mom’s cooking speaks only to the quality of the meals prepared by
mom, rather than to “everyone’s” judgment or good taste. Whether or not anyone
outside of mom’s household tastes her food, the quality of her cooking is not affected
by the number of guests who have ever sat at her table.

Appeal to authority: An appeal to authority is an argument which also bypasses the

evidence available and instead attempts to validate a claim based in the authority of
the claimant. The higher the claimant is held in esteem or authority, the more valid is
his claim. One of the critics’ heroes and champions for their cause is Kersey Graves,
who wrote the controversial book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors. Graves’
book is praised by critics (although not universally) as be a source of truth and
reflective of an accurate and scholarly expression of comparative religion. The fact is
that Graves draws conclusions based on an improper analysis of evidence and draws
parallels where no parallels exist. An appeal to any authority, regardless of the
credentials of such an authority, is only as good as the substance of the evidence
presented by such a one. If the evidence presented by a scholar, when examined
further, is found contrary to what really is the case, then no matter how many degrees

186
one has in his name or the level of experience or field work that he can claim, his
conclusions must be regarded as unsubstantiated by evidence to the contrary. As a
final note, critics make an appeal to individuals such as Kersey Graves, Gerald
Massey, and D. M. Murdock, none of whom have the credibility to support their
claims, since such individuals' conclusions are not based on accurate research and
deduction. Any appeal to authority should carefully consider the authority to whom
the appeal is made (for not all authorities are authoritative), prior to making such an
appeal, and should not regard such an appeal as conclusive in and of itself (for any
authority is still subject to human error or predisposition which threatens his or her
analysis).

Appeal to consequences: Appeal to consequences is an attempt to invalidate a claim

based on undesirable consequences which would occur if the claim were proven true.
It is a type of appeal to emotion, which will be discusses immediately hereafter.
Critics use this claim when discussing the justice of God, by making Him out to be a
deity who is unjustly harsh and who dispenses punishment beyond what is required
for the offense. The argument is often made, “How can a loving God condemn
people to an eternity of torment?” However, such an objection is based on a finitely
human understanding of God’s person, which considers His justice apart from other
facets of His being, such as holiness and righteousness. It is because God is just that
He must dispense eternal punishment to some and eternal blessing to others. If God
did not punish the guilty, then His lack of justice would violate His righteousness, for
God cannot reward guilt. Nevertheless, the appeal is made to influence one to draw a
conclusion on a premise, based on a negative consequence that such a premise
brings, without pausing to consider whether or not the cause and purpose for such
consequence is just or unjust. In the end, through use of this fallacy, a conclusion is
made regarding a claim, without considering the specifics of the claim itself.

Appeal to emotion: Appeal to emotion is a manipulative form of argumentation

which attempts to invoke either positive or negative emotion concerning the validity
of a claim, thereby clouding one’s judgment when considering the evidence for the
claim itself. Such a fallacy is very similar to an appeal to consequence, in that the
conclusion made regarding a claim is based on how one is led to feel about the claim
itself. For instance, when questioning the sovereignty of God, critics ask, “How
could an all-powerful and loving God allow evil, or permit the occurrence of
tragedies or calamities?” The presence of evil (be it evil caused by the wickedness of
man, or by natural disaster) is due to man’s own sin. Were God to eradicate evil
altogether, such an act would be a violation of His justice in granting mankind
reprieve from the curse that he brought upon himself as the consequence for his own
sin. Additionally, the critic, in being quick to accuse God of causing evil, fails to
consider the alternative to his theory. If God removed wickedness from the heart of
man, then man would lack responsibility and individuality, being made into an
organic automaton and living a life characterized by programmed responses, rather
than by choices made through an inclination either to the good or the bad. Man’s
ability to choose between the moral and immoral is part of that which constitutes the
image of God, in which all men were created. Rather than accepting a claim based on
whether or not the claim causes sugarplums to dance within one’s head and evokes a

187
warm, pleasant feeling, the substance of the claim itself must be considered and
conclusions drawn based on what is seen beyond one’s initial feeling regarding the
claim.

Appeal to motive: Appeal to motive is a form of the ad hominem argument, where

an attempt is made to render a claim invalid based on the suspect motives of the
claimant. Again, this form of argumentation can have a certain measure of validity,
when used accurately, and without excluding solid evidence. For instance, if a
claimant is known for presenting a biased and manipulative argument in order to
persuade others to his way of thought, then such a motive should be considered.
However, at all times, the suspect motive of the claimant himself must not constitute
the primary substance of the argument against his claim, otherwise his opponents
would be employing an ad hominem argument, in which the claimant himself is
attacked without respect to the claims made by him. Critics employ an appeal to
motive when making the claim that the writers of the Gospels fabricated their own
story of a messiah and intentionally misled their congregations to believe in what
was really a false Gospel (an address on the evidence concerning the integrity of the
Gospels is forthcoming in Part five). If one’s motive cannot be determined on
circumstantial or solid evidence, such as would be indicated by a pattern of
presenting false information to further a claim, then any appeal to the claimant’s
assumed motive is purely speculative and is no basis on which to form an argument.

Appeal to novelty: An appeal to novelty is an attempt to validate a claim based on

the newness of a concept. This is most often employed when the critic appeals to
“ground-breaking” or “innovative” means of research that has been used to test their
theories. While there is truth in the notion that new technology lends itself to more
detailed research, the results of such research is only valid if it is accompanied by
supporting evidence. Such was the case with the purported Jesus family tomb. DNA
analysis was done on two of the remains, supposed to be Jesus and Mary Magdalene,
and, as a result, it was determined the two were not blood related, a fact which is in
agreement with the proposition that they were husband and wife. However, such
scientific analysis does not validate the claim that the remains did in fact belong to
Jesus and Mary, nor the notion that the relationship between the two, whoever they
were, was that of husband and wife. If a proposition is faulty at the outset, then no
research, regardless of how new and innovative, will serve to substantiate that
proposition.

Appeal to ridicule: A critic employs appeal to ridicule when he attempts to present

his opponent’s views in a nonsensical fashion. A prime example of this is the opening
segment of The Zeitgeist Movie, which makes use of a commentary by the late
comedian George Carlin, and is even accompanied with a laugh track, when
presenting Biblical truth. Later in the film, when mentioning Justin Martyr’s
explanation for pagan parallels to the Gospels, it is said that his answer was “the
devil made them do it.” While it is true that Justin blamed “wicked devils” for
influencing pagans towards fashioning myths which may bear some resemblance to
the Gospel, the segment on Justin includes a cartoon Satan appearing on the screen,
thereby leading one to regard his explanation as nonsense. Also, in the same film, the

188
horrors contained in the book of Revelation are described as “cartoonish depictions.”
Such is the tactic: to present views in such a way that the uninformed target audience
is led astray to the biased views of the one making use of the tactic known as Appeal
to Ridicule.

Association fallacy: An association fallacy, also known as “false analogy,” is one

which asserts a claim is either valid or invalid based on its resemblance or
association with another claim. When this form of argument is used to render a claim
invalid, the goal is to do so by making the claim guilty by association, as when
critics discredit Christianity as a whole based on such negative history as the
inquisition or the Salem witch trials. While those involved in these events did act in
the name of Christ, their conduct is not representative of the type of conduct
delineated in Scripture, and such figures and events should not be used as a means of
evaluating Christianity as a whole. The problem with the association fallacy is that
two things may appear similar, but, upon further analysis, are seen to be quite
distinct one from the other. For instance, the Egyptian deity Osiris is described to
have been “revived” after being dismembered, but his revivification was not a bodily
resurrection to the existence he possessed before being chopped into pieces; but
rather, was his elevation to the position of ruler of the dead. In the case of Jesus, He
rose from the dead in the same flesh-and-bone body which died on the cross. In
similar fashion, concepts such as virgin birth are applied to births that have a
supernatural character, but cannot rightly be called virgin births. This is done in order
to draw a false association between a non-virginal birth of a pagan deity and the
virgin birth of Jesus, thereby leading others to believe that one is merely a derivative
of the other, when in fact the two are clearly distinct. Also, when critic D. M.
Murdock states, “If the myths of Osiris, Isis, Horus and Set, etc., are largely
astronomical in nature; and if Christianity is highly influenced by—and is a
fulfillment of—the Egyptian religion in significant part; then Christianity too must
represent astronomical myth or astrotheology.”1 Such a claim is fallacious since it is
based on a premise which is unsupported – nay, even contradicted – by evidence.

Cherry picking: Cherry picking occurs when a person attempting to validate or

invalidate a claim draws only on the evidence which suits his or her position, while
excluding evidence to the contrary. A prime example of this fallacy is the claim that
the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr stated that certain Christian doctrines
were identical to doctrines believed by the pagans. While Justin did draw
comparisons between certain doctrines, a further reading of his apology reveals he
regarded such similarity as merely superficial, and the thrust of his argument was not
that the pagan doctrines themselves were parallel to Christian doctrine; but rather,
was an accusation against the hypocrisy of the pagans in condemning Christians for
believing in things similar, but not identical, to pagan deities. For instance, Justin
claims that Perseus was born of a virgin, as was Jesus, but he later states that Jesus is
the only true son of God and that Christian doctrine is ”alone true,” as opposed to the
pagan doctrines which were a misinterpretation, by “wicked devils,” of Hebrew
messianic prophecy. In “picking” out single statements from Justin’s overall
argument, critics mislead others into believing Justin regarded Christianity as
identical to pagan religions, when a reading of the same statement within its

189
surrounding context reveals nothing of the like. A pristine example of this fallacy in
action is the claim by D. M. Murdock that “the authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia
states: The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in [the
writings of Church father] Cyprian [200-258 A.D.]…’O, how wonderfully acted
Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born…Christ should be born.’”2
Her attempt is to show that the early church fathers regarded Christ as representative
of the sun, rather than an actual historical person. In such an attempt, she makes an
appeal to the online Catholic Encyclopedia, which also states, on the very same page
as the above quote,3 that the statement was “written in 243 and falsely ascribed to
Cyprian.” Rather than presenting evidence that the early church practiced sun
worship, Murdock has successfully refuted her own claim by appealing to a source
which states her claim is invalid.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin , “with this, therefore
because of this”), also known as “correlation proves causation,” attempts to link two
related things to each other in a cause-and-effect relationship, and is similar to the
association fallacy. The Egyptian sun god Horus is said, according to the critics, to
have risen from the dead. Horus’ so-called “resurrection” merely refers to the re-
emergence of the sun upon every new dawn. The argument is then made that Jesus is
also a solar deity, being the “sun of God,” whose resurrection bears astrological,
rather than redemptive, meaning. False analogies and associations are drawn in order
to portray Jesus as nothing more than one of the many solar deities named
throughout pagan religions and mythology, despite the overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. Critics attempt to frame the Gospel accounts of Jesus into a pattern which
fits a certain astrological scheme, all the while distorting the true meaning of the
Gospel texts, and claim that because Jesus fits into a pattern reflective of solar
deities, or so their misinterpretation goes, then the historical character of the Gospels
should rather be perceived as a metaphorical account of a messiah who did not
physically exist.

Equivocation: Equivocation occurs when a word, having multiple meanings, is used

ambiguously or in a misleading fashion in order to emphasize one’s intended
meaning for the word. Such is the case when critics claim that Attis was crucified to
a tree, when in fact the Attis myth contains no crucifixion account. Likewise, the
term “salvation” is used flippantly to liken any form of deliverance by a pagan deity
to the redemption provided by Christ’s sacrifice. A myth containing an account of a
deity ridding a people of a tyrannical king cannot rightly be compared to the eternal
salvation provided by the shedding of Jesus’ own blood and consequent death on the
cross in order to justify those who, in and of themselves, do not deserve such
justification. Nevertheless, such terms are used in order to draw parallels between
two very distinct types of salvation, being distinct by means of such factors as the
work of the savior, the scope of the salvation provided, and the benefits and
longevity secured by such salvation.

False attribution: The fallacy of false attribution is an attempt to validate a claim by

appealing to a source which is unqualified in the field of study or which is
unidentified by name. This is not to say that a claim such as “ancient Egyptians

190
worshiped the sun” is invalid because no “ancient Egyptian” is identified by name,
since substantial evidence exists to back such a claim. The fallacy of false attribution
is used when a claim is made based purely on an unidentified or unqualified source.
For instance, when critic D. M. Murdock states, concerning the procession of the
equinoxes, that a “ruling elite and priestly faction” knew of such things before its
discovery by Hipparchus during the second century B.C., she is making such a claim
which is unsupported by historical evidence. She goes to no length to identify just
who these individuals were, nor does she provide support for her claim. The point
she was attempting to make is that the Ages of the Zodiac were known prior to their
reported discovery, thereby making plausible the claim that ancient Egyptians
fashioned their mythology after such concepts, setting the stage for an adoption of
such concepts by the Gospel writers in composing their account of Jesus of Nazareth.
An “appeal to motive” could correctly be employed in responding to her claim, since
there is no evidence to support her statement, which ever-so-conveniently makes
valid her otherwise implausible argument. In short, such a use of the fallacy of false
attribution is nothing more than pulling a magical name out of a hat and claiming
that such person(s) give credibility to a particular claim, reducing the evidence to
nothing more than a “because he said so” argument.

False dilemma: The fallacy of a false dilemma arises when only two possible
options are considered when there are indeed other alternatives. For instance, the
claim that there is either no God or that God is harsh and overly judgmental, based
on passages in Scripture in which divine punishment is carried out, fails to consider
other passages in Scripture which portray God as loving and full of mercy. Likewise,
the claim that either there is no God or God is the cause of evil, since He if the First
Cause of all things, fails to consider that evil is not a “thing” and does not take into
account the true origin of evil. A false dilemma also arises when derived conclusions
creates a negative situation that does not actually exist.

Hasty generalization: Hasty generalization is an attempt to validate or invalidate a

claim without reviewing or considering the full evidence for or against the matter. In
this form of fallacious logic, conclusions are reached on a he-said-so basis.
Regardless of the validity or accuracy of the information provided by the entrusted
source, if no further evidence is reviewed then the conclusions are reached hastily
and on an uninformed basis. A perfect example of this fallacy is the suggestion that
since Jesus’ birthday is celebrated on December 25th, the date that many ancient
cultures held celebrations in honor of a solar deity, that such is further evidence Jesus
is nothing more than another sun god. However, when one researches this claim
further (and one would not need to search for long), it would be discovered that the
attribution of December 25th to the date of Jesus’ birth is a later addition to
Christianity and is not reflective of the date, nor likely even the season, when Jesus
was really born.

Incomplete comparison: An incomplete comparison is drawn when something is

affirmed about a thing, in comparison with another, without providing reasons for
that which is being affirmed. Such a fallacy is evident when a critic suggests that the
Christian observance of the Lord’s Supper is a practice adopted from pagan

191
communal rituals, without further exploring the meaning and significance of each
observance. Upon further investigation, it would be discovered that the pagan ritual
in view bears characteristics which make it distinct from the Lord’s Supper. It would
further be observed that the Lord’s Supper is a continuation of the covenant meals
described in the Old Testament. Many cultures memorialized a covenant with a meal
shared between the participants, and such is the practice of the Lord’s Supper. Still,
the Lord’s Supper, while being a communal meal by definition, does not possess the
same religious or spiritual characteristics as pagan communal meals. The Lord’s
Supper can only be compared to pagan communal meals in a very superficial sense,
for beneath the appearance of a gathering of participants to observe a ritual with
respect to their deity, the Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the sacrifice that God made
in the giving of His own body and blood for the lives of the participants, and such is
not characterized by communal meals observed by pagan religions.

Judgmental language: An argument using judgmental language is that which

attempts to invoke a biased conclusion in others by rendering a claim invalid based
on how one is made to feel about the claim, based on the prejudicial comments being
made with regard to the claim itself. This is similar to the fallacy known as appeal to
emotion. This fallacy is employed in The Zeitgeist Movie when, after presenting
falsified evidence in favor of the filmmakers’ claims, Christianity is declared to be
“the fraud of the age.” Such invokes a conclusion by the viewer, without the viewer
feeling persuaded to put such claim to the test, or to do so after being manipulated to
a predisposed mindset that Christianity is likely a fraud.

Moving the goalpost: Moving the goalpost, also known as “raising the bar,” is a
type of argumentation in which the opponent of a claim requires evidence greater
than what which was already presented, and following the presentation of the greater
evidence, the opponent challenges the claimant to present even further evidence to
validate the claim, thus constantly “raising the bar” on the level of evidence which
must be presented, or changing the “goal” which must be achieved, before the claim
is considered valid. In so doing, the evidence already presented in favor of a claim is
regarded as insufficient and further evidence is demanded, so beginning a never-
ending cycle of burden of proof. This argument is used by critics who deny the
historicity of Jesus and continue to demand evidence that He did in fact exist, despite
the hard data which does exist within ancient writings. If the honest critic is in search
of an ancient text referencing Jesus as an historical figure, then one needs to look no
further than the Gospels themselves. Yet, the critic dismisses such solid evidence and
seeks further texts, which, when presented, are again dismissed by a biased
judgment. While references to Jesus are not abundant among ancient writers, critics
fail to consider the reasons why Jesus would not have been a hot topic among such
writers. Rather than seeking the reasons for the silence, they claim that such silence
is evidence that Jesus did not exist, all the while dismissing, on false grounds, the
documentation that does exist within ancient texts.

Negative proof: The Negative Proof fallacy is the assertion that a claim is false
because it cannot be proven true, or proven true because it cannot be proven false.
This often takes the form of an argument from silence, in which the lack of

192
references to an event is perceived as an indication that such an event never took
place. An example of the critics’ use of this argument is the claim that Herod’s
massacre of the children in and around Bethlehem is a fictitious event described in
Matthew’s Gospel. Since the event is only recorded by Matthew, and no other
ancient writer, it is assumed that Matthew must have simply made it up. However,
the critic, in employing this fallacy, fails to ask the question why should there be an
extra-Biblical mention of this occurrence? The event was in line with Herod’s
character, and likely was regarded as being of such little significance in antiquity, it
is not likely it would have merited a place in a history or commentary of the time.
Also, the critic fails to regard the Biblical books as historical books, thus clouding
his or her judgment in the search for historical data.

Poisoning the well: Poisoning the well, similar to the fallacy known as “appeal to
ridicule,” is an attempt to discredit a claim by poking fun at, or by discrediting, either
the claim or the claimant, or to present such in a negative light, thereby clouding the
minds of those to whom the argument is being presented. Such a form of
argumentation is employed when a critic accuses Christianity of being a prejudicial
and condemning religion, based on events or people throughout church history who
have acted in a less-than-favorable manner in the name of Christ. So it is that such
things as the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, or hypocrisy among modern day
believers fuel the fire for such an argument. The fallacy in presenting such an
argument is not the drawing of attention to such things, for indeed there have been,
since the days of the early church, those who have performed truly wicked acts in the
name of Christ, all the while waving the banner of the Lord or clinging a Bible to
their chest. Rather, the fallacy is in recognizing such as a true expression of the
Christian spirit, and to present it as typical of the Gospel of Christ.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin, “after this, therefore
because of this”) is an attempt to render a claim invalid by attributing to it a cause-
and-effect relationship to an earlier claim, making the latter merely the result of the
former, by virtue of temporal sequence and without regard to evidence to the
contrary. The distinction of this argument from a “cum hoc ergo propter hoc”
argument is the placement of events within a temporal sequence.

Quoting out of context: Quoting out of context, also known as “contextomy,” is a

fallacy in which words are isolated from their surroundings and used on a stand-
alone basis, in which they appear to state something other than what was stated in
their broader form. By using this form of argumentation, a claimant can manipulate
evidence, such as the words of a person of authority in the matter, to suit his or her
purposes. This fallacy is similar to “cherry picking” in that a statement is isolated or
misapplied to serve a purpose for which, in truth, it does not serve. Such is the case
with the claim that the Apostle Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection, rather than a
bodily resurrection, based on a passage in his letter to the Corinthian church (2 Cor
15: 35-58 For an analysis of this passage, see Part four under the heading “Jesus’
resurrection was a bodily resurrection”).

193
Straw man argument: A straw man argument is one in which an opposing
claimant’s argument is intentionally misrepresented in order to better refute the
argument. This is done by devising an argument similar, on the surface, to the
claimant’s position, but bearing major differences underneath its surface
resemblance. This fabricated argument is then erected, as a “straw man” or
scarecrow, and presented as the claimant’s actual position, while in fact bearing only
an insignificant resemblance to that which he or she believes to be true. The purpose
for such a device is to formulate an argument which lacks the persuading force of the
claimant’s original position, and is then easier to refute. In the end, the claimant’s
original argument remains uncontested, as the “straw man,” or fabricated claim, is
not identical to the claimant’s original position. This is yet another fallacy critics
employ when appealing to statements by Justin Martyr that Christian and pagan
doctrines are virtually identical (see above under “Cherry picking”). In to doing, the
critic presents Justin as making an argument which, in truth, is not being made by
him. It is essentially “putting words in his mouth” by presenting him in such a light
so as to support the critics’ claim that Christianity is a derivation of pagan religions,
thereby providing the critic with an advocate (in this case, Justin) among those
otherwise regarded as being on the opposite side of the argument.

Style over substance: The fallacy known as “style over substance” concerns itself
with the presentation of the claim, rather than the claim itself. Thus, a claim
presented in a sloppy fashion is regarded to have little validity, despite the solidity of
the claim’s content. This form of argumentation can sometimes be an “ad hominem”
form of argumentation, in which the one presenting the claim is presented as one
unqualified to do so. An example of this fallacy in action is the attack critics make
against Christian apologist Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ. In his
book, he conducts interviews with leading apologists and scholars in his presentation
of evidence to the historicity of Jesus. The critic, rather than considering the validity
of the evidence presented, disregards such evidence and asks, “Why did he not
interview a skeptic?” In so doing, the substance of Strobel’s argument is set aside
and the focus of the critic’s argument is instead concentrated on the manner by which
Strobel presented his case.

Wrong direction: A wrong direction fallacy is one in which the cause of a thing is
said to be its effect, thereby reversing the sequence of temporal events. This fallacy
attempts to argue using the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” method, but rather than
referencing an earlier event (Event A) and suggesting it is the cause of a later event
(Event B), this fallacy borrows a later Event B and displaces it in time to a point
prior to Event A. Such reasoning is called anachronistic, for its reversal of the natural
chronological order of events. This fallacy is evident in the critics’ suggestion that
the Roman Mithraic religion was an inspiration for the Gospel writers, despite the
fact that Mithra was not introduced to Roman religion until after the Gospels had
been composed. If anything was borrowed one from the other it would have been the
Mithraists borrowing doctrine from the Christians.

194
V. Parallel vs. commonality
In their attempts to prove that the Gospel is a reworking of pre-Christian pagan myths,
critics muddle the definition of the word “parallel” in their claims that so-called
“counterpart” pagan deities were the inspiration for the Gospel writers. In order for a
thing to be parallel to another, the two must share elements which are nearly identical in
their very essence. By contrast, a commonality or similarity between one thing and
another is based on elements which place the two in a relationship which may seen as
similar, but not so far as would cause those elements to be considered analogous to each
other. For instance, critics claim that the Christian theme of a resurrected Savior is merely
a reworking of such pagan myths as Osiris and Tammuz, both of whom, they say, rose
from the dead, however, an examination of the myths themselves reveal that Osiris’
resurrection is just an expression of his postmortem life as ruler of the Underworld, and
Tammuz’ resurrection is merely reflective of the changing of the seasons. Likewise, as
explained under a previous heading, critics apply terms such as “savior,” “baptism,” and
“virgin birth” to figures or things to which such terms do not rightly apply. In so doing,
they are comparing the proverbial “apples to oranges.” In order for two concepts to truly
form a parallel, the parallel must exist beneath the surface, or beyond what merely
appears to be the case to someone not well-educated in such concepts. Such is a snare of
critics whose intent it is to deceive the public by drawing parallels between things or
concepts which do not share the same essential qualities or attributes. The truth is that the
parallels which critics make between Jesus and pagan deities lack the characteristics of a
true parallel. While the myth concerning a pagan deity may contain an aspect or trait
which is similar, in a superficial sense, to the Gospel account of Jesus, it requires much
more resemblance between the two before one can truly be considered a parallel to the
other. Additionally, the traits of pagan myths (such as virgin birth, for instance) which are
perceived to be similar to the Gospels, when examined further, bear very little
resemblance at all to what Scripture says concerning Jesus (since many so-called “virgin-
born” pagan deities were in fact not born of a virgin), reducing to a minimum the degree
of comparison between the two.

195
Note: Many of the references in this section will have emphasis added, and all such
emphasis is added by the present writer.

“Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” ~ The Westminster Shorter
Catechism

How is Jesus distinct from these other so-called “virgin-born, resurrected saviors?”
This section will discuss the superiority of Christ over pagan deities. In his book The
Knowledge of the Holy, A. W. Tozer opens his first chapter by saying, “What comes into
our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.”1 Anselm, an
eleventh century philosopher, once said, “… let me seek thee in longing, let me long for
thee in seeking; let me find thee in love, and love thee in finding.”2 The pursuit of God is
a journey which rewards everyone who embarks on such a quest, provided that the seeker
sets sail with a heart longing for the truth. Ravi Zacharias, reflecting on his conversion to
Christianity, states, “I came to Him because I did not know which way to turn. I have
remained with Him because there is no other way I wish to turn. I came to Him longing
for something I did not have. I remain with Him because I have something I will not
trade. I came to Him as a stranger. I remain with Him in the most intimate of friendships.
I came to Him unsure about the future. I remain with Him certain about my destiny.”3

I. The Son of God is one with the Father and the Spirit
A proper discussion on the person of Jesus the Messiah must address the doctrine of
the Trinity. Briefly stated, the Trinity refers to the three-fold nature of God, as the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three exist not as three separate beings, but as one
being with three persons. Each person is as much God as the others, each possessing the
fullness of all the attributes, or inherent qualities, of God. The Trinity does not refer to a
hierarchy of deities, although the Son is said to have been “begotten” of the Father, and
the Holy Spirit is said to be “sent” by the Son. Such descriptions refer to a purpose (that
is, their role in God’s work of redemption) rather than denoting a state of inferiority either
in essence or being.

There is one God

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye
may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God
formed, neither shall there be after me. (Isa 43:10)

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and
tremble. (Jas 2:19)

God is a spirit
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Jn
4:24)

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2
Cor 3:17)

197
 There are passages in Scripture which refer to God as having physical
characteristics, such as hands or a face. Such depictions are known as
anthropomorphisms, the application of human qualities to a non-human thing or
being, as in Isaiah 31:3, where it is stated, “…the LORD shall stretch out his hand.”
God is a being whose nature is so far above human understanding, that He uses such
language in order to make Himself known to the finite human mind in ways which
we would not otherwise be able to comprehend.

God is a person and performs functions in accordance with personality

He thinks and possesses knowledge

O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. (Ps 139:1)

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to
his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jer 17:10)

He formulates plans
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto
me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the
thing whereto I sent it. (Isa 55:11)

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to
them who are the called according to his purpose. (Rom 8:28)

He has emotions
The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an
everlasting love: therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee. (Jer 31:3)

Thus shall mine anger be accomplished, and I will cause my fury to rest upon
them, and I will be comforted: and they shall know that I the LORD have
spoken it in my zeal, when I have accomplished my fury in them. (Ez 5:13)

Nevertheless for thy great mercies’ sake thou didst not utterly consume them,
nor forsake them; for thou art a gracious and merciful God. (Neh 9:31)

He interacts with others

And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in
Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their
sorrows; And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians,
and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land
flowing with milk and honey. (Ex 3:7-8)

Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him
on high, because he hath known my name. (Ps 91:14)

198
He is actively working
O LORD, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all: the
earth is full of thy riches. (Ps 104:24)

For the LORD thy God hath blessed thee in all the works of thy hand: he
knoweth thy walking through this great wilderness: these forty years the LORD
thy God hath been with thee; thou hast lacked nothing. (Deut 2:7)

And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up
kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know
understanding: (Dan 2:21)

God is more than one person

And God said, Let us make man in our image. (Gen 1:26)

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not
understand one another’s speech. (Gen 11:7)
The word translated “God” in the above two passages is the Hebrew word “Elohim,”
which is the plural form of the word El and is the name of God as the Creator and
Judge of the universe.

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies
thy footstool. (Ps 110:1)

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [meaning “God with us”]. (Isa 7:14)

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon
his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isa 9:6)
Here, a prophecy foretelling the birth of Christ, the Son of God, identifies Him as
God.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous
Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in
the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is
his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Jer
23:5-6)
Again, here is a prophecy concerning Christ, in which the Lord (God the Father)
declares that Christ (God the Son) is “Lord.”

God is identified as three persons

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Mt 28:19)
Note that the three designations (Father, Son, and Spirit) are identified as having one
name, not three different names.

199
And Jesus [the Son of God], when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the
water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God
descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice [God the Father] from
heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Mt 3:16)

And the angel answered and said unto [Mary], The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest [God the Father] shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Lk 1:35)

But when the Comforter {the Spirit of God] is come, whom I [Jesus, the Son of God]
will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from
the Father, he shall testify of me. (Jn 15:26}

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the
Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. (2 Cor 13:14)
The mention of the three persons of the Trinity was a common salutation among the
early Christians, as shown in many of the letters comprising the New Testament
books.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word [identified as
Jesus; cf. Jn 1:1], and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.(1 Jn 5:7)

Each of the three persons of the Godhead does the work of God
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the
Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you,
and peace, be multiplied. (1 Pet 1:2)

If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give
you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth;
whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but
ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you
comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more;
but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am
in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my
Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him,
not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the
world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words:
and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with
him. (Jn 14.15-23)

Each person of the Godhead was involved in the creation of the universe

Concerning the Father

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7)

200
 I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are
throughout all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth:
and the heavens are the work of thy hands. (Ps 102:24-25)

Concerning the Son

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that
was made. (Jn 1.3)

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,
or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. (Col 1.16)

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed
heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. (Heb 1.2)

Concerning the Holy Spirit

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of
the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen 1:2)
The Hebrew word used here for “moved” means to “to brood” and carries
the connotation of a nurturing hen warming the eggs from which her
offspring would come forth.

The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given
me life. (Job 33:4)

None of the divine persons are inferior to another, but are each equal in essence
and authority

The Son is not inferior to the Father

But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore
the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the
Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with
God. … For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that
himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may
marvel. … For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment
unto the Son: That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the
Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent
him. (Jn 5:17-18, 20, 22-23)

I [Christ] and my Father are one. (Jn 10:30)

Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Rom 9:5)

For in [Christ] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Col 2:9)

201
 The totality of the essence of the Godhead was contained in the human body
fashioned for Jesus

Question: How are the following two passages reconciled if the Son is not
inferior to the Father?

I [Christ] and my Father are one. (Jn 10:30)

Ye have heard how I [Christ] said unto you, I go away, and come again
unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the
Father: for my Father is greater than I. (Jn 14.28)

Christianity has historically recognized a distinction between the

relationships of the divine persons of the Trinity, in differentiating
between their essence and their work. In regards to the essence of God,
His persons are ontologically equal; that is, each is equal in His being
or equal with regards to who each one is in essence or nature. However,
the persons of the Godhead may be subordinate one to another in
relation to their work or modes of operation, thus making the Son
economically subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit, economically
subordinate to the Son, while each remains ontologically equal to the
other persons. Thus, the Son is sent by the Father, who is equal in
essence to the Son, and the Spirit is sent by the Son, who is equal in
essence to the Spirit. While there does not exist a hierarchy within the
Godhead, there does exist an order of authority by which the works of
each person are accomplished.

The Spirit is not inferior to the Son

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man [Christ], it shall be
forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be
forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Mt 12:32)

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through

sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of
Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Pet 1:2)

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he
might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the
Spirit: (1 Pet 3:18)

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father,
even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of
me: (Jn 15:26)

202
Some special considerations

What is meant by “person?”

These three persons of the Godhead are not merely three facets of one
personality. Christians speak of God as being three persons, but personality,
when attributed to God, is not like the personality attributed to a human being. A
“person” is defined as an individual, and individuality cannot properly be
attributed to the persons within the Godhead, for not one of the three divine
persons exist separately from the others. God is not three separate persons, but
three distinctions within one being. The description of God as three persons is
the result of an attempt by the human mind to understand that which a finite
mind cannot understand. God is so above even our highest of thoughts;
therefore, in understanding who God is, we need to think of Him in ways which
we can comprehend, yet in ways which cannot fully and most properly describe
His essence. Each member of the Godhead possesses qualities inherent in
personality, such as mind, emotion, and will, and while each are referred to by
the use of individual pronouns (I, You, He), each member is not to be thought of
as an separate individual. The illness known as schizophrenia is described as the
presence of more than one personality within a single human mind, in which
more than one personality exists within one person, and each personality has its
own interests, passions, temperament, and will – which may or may not be in
harmony with those of another personality within the same mind. Any
understanding of the Trinity must not be likened to such a condition. In the case
of the illness, the personalities do not act or think in concurrence with one
another, nor do they often converse with one another. When conversation does
occur, the personalities in conversation shift in and out of existence depending
on which personality is speaking at the time. Typically, each personality is
unaware of the presence of the other personalities contained within the same
mind. However, the persons of the Godhead are aware of each other, converse
with one another, and work with one another, and this they do in perfect unison,
one never opposing or challenging the other. Additionally, the conversation
among the Godhead is very much unlike the dialogue which occurs between
humans. As A. W. Tozer explains, “the persons of the Godhead do not speak in
time, but in immediate communion which knows not sound, effect, or motion.”4
It is proper to say that the members of the Godhead are both separate and
inseparable; that each is self-existent, yet inherently united in being with the
others; that each operate in a personal manner, yet in unison and conjunction
with the whole of the Godhead. Ultimately, man cannot understand who God is,
but he can try to come to an understanding, and in the trying he comes to find
that the divine union is so much greater than he will ever comprehend, and it is
this vast gulf between divinity and humanity which is most impressive and
compulsive to the seeker of truth. That is the mystery of the Godhead: that such
a one would not only be concerned with and interested in such lowly a creature
as man, but that He would pour all of His love and affection on man, take on
such a lowly form as man, and shed His own blood so that those who would
otherwise surely perish would be blessed with everlasting life.

203
Is Christianity to be considered monotheistic or polytheistic?
Monotheistic religion is a religion which recognizes one deity, whereas
polytheistic religion recognizes more than one deity. Many world mythologies,
such as Rome and Greece, contain a pantheon of gods and goddesses, and these
deities sire offspring who become deities themselves. Christianity is a strictly
monotheistic religion, despite its recognition of a three-fold Godhead, since the
persons of the Trinity comprise a single supreme being. The Father is God, not a
god; the Son is God, not a god; and the Spirit is God, not a god.

How can a father and a son be one and the same?

In answering this question, it must first be considered what is meant by
sonship, in relation to Christ. For the ancient Hebrew, to be a “son of” another
meant to be “of the order of” that one. Thus, in the first book of Kings (20:35) it
is said that “a certain man of the sons of the prophets [denoting similarity of
office, not lineage or biological relation] said unto his fellow by the word of
Jehovah, Smite me, I pray thee.” The term “son of God” is used in Scripture as a
reference to both men and angels. Both sonship and fatherhood carried more
than a genealogical meaning to the ancient mind, for it also denoted similarity or
sameness in nature or being. In Isaiah, the coming Messiah, the Son of God, is
also named as the “Everlasting Father,” denoting His eternal nature – that He is
one with eternity; that He is the Eternal Father; that He and eternity are
inseparable. Christ, as the only “Son of God,” is one who shares the nature of
God, in a full and complete sense, unlike men, who merely bear God's image or
likeness in a greatly diminished sense. In the same fashion, Christ is also named
as the “Son of Man,” in that He “took on the likeness of sinful flesh” and “was
tempted in all points as are we,” as stated by the apostle Paul. If the terms Son of
God and Son of Man referred to a relationship consisting of actual physical and
ontological, or real, generation or procession, then one relationship would of
necessity negate the other, since no person physically born of one being can
rightly be said to have been born of another being in addition. In the relationship
between God the Father and God the Son, sonship does not denote inferiority to
fatherhood, but oneness with fatherhood, since the Son shares in the essence and
being of His Father. In referring to Jesus as the Son of God, Scripture is not
identifying Him as one sired of God, as Perseus was sired of Zeus. His sonship
with the Father does not make Christ the Father's offspring, since sonship is not
a quality the second Person of the Trinity assumed when He was conceived in
Mary's womb. Christ never became the Son of God; rather, He always was the
Son of God, by virtue of His eternal, unchanging nature and oneness with the
Father. When He was sent to this world and assumed mortal flesh, He was sent
as one who had always been God's Son. Likewise, since He has eternally been
the Son of God, or one who shared in the divine nature, the Father has eternally
been Christ's Father. Eternal sonship is eternally united with eternal fatherhood.

If Christ's sonship to the Father is eternal, why is He referred to as

firstborn and begotten?
Christ is referred to as God's “only begotten Son” in the following passages:

204
 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and
truth. (Jn 1:14)

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. For God so loved the
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his
Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through
him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he
that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in
the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Jn 3:16-18)

In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent
his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (I
Jn 4:9)

In Word Meanings in the New Testament, Ralph Earle states that the oldest
Greek manuscripts of John 1:14 read monogenes theos, literally “only begotten
God,”5 a clear reference to Christ's deity. The book of Hebrews also uses the
word monogenes (“only begotten”) in reference to Isaac, the son of Abraham.

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had
received the promises offered up his only begotten son. (Heb 11:17)

Abraham was the father of both Isaac and Ishmael, so Isaac was not literally his
“only begotten” son. Isaac was also the younger of the two sons. Thus, Isaac was
neither the “only begotten” nor “firstborn” of Abraham. The significance of
Isaac is that he was the child of promise. Isaac was the son through whom God's
promise was fulfilled to Abraham. As such, Isaac became Abraham's heir, not
because he was the oldest of Abraham's sons, but because he was the son
selected to be heir. Christ is the only begotten of God in that He was the
promised Messiah, and through Him alone does salvation come to God's elect.

In the following passages, Christ is said to be “Firstborn”:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.
(Col 1:15)

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the
preeminence. (Col 1:18)

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this
day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he
shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten

205
 into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(Heb 1:5-6)

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first
begotten of the dead. (Rev 1:5)

In ancient times, the identification of a child being “firstborn” was not strictly
a reference to birth order; but rather, to the child's position as heir to his father's
inheritance. Even if a son was an only child, he was still referred to as firstborn,
since he was his father's heir. At times, when there were two or more sons born
in a family, the oldest son would not be considered “firstborn” if he was not the
one to whom was granted the father's inheritance. The “firstborn” was the
father's heir by virtue of His father's selection, not by virtue of an earlier date of
birth. Ralph Earle, in the work cited above, states that the word translated
“firstborn” in Colossians (1:15) is prototokos, which “suggests both priority and
supremacy,”6 rather than a temporal point of origin. In naming Christ as the
firstborn of every creature, Scripture is not saying that Christ was the first
created being, created before anything else. The apostle Paul stated that Christ
possessed the fullness of the Godhead, which includes eternality, and thereby
negates any notion of a point of origin for such a being. Rather, the point is that
Christ existed before creation, not existing as one who had previously been
created, but as one who had always existed, as the uncreated Creator of all
things. However, although the Son is equal with the Father in nature, it has
pleased the Father to grant supremacy to the Son, and in this sense, the Son is
the heir, as a firstborn, of all creation. Later in Colossians (1:18) and in
Revelation, Christ is named as “firstborn” and “first begotten” of the dead. This
does not mean that He was the first person to ever have experienced a
resurrection, for others had been resurrected before Him, by the prophet Elijah
and also by Christ Himself, in the case of Lazarus. These resurrections were
unlike that of Christ, and the distinctions will be discussed later in this work.
Here, it only need be said that the references to Christ as “firstborn of the dead”
is a reference to His preeminence over all things. He is “firstborn” (KJV) in
order that he “might have supremacy” (NIV) or “have first place” (NASB). The
references to Christ being firstborn of creation, of angels, or of the dead are
declarations that He is supreme and that to Him has been granted the highest
position of all. The broader context of the passage in Hebrews, below, illustrates
that Christ's identification as “firstborn” and “first begotten” is directly related to
His inheritance and elevation as the Son of God.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto
the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by
his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he
made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,
when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of
the Majesty on high: Being made so much better than the angels, as he
hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto

206
 which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have
I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to
me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the
world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (Heb 1:1-6)

It is because of this supremacy, or His status as firstborn or heir of all things,

that it can be said that the Father “hath highly exalted him, and given him a
name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
the Father.” (Phil 2:9-11)

A note on Horus and Osiris

In her booklet The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist Part 1, D. M. Murdock
states, “As we explore the original Egyptian mythos and ritual upon which much
of Christianity was evidently founded, it needs to be kept in mind that the gods
Osiris and Horus in particular were frequently interchangeable and combined, as
in 'I and the Father are one.' (Jn 10:30) In fact, as part of the mythos, Osiris was
"re-born under the form of Horus," as we have seen.”7 In the Egyptian myth,
Horus and Osiris are father and son, but they are not one being. Horus was born
by Isis after she was impregnated by the post-mortem Osiris, as detailed in Part
one of this book. Prior to this birth, Horus did not exist, and he was born as a
figure who was separate from Osiris. A mere perusal of the Horus myth will
denounce any suggested correlation between the relationship of Horus to his
father and the relationship of Jesus to His Father. In addition, the phrase “I and
my father are one,” or any alternate form thereof, is not stated in the Horus
myth. In later mythology, Horus and Osiris were indeed merged, but this was a
common practice to merge one deity with another as religious beliefs evolved.
At times, a deity from one pantheon, such as Egyptian, would be merged with a
deity belonging to another pantheon altogether, such as Grecian. Such a merger
was not due to any pre-existing relationship between the two figures; but rather,
to a change in the deities' personages or representations. Within pagan
mythology, Egyptian or otherwise, a deity commonly undergoes alterations.
Sometimes this constitutes a change in form, a change in symbolism and
representation, a change in worship, and a change in name. No such alteration
can be said of Jesus of Nazareth, since the Gospel of Christ does not change.
What was taught by Jesus and His disciples is still taught today by those who
believe in Him. Whereas a pagan deity may change from one age to the next,
Jesus has always been, and will forever be, the eternal Son of God the Father.

II. The Son of God is pre-existent

In pagan mythology, anyone who is said to be a son of a god always had a definite
beginning. Pagan mythology does not contain mention of any sons of god who existed
prior to conception. Such is not the case with Jesus, the Son of the one, true God.

207
As the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus existed before being born to Mary

The testimony of prophets concerning the coming Messiah

The testimony of Isaiah
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government
shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful
Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isa 9:6)

“Everlasting Father” is a phrase which literally means “Father of

Eternity.” It has been asked, if Jesus is the Son of God, how can He be
referred to as a Father? It was a Hebrew idiom to use the position of
fatherhood to denote ownership, in addition to a relationship with
another person. Thus, to be the father of a thing is to be the owner of
that thing. It is an expression somewhat similar to the concept of Father
Time, in that “Father Time” is a personage who is said to own and
control time itself. In referring to the Messiah as the Father of Eternity,
Isaiah is literally identifying Him as “He who possesses eternity,”
something which can only be said of God, the only eternal being. In the
Jewish targums, Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible, the
expression “Father of Eternity” is translated as “he who lives forever.”

The testimony of Micah

But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the
thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to
be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.
(Micah 5:2)

The phrase ”from of old” literally means “days of immeasurable time”1

The testimony of John the Baptist

On the morrow [John] seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold,
the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world! This is he of
whom I said, After me cometh a man who is come before me: for he
was before me. (Jn 1:29-30)

It must be remembered that John was six months older than his
cousin Jesus (see Lk ch 1), yet here he declares that Jesus came
“before” him.

The testimony of Jesus

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my [Jesus’] day; and he saw it, and
was glad. The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years
old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I
say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. They took up stones
therefore to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the
temple. (Jn 8:56-59)

208
 [Jesus said,] And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with
the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (Jn 17:5)

As Creator
Jesus – the Word, the only begotten of the Father – was present “in the
beginning,” at creation. In Genesis (1:1) it is said “In the beginning God created
the heavens and the earth.” The Hebrew word translated “God” there is the word
“Elohim,” which is a plural name, a reference to the Trinity.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. And the
Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
(Jn 1:1-2, 14)

for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth,
things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or
principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and
unto him. (Col 1:16)

God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by
divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days
spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things,
through whom also he made the worlds. And, Thou, Lord, in the
beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the
works of thy hands. (Heb 1:1-2, 10)

As the Word
In the Old Testament, the Logos, or Word of God, is used metaphorically, but
in John’s Gospel, the Logos is identified as the second person of the Trinity. The
Word was with God before time began, since He was with God in the beginning,
when time began. As words convey the mind of a man, so does the Word of God
reveal the mind and purpose of God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. … And the
Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
(Jn 1:1-2, 14)

And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and he that
sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteous he doth judge and
make war. And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many
diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he
himself. And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his
name is called The Word of God. (Rev 19:11-13)

209
 All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one
knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. (Lk
10:22)

No longer do I call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his
lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I heard from
my Father, I have made known unto you. (Jn 15:15)

As the Angel of the Lord

A theophany is a physical manifestation of God. Such a manifestation may be
an appearance in physical form, either human form or an element known to man,
such as smoke or fire. The instances in Scripture when God appeared as a man,
it was just that – as a man, not taking on actual flesh and bone (as was the case
when Jesus was born of Mary). Some Old Testament examples of theophanies
are: the cloud and the pillar of fire which guided the Hebrew people through the
wilderness after their exodus from Egypt, the burning bush, and the lamp which
appeared to Abraham (Gen ch 15).

In the Old Testament, the principal theophany is the Angel of the Lord, also
known as the Angel of Yahweh. It was in this form which God appeared most
often. Also, it is important to distinguish an angel of the Lord from the Angel of
the Lord. No mere angel is referred to as the Angel of the Lord or the Angel of
Yahweh. An angel, in the commonly-understood sense of the word, is a created
being; therefore, God cannot be properly called an angel according to the most
common understanding of the word. However, the word “angel” refers to an
office, not a state of being. The English word “angel” comes from a Hebrew
word meaning “messenger.” Angels, by definition, are messengers of God,
which was the precise function of the Angel of the Lord. What distinguishes the
Angel from other angels is that the Angel of the Lord is God Himself, or, to be
more precise, the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah. No mere angel is referred to as
the Angel of the Lord or the Angel of Yahweh.

The Angel of Yahweh is identified as God

The Angel identifies Himself using the very name of God – I

AM (YHWH)
Now Moses was keeping the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the
priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the back of the wilderness,
and came to the mountain of God, unto Horeb. And the angel of
Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a
bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and
the bush was not consumed. … And Moses said unto God, Behold,
when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them,
The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say
to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? And God
said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou

210
say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Ex
3:1-2, 13-14)

Withholding Isaac from the Angel of Jehovah is the same as

withholding him from God
And the angel of Jehovah called unto him out of heaven, and said,
Abraham, Abraham. And he said, Here I am. And he said, Lay not
thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him. For now
I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy
son, thine only son, from me. (Gen 22.11-12)

Being in the presence of the angel of the Lord is the same as

being in the presence of God
But the angel of Jehovah did no more appear to Manoah or to his
wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Jehovah. And
Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have
seen God. (Judg 13:21-22)

The Angel of the Lord made promises on His own authority,

promises which only God could cause to be fulfilled
And the angel of Jehovah said unto her, I will greatly multiply thy
seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. (Gen 16.10)

The Angel of the Lord forgave sin, which only God can do
Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him
not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in
him. (Ex 23.21)

The Angel of the Lord received worship, which angels do not

receive
The Angel of the Lord (identified here as the Prince of Jehovah’s
host) received worship from Joshua, whereas ordinary angels
rebuked man when he responded in worship. Also, the Angel
echoed the same words spoken to Moses, at the burning bush,
concerning the ground on which Joshua stood as being holy
ground.

And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he

lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man
over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua
went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our
adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as prince of the host of
Jehovah am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the
earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord
unto his servant? And the prince of Jehovah’s host said unto
Joshua, Put off thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place

211
 whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so. (Josh
5:13-15; cf. Ex 3:5)

The Angel of Yahweh is identified as a being other than God

The passages above identified the Angel as God. Yet, elsewhere the
Angel is described as a Person distinct from God in that the Angel
interacts with Jehovah. Such passages illustrate Old Testament
allusions to the divine Trinity – that God is one being consisting of
three distinct persons.

The angel of Yahweh intercedes to Yahweh for Israel. Then the

angel of Jehovah answered and said, O Jehovah of hosts, how long
wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah,
against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten
years? (Zech 1:12)

Both the Angel and Jesus have an intercessory ministry

The angel of Yahweh intercedes to Yahweh for Israel. Then the angel of
Jehovah answered and said, O Jehovah of hosts, how long wilt thou not
have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou
hast had indignation these threescore and ten years? (Zech 1:12)

For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself
man, Christ Jesus. (I Tim 2:5)

These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said,
Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee:
… And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I
come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast
given me, that they may be one, even as we are. (Jn 17:1, 11)

Wherefore also [Christ] is able to save to the uttermost them that draw
near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession
for them. (Heb 7:25)

My little children, these things write I unto you that ye may not sin.
And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
the righteous. (I Jn 2:1)

The Angel of the Lord is not mentioned in Scripture following

Christ’s incarnation
The Angel no longer appears after the incarnation of Christ. After His
incarnation in human flesh, Jesus continued His activity as the
incarnate Son of God. The New Testament makes references to
ordinary angels sent by God, but never refers to the Angel of the Lord.

212
The description of the Angel of the Lord mirrors the description of
the risen Christ

Description of the Angel of the Lord –

I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, a man clothed

in linen, whose loins were girded with pure gold of Uphaz: his
body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of
lightning, and his eyes as flaming torches, and his arms and
his feet like unto burnished brass, and the voice of his words
like the voice of a multitude. (Dan 10:5-6)

And above the firmament that was over their heads was the
likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone; and
upon the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the
appearance of a man upon it above. And I saw as it were
glowing metal, as the appearance of fire within it round about,
from the appearance of his loins and upward; and from the
appearance of his loins and downward I saw as it were the
appearance of fire, and there was brightness round about him.
As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of
rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about.
This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of
Jehovah. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a
voice of one that spake. (Ez 1:26-28)

Description of Christ –

And his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as
snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like
unto burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace; and
his voice as the voice of many waters. And he had in his right
hand seven stars: and out of his mouth proceeded a sharp two-
edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in
his strength. (Rev 1:14-16)

The titles of the Angel of the Lord mirror the titles of Christ

Both called God –

And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou
art a God that seeth: for she said, Have I even here looked
after him that seeth me? (Gen 16:7,13)

Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

(Jn 20:28)

213
 Both called I AM –

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said,

Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent
me unto you. (Ex 3:2-14)

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before
Abraham was born, I AM. (Jn 8:58)

Both identified as Redeemer –

In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his

presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed
them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
(Isa 63:9)

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the

church, and gave himself up for it. (Eph 5:25)

Both named as Commander of Lord’s Army –

And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he

lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man
over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua
went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our
adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as prince of the host of
Jehovah am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the
earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord
unto his servant? (Josh 5:13-14)

And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and
he that sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteous
he doth judge and make war. And his eyes are a flame of fire,
and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name
written which no one knoweth but he himself. And he is
arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is
called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven
followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white
and pure. (Rev 19:11-14)

III. Jesus' birth was not the product of a lustful god

In pagan mythology, any son of a god was born through the god’s sexual union, in
some fashion, with a mortal woman. In these cases, the union was often spontaneous and
due to the god’s burning lust for a woman. Often, the god would satisfy his lust by taking
the woman against her will or, once seducing her, treating her in a less-than-friendly
manner. At times, the union between the god and the mortal would take the form of incest

214
or rape. Nothing of this like can be said of the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary.
The birth of Jesus was not the result of God’s whim or lust; but rather, was part of His
redemptive plan, a plan established before creation itself.

... but when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman,
born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we
might receive the adoption of sons. (Gal 4:4-5)

And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not
been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that
hath been slain. (Rev 13:8)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with
every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ: even as he chose us in him
before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish
before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus
Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. (Eph 1:3-5)

... knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold,
from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers; but with precious
blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ: who was foreknown
indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for
your sake. (I Pet 1:18-20)

The selection of Mary was not due to her beauty or position. She “found favor” with
God, but not due to any outward appearance (for God looks not on outward beauty, but
on the heart) or place of high nobility. God formed the fetus of Jesus in her womb, not
through forceful intrusion, but with her consent to submit herself to the will of God. Mary
was humbled by her selection as the one who would bear the infant Messiah, and as such,
she was, as her cousin Elizabeth proclaimed, “blessed among women.” Also, the birth of
Jesus was for the salvation of man, unlike the births of pagan sons of god, whose births
either served the selfish desires of the god or served no specific purpose at all. In contrast,
Jesus was formed in Mary so that He would “save His people from their sins.” (Mt 1:21)
Jesus never forced people to worship Him. He never used His divine abilities to turn his
enemies into less-than-human creatures. Any anger He displayed was motivated by
righteous indignation, not simply because someone rubbed him the wrong way. Finally,
In the Jewish mind, any thought of God producing an offspring, via sexual union or
otherwise, was utter blasphemy. No Jew in his right mind would fashion such a tale and
expect it to be accepted by the populace, were it not true. Rather than his tale being
upheld as a great truth, it would spell his certain death, the legal penalty for blasphemy.

… for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the
Lord. (Lk 2.11)

For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of
all peoples; A light for revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of thy people Israel.
(Lk 2:30-32)

215
 The thief cometh not, but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy: I came that they
may have life, and may have it abundantly. (Jn 10:10)

I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in
the darkness. And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not:
for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. (Jn 12:46-47)

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that
I am a king. To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world,
that I should bear witness unto the truth. (Jn 18:37)

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending
his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh,
but after the Spirit. (Rom 8:3-4)

… but when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman,
born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might
receive the adoption of sons. (Gal 4:4-5)

And ye know that He was manifested to take away sins; and in Him is no sin. (1 Jn
3:5)

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins. (I Jn 4:10)

IV. Jesus took part in bringing about His own birth, death,
and resurrection
Pagan sons of deity were birthed solely through the interaction of the god with a
woman. None of the resulting offspring had anything to do with his conception. Jesus, on
the other hand, chose to become man. Human flesh and blood was a form which He took
upon Himself – it was not a form into which He was placed through workings not of His
own doing. So it was with His death and resurrection. He gave His life away, it was not
taken from Him. When He “gave up His spirit” (Jn 19:30) and his human body died, it
was a willing surrender of His life, rather than a natural expiration of His body. He
intentionally remained alive on the cross until the moment His work was “finished,” (Jn
19:30) at which time He voluntarily “commended” His spirit to His Father (Lk 23:46),
having completed the work of redemption. He was not suddenly caught off guard as was
Krishna, Attis, Osiris, or any other pagan deity who is said to have suffered death. His
death, as well as every event of His life, was self-orchestrated.

Jesus took part in bringing about His own birth

Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form
of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but

216
 emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men
(Phil 2:5-7)

Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like
manner partook of the same [flesh and blood]; that through death he might bring
to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Heb 2:14)

Jesus took part in bringing about His own death and resurrection

And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commend my
spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost. (Lk 23:46)

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he
bowed his head, and gave up his spirit. (Jn 19:30)

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up. The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in
building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of
his body. (Jn 2:19-21)

Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it
again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power
to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I
from my Father. (Jn 10:17-18)

V. Jesus foreknew the time of His death and resurrection

Krishna did not foresee he would be hit with an arrow. Dionysus had no prior
knowledge he would be rent limb from limb. The fact is, none of the pagan gods had any
prior knowledge of the time, place, or manner of his death. For them, death came as a
shocking surprise. Jesus, on the other hand, knew He would be executed in Jerusalem
after arriving at the city for the last Passover Feast that He would attend with His
disciples.

He knew the manner of His death – He would be “lifted up” (a reference to

crucifixion)
If I told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you
heavenly things? And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of
heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in
the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth
may in him have eternal life. (Jn 3:12-15)

He knew the time of His death

Ye know that after two days the Passover cometh, and the Son of man is delivered up
to be crucified. (Mt 26:2)

217
 He knew the place of His death
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief
priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him
unto the Gentiles. (Mk 10:33)

He knew the circumstances surrounding His coming trial

And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be
rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after
three days rise again. (Mk 8:31)

He knew the time of His resurrection

For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered up into
the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he
shall rise again. (Mk 9:31)

The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief
priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up. (Lk 9:22)

VI. Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection were foretold

long before His arrival
Jesus claimed to be the theme of the entire Old Testament.

Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy,
but to fulfill. (Mt 5:17)

And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in
all the scriptures the things concerning himself. … And he said unto them, These
are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things
must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets,
and the psalms, concerning me. (Lk 24:27, 44)

Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and
these [the prophets of old] are they which bear witness of me. (Jn 5:39)

Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy
will, O God. (Heb 10:7)

The Jews divided what Christians call the Old Testament into only two sections: the
Law and the Prophets. In saying He is the sum of each, Jesus is saying He is the sum of
the entire Old Testament. But does His claim really hold up? The Old Testament contains
numerous prophecies concerning events or characteristics which would be a part of the
life of Christ. The list below is not all-inclusive by any means, but it serves as an example
of just some of the ways in which Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of ancient times. No such
impressive list of prophecies precede the lives of any pagan deity. Some critics have
claimed Jesus’ fulfillment of the Old Testament Messianic prophecies was merely a

218
coincidence. Statistically, the odds that He would fulfill all of the prophecies are so great
against such fulfillment, that such a feat would be impossible by human standards.
Mathematicians have stated that the odds are astronomically against Jesus fulfilling even
a dozen of the stated Messianic prophecies, much less all.1 Another attempt of the critic is
to claim that the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled intentionally, as if a naturally-
conceived Jesus could control the circumstances and events which led to his crucifixion,
among other things. How could an ordinary man take such matters into his own hands?
Who was it who placed the star in position and drew the magi to Bethlehem in search of a
Messiah? What did Mary and Joseph do to cause the massacre of the infants at the behest
of Herod? How did Jesus control the circumstances and events on the night of His
betrayal and the following day on which He was executed? What more – why would a
normal man, even if he could cause such things to happen, willingly subject himself to
such torture merely for the purpose of deceiving others into believing himself to be the
promised Messiah? If Jesus knew He was not the Messiah, then He certainly would not
have endured the pains which He endured under Roman law. It is absolutely unreasonable
to suggest that a normal man could bring about the necessary circumstances in his life so
as to fulfill each and every Messianic prophecy written in the Old Testament, yet the fact
of the matter is these very prophecies were fulfilled intentionally – not through human
manipulation and direction, but through divine providence. Yes, Jesus did fulfill all these
prophecies intentionally. He formed the star which guided the magi. He directed the
Roman taxation which brought Mary to Bethlehem. He decreed the sufferings which He
endured. He did all these things according to the will of the Father and for the love of
those whom He would die to redeem – those who deserved no redemption whatsoever. As
said above, by human standards it is impossible that one man could fulfill all the ancient
prophecies – but with God, nothing is impossible.

Foretold in the Cross-reference with

Old Testament the New Testament
As the seed of the woman Gen 3:15 Gal 4:4
As the seed of David Ps 132:11, Jer 23:5 Acts 13:23, Rom 1:3
Born of a virgin Isa 7:14 Mt 1:22-23, Lk 2:7
Called Immanuel Isa 7:14 Mt 1:22-23
Born in Bethlehem of Judea Mic 5:2 Mt 2:1, Lk 2:4-6
Notable people coming to adore
him Ps 72:10 Mt 2:1-11
Massacre of the children of
Bethlehem Jer 31:15 Mt 2:16-18
Sojourn in Egypt Hos 11:1 Mt 2:15
Sold for thirty pieces silver Zech 11:12 Mt 26:15
His visage being marred Isa 52:14, 53:3 Jn 19:5
His being spit on and scourged Isa 50:6 Mk 14:65, Jn 19:1
Hands and feet being nailed to
the cross Ps 22:16 Jn 19:18, 20:25
He was crucified with thieves Isa 53:12 Mt 23:32-33
Garments being parted Ps 22:18 Mt 27:35
His Death Isa 53:12 Mt 27:50

219
 Foretold in the Cross-reference with
Old Testament the New Testament
That none of His bones should
be broken Ex 12:46, Ps 34:20 Jn 19:33, 36
His being pierced Zech 12:10 Jn 19:34, 37
His resurrection Ps 16:10, Isa 26:19 Lk 24:6,31, 34
His ascension Ps 68:18 Lk 24:51, Acts 1:9

VII. Jesus' death was voluntary, sacrificial, and redemptive in

nature
Whether one is discussing Osiris, Krishna, Dionysus, Attis, or any of the other pagan
deities who are said to have died, he cannot accurately make the claim that any of these
pagan gods willingly gave his life for the benefit of others. Contrary to Gerald Massey’s
book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, Jesus is, in fact, the only crucified Savior the
world has ever known. Only by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ can anyone be said to gain
eternal blessing and salvation from sin. Jesus was not murdered, as were the gods of the
pagans – He gave His life of His own accord and did so that those who turned their back
on their Creator would receive forgiveness for their transgression.

I [Jesus] am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the
sheep. … I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away
from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father. (Jn
10:11-18)

And it came to pass, when the days were well-nigh come that he should be
received up, [Jesus] steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem. (Lk 9:51)

[Christ] humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of
the cross. (Phil 2:8)

VIII. Jesus' death was a victory, not a defeat

Unlike the pagan deities, Jesus was not murdered, nor did His death come
unexpectedly. Through His death and resurrection, Jesus made void the curse of death
with respect to those He redeemed. Because of His victory, the people of God need not
fear death, for in passing from this earthly existence, they enter into the presence of the
one who gave His all so that they would never be condemned to an eternity of
condemnation.

But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have
put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is
swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?
The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law: but thanks be to God, who
giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore, my beloved brethren,

220
 be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as
ye know that your labor is not vain in the Lord. (1 Cor 15:54-58)

And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
you, I say, did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses;
having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was
contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross; having
despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly,
triumphing over them in it. (Col 2:13-15)

Be not ashamed therefore of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but
suffer hardship with the gospel according to the power of God; who saved us, and
called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own
purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal, but hath
now been manifested by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished
death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. (2 Tim 1:8-10)

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Phil 1:21)

IX. Jesus' resurrection was a bodily resurrection

Jesus physically arose from the dead. He did not merely enter into a new spiritual
existence, as did Osiris when he descended into the underworld after being rent into
pieces. Still, some critics claim that the apostle Paul preached Jesus was resurrected only
in a meta-physical or spiritual sense, while His physical body remained dead in the tomb.
They claim the belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection was a later doctrine which evolved
from a misunderstanding of a belief in an exclusively spiritual resurrection. In support for
their argument, they turn to the very words of Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian
church: “it [the body] is sown [that is, buried] a natural [physical] body; it is raised a
spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” (1 Cor 15:44)

Paul's belief in the bodily resurrection

In this passage Paul addresses the resurrection of the dead; that is, the belief that
the bodies of believers will one day be resurrected from the grave, as Christ was
resurrected from His tomb. He begins the chapter by laying the foundation for his
argument – that the resurrection of Christ was a certainty. He then answers those who
claim there will be no such resurrection for believers. Following that, Paul addresses
the principal questions concerning belief in the resurrection of believers: “How [or,
by what power] are the dead raised?” and, “With what manner of body do they come
[that is, “in what form are they raised”]?” (v. 35)
In his response to the first of these two questions (by what power are they raised),
Paul provides a word of rebuke by pointing out their hypocrisy in believing that God
has the power to maintain the annual death and rebirth of crops, but is lacking in
such power concerning the raising of the dead. The very same power which brings
dead grain to life, holds the same power to raise human beings from death to life (vs
36-37).

221
 Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it
die: and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but
a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind. (vs 36-37)

In his answer to the second question (in what form will they be raised), he
elaborates by discussing the change which will be manifest in the bodies of the
believers, once resurrected.

Paul alludes to the varieties of forms found in the physical world, that not all
humans are alike, not all animals are alike, nor birds, fish, and even the various
celestial bodies – each one possesses qualities and distinctions all its own (vs
38-42).

But God giveth it a body even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of
its own. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and
another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.
There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the
celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one
glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the
stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the
resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in
incorruption. (vs 38-42).

Paul then likens the burying of a body to sowing, that it may be brought forth
in a more glorious form – an incorruptible form – than that which was buried – a
corruptible form (vs 43-44). As he states elsewhere: “[Christ] shall change our
vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” (Phil 3:21) That
which was corruptible, weak, and vile, shall be remade into that which is
incorruptible and glorious. As a caterpillar enters a cocoon to re-emerge as a
more glorious creature, yet in the same body, so shall Christians be raised from a
mortal, earthly form to a more glorious, immortal form, yet in the same body.
The change is in form, not being. That which was material does not become
immaterial. Rather, that which was material, yet mortal, shall become immortal,
yet remain material.

It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is

raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If
there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (vs 43-44)

He then contrasts Adam and Christ (vs. 45-49). From Adam, the first man,
everyone in successive generations gained a mortal, corrupted body, destined for
the grave. However, it is from Christ, the second Adam, those who have faith are
given the promise of a glorified, immortal body. As Adam was of earth, he
passed on to those after him a sort of bondage to the earth, in that all men must
eventually die, but as Christ was raised from the dead, He passed on to those
after Him (those who have faith in Him) the surety that they, too, will one day be

222
 raised from the fate set for them by virtue of their connection with the first
Adam.

So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last
Adam became a life-giving spirit. Howbeit that is not first which is
spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. The first
man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. As is the earthy,
such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also
that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall
also bear the image of the heavenly. (vs 45-49)

Following that, Paul offers a concluding statement in his answer: “flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption.” (v.50) That is the reason for the transformation – that nothing
corruptible, as mortal flesh, shall enter into the presence of God. The body
which was once a dying, fading being shall now become a glorious, everlasting
being, yet the body itself never ceases to be. What was once lying dead in the
grave is now raised to new life, never again to see death.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (v 50)

Having responded to the question regarding in what form the believer will be
raised, Paul provides the Corinthian Christians with a summation of what has just
been said, along with an exhortation in relation to the resurrection:

He reminds them of the surety of the resurrection:

Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed.
(v 51)

He specifies the manner of the resurrection:

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall
sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (v
52)

He restates the reason for the resurrection:

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality. (v 53)

He elaborates on the effect of the resurrection:

But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall
have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death
is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy
sting? The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law. (vs 54-56)

He gives thanks to the One Who will bring about the resurrection:

223
 But thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
(v 57)

He gives charge concerning proper living in view of the promise of resurrection:

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding
in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not vain in the
Lord. (v 58)

The Greek phrase translated “spiritual body” is “soma pneumatikon.” In

Scripture, the use of the word soma is almost always a reference to the physical
body. The context of this passage is the contrast between the physical and the
spiritual bodies of man. Greeks referred to the natural body, the flesh and bones, as
soma psuchikon, literally translated as “soulish body.” It is this body which is
“sown,” or buried, in the earth when the life of the body expires. It is this body, the
physical “soulish body,” which is resurrected and transformed from that which was
natural to that which is supernatural – yet, still physical. Body which was “sown” is
the same body which is experiences resurrection, rather than resurrection resulting in
a new spiritual body. Despite the resurrected body still being physical, it is able to
transcend the bounds of that which is material and therefore able to make its entrance
and exit in ways which the natural body (the body which man possesses before
death) cannot.

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors
were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus
and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (Jn 20:19)

The two bodies to which Paul is here referring, the natural and the spiritual
bodies, are the same body, but with different characteristics or states of being. The
“spiritual body” is a physical or natural body which is able to transcend the laws of
the natural world.

Bodily death and resurrection go hand-in-hand

In Scripture, the death of the body is the necessary prerequisite for resurrection. If
one does not physically die, then there is no state from which one can be resurrected.
As mentioned in the previous section, the other resurrections of Scripture were
resurrections from bodily death. In each case, the person raised had died physically,
and so it was with the Son of God. The Gospels clearly describe Jesus as suffering
physical death on the cross, following which time His body underwent the customary
burial preparations, and was then was placed in a sealed tomb. It was after this death,
the death of His body, that Jesus arose from the dead.

And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day
before the Sabbath, there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councilor of honorable
estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went
in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate marveled if he were
already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had
been any while dead. And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the

224
 corpse to Joseph. And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him
in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and
he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. And Mary Magdalene and Mary
the mother of Jesus beheld where he was laid. (Mk 15:42-47)

He [Joseph of Arimathaea] came therefore, and took away his body. And there
came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him by night, bringing a
mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. So they took the body of
Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to
bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the
garden a new tomb wherein was never man yet laid. There then because of the
Jews’ Preparation (for the tomb was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus. (Jn 19:38-42)

and [Christ] died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves,
but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again. (2 Cor 5:15)

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen
asleep in Jesus will God bring with him. (1 Thess 4:14)

The spirit of man does not die and is in no need of any sort of resurrection
Christian doctrine holds that the spirit of man does not die following the
expiration of the body. At death, the spirit is removed from the body to receive either
blessing or curse, depending on the object of one’s faith. There is no need for a spirit
to be resurrected, since the spirit itself does not die. Therefore, any truly Christian
concept of resurrection must of necessity refer to the resurrection of the body, the
only part of man which really suffers death. It is this type of resurrection which Jesus
brought about on Himself following His death and burial. For the Christian, death is
a relocation of the spirit, moving from this earthly existence to being in the very
presence of God.

Being therefore always of good courage, and knowing that, whilst we are at
home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by
sight); we are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from the
body, and to be at home with the Lord. (2 Cor 5:6-8)

Oxford’s Dictionary defines resurrection as “resurrection from the dead” and

“revival after disuse, inactivity, or decay.” Following the death of His body, Jesus’
spirit remained alive and active. As Peter states, Jesus’ death was “in the flesh,” not a
spiritual death.

Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that
he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the
spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison. (1 Pet
4:18-19)

225
Jesus demonstrated He was not raised as a spirit
Once He was resurrected, Jesus appeared in a physical body. He had real flesh
and bones, not just the appearance of such. He could be held and touched by others.
He ate fish with His disciples. The resurrected body was the same one which had
previously been embalmed and laid to rest in the tomb, but in His resurrected body
the corruption brought about by death was no more. In His resurrected form, His
body did not bear the decay or stink of death.

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he
shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and
wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a
piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before
them. (Lk 24:39-43)

And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail.
And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him. (Mt 28:9)

The resurrection of believers in the last days will mirror the resurrection of
Christ
Scripture teaches that the bodies of believers will one day be raised from the dead
to a state of everlasting glorification.

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the
Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like
unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to
subdue all things unto himself. (Phil 3:20-21)

Here, the word translated change is the Greek word metaschema which means “to
change the figure of, transform,” or “transfer.” The idea here is not a total
transformation from one being into another, from body to spirit; rather, it is the
transformation of a mortal body to a glorified body, yet the body itself is the same
flesh-and-bone body which previously existed as mortal. It is a transformation of the
same body, not an exchange of bodies or reconstruction of one body from another.

What is the “second death” referred to in Scripture?

Scripture speaks of a second or spiritual death which the unredeemed man will
endure.

And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and
books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and
the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books,
according to their works. … and they were judged every man according to their
works. And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second
death, even the lake of fire. And if any was not found written in the book of life,
he was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:12-15)

226
 Here, “death” does not refer to an expiration of either the body or spirit; but rather, to
the utter abandonment of both by God. This death is God’s final judgment on sin, in
which the guilty are permanently and completely removed from the grace of God to
which He extends to all men, Christian and pagan. Christian doctrine refers to this
grace as “common grace” – the grace by which God grants man breath day by day
and governs the regularity of the seasons and all that is required for the maintenance
of life. This is the final death of the whole of fallen man, body and spirit.

Belief in bodily resurrection is essential to the Christian faith

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Rom
10:9)

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
... And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. (1 Cor
15:14, 17)

X. Jesus' resurrection is a fact of history

The character of the Gospels’ narrative of the resurrection, and events following,
account for nothing less than a bodily resurrection. These aspects of the narratives make
anything other than a bodily resurrection unreasonable and illogical, yet skeptics have
proposed the following theories in order to account for the resurrection of Jesus as stated
in the Gospels.

Theory 1: The disciples stole the body of Jesus in order to fake a resurrection
Following the death of Jesus, the chief priests and the Pharisees requested that
Pilate seal the tomb and place a Roman guard there, for fear that the disciples would
attempt such a feat as to steal the body of Christ. In order for the disciples to steal the
body, their first task would be to deal with the Roman guard. Given the fear the
disciples, even Peter (who certainly was not lacking in zeal), displayed the night of
Jesus’ trial, it would be a wonder where they would muster enough courage to
overtake trained, armed Roman centurions. Some have said the guards fell asleep
and this gave the disciples the opportunity to act, but any Roman soldier knew he
would face harsh penalty, even death, for abandoning his post or falling asleep
during his watch.

The fate the disciples met later in life refutes any theory that they stole the body
of Jesus. The early Christian historian Eusebius describes the violent deaths which
met the disciples of Jesus. If the disciples intentionally faked a resurrection of Christ
in order to establish a religion which they knew was based on falsehood, they would
surely not have given their lives for something they knew was a lie. Foxes Book of
Martyrs describes the fate which met the apostles and other writers of the New
Testament*:

James – death by the sword

Phillip – crucified

227
 Matthew – beaten to death
Andrew – crucified
Peter – crucified
Bartholomew – crucified
Thomas – death by a spear
James – stoned
Jude – crucified
Mark – dismembered
Paul – beheaded
Luke – hanged

* John was boiled in oil, but survived. He is believed to have died of old
age while residing in Ephesus.

It may correctly be argued that just because a man gives his life for his faith does
not make his faith valid. The terrorists who executed the 9/11 attacks were certainly
not justified in their actions based on the assumption that they believed they were
acting for a just and righteous cause. Simply because they gave their lives for a
religious cause does not justify and validate that cause. However, their martyrdom
does testify to their belief that their cause was a true cause. They died believing that
their actions reflected the desire of god. Likewise, the martyrdom of the New
Testament writers is evidence that they did not invent the Gospel accounts. They
believed that what they wrote was the truth, and it is for this reason that they gave
their lives. If they stole the body, they would have obviously known their Gospel to
be false, and would have recanted their faith when faced with death.
Also, had the disciples felt the need to fabricate evidence that Jesus arose from
the dead, an empty tomb would not have served their purpose, as evidenced by their
lack of faith following Jesus’ resurrection. The faith of the apostles was such that an
empty tomb would not serve to solidify public recognition of Jesus as the Messiah.
Both James and Thomas needed to see the risen Christ even after hearing and seeing
the tomb was empty. Likewise, Paul was a persecutor of Christians prior to his
conversion. He was present at the stoning of Stephen, whose clothes were laid at
Paul’s feet after Stephen lie dead. Following Paul’s conversion, the Christians in
Jerusalem at first feared to have him among their congregation, believing his
supposed conversion to be a trick by which they would be arrested and convicted of
blasphemy. The empty tomb did not convince Paul that Jesus was the Messiah. It
was not until Paul saw the risen Christ that he came to realize the truth of
Christianity. The lack of faith the disciples displayed following news of the
resurrection is such that does not bear the mark of fabrication, for such lack of faith
stands to their discredit and embarrassment. Had they invented the Gospel story,
surely the events after the resurrection would not involve the element of unbelief on
the part of Jesus’ disciples.
As it is implausible to claim the disciples stole the body, it is even more
implausible to claim the Romans or religious leaders stole the body of Christ, for in
so doing, they would create the primary evidence of the validity of the Christian faith
– the evidence of the empty tomb. Only Jesus’ disciples and followers would benefit
from the empty tomb, for such would make their faith sure. However, the enemies of

228
Christ desired that Jesus’ body remain in the grave (hence, the reason for the Roman
guard at the tomb), knowing that an empty tomb would serve to strengthen this new
“Jesus movement” which they so desired to quench.
This theory is not new. In fact, it’s been around since the day Christ rose from the
dead. It was the very first attempt to discredit Christianity.

Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the
city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass.
And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel,
they gave much money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples
came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to
the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care. So they
took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread
abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day. (Mt 28:11-15)

Theory 2: The women and disciples went to the wrong tomb

When the women arrived at the tomb at dawn, the stone was rolled away, leaving
the tomb unsealed. They were not looking for an unsealed tomb, but a sealed tomb.
Besides, they had been there only three days before. It is not likely they would have
forgotten the place where their Lord lay buried. When they arrived at the tomb,
seeing it unsealed, an angel made known to them that Jesus had rose from the dead,
confirming they had arrived at the right tomb.
Had they gone to the wrong tomb, opponents of Christianity, either Pilate or the
Jewish religious authority, would have taken swift action to announce the correct
tomb, in which the body of Jesus would still remain, and present His corpse as
evidence that He was still dead. Rather, since they knew the actual tomb of Jesus was
now empty, they fabricated their “disciples stole the body” story as a way to explain
the absence of any body in Jesus’ tomb.
Also, it should be noted that the women and disciples who saw Jesus following
His resurrection did not recognize Him until He made Himself known. As with the
disciples’ unbelief following the news of the resurrection, such a detail stands to their
embarrassment and does not bear the mark of a fabricated story.

Theory 3: Those who saw the risen Jesus experienced a hallucination

Jesus appeared not only to His core disciples and followers, but also to over five
hundred others as well.

After that, [Jesus] was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of
whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen
asleep. (1 Cor 15:6)

Hallucinations vary from one person to another and the form they assume are based
on one’s own experience. A hallucination is merely a perceived reality, it not visually
setting one’s sight on what really is; therefore, no two people can imagine the same
hallucination under the same circumstances. What more, it is a medical impossibility
for a multitude of people, ranging in age and experience, to have the very same
hallucination. Neither did Jesus' contemporaries see what they merely thought was

229
Jesus – they saw Him, risen in the flesh, not as a cloud formation that “sort of”
looked like Jesus, or a shadow out of the corner of their eye, or an image on a piece
of toast that resembled the shape of a bearded male. Also, it must be noted that the
women who first arrived at the tomb, as well as Jesus’ disciples, did not expect a
resurrection. The religious leaders understood His teaching that He would rise on the
third day following His death, but the disciples missed this meaning until after the
fact. Their journey to the tomb the morning Jesus arose was so that they may tend to
the body, having rushed the burial in order to finish the task before the Sabbath.
Their reaction does not describe individuals who arrived at a scene which met their
expectations. Later, when the women told the disciples that Jesus was risen, they
went to the tomb to see for themselves, since they disbelieved their story.

And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and
astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for
they were afraid. Now when he was risen early on the first day of the
week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out
seven demons. She went and told them that had been with him, as they
mourned and wept. And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had
been seen of her, disbelieved. And after these things he was manifested
in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the
country. And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed
they them. (Mk 16:8-13)

Theory 4: Jesus only collapsed on the cross, falling in a state of supposed death,
only to revive three days later
The Roman guards inspected the bodies of Jesus and the thieves with whom He
was crucified while they were still on the cross. The practice was if the condemned
man did not perish after a time of being in a crucified state, his legs would be broken
so that he would be unable to lift his torso in order to breathe, thus resulting in
suffocation. When they came to Jesus, they saw He was already dead, but, just to be
sure, they pierced His side with a spear, and out flowed blood and water. Medical
knowledge states that the flow of blood and water from such a wound would only
occur if the sac around the heart were punctured and if the body was already in a
state of death.1 Such medical knowledge would not have been known to the early
Gospel writers and an inclusion of such a detail would not have been included were
it not factual.
The wounds Jesus received were severe. In recent cinema the movie The Passion
of the Christ depicted the last hours of Jesus. The film received much attention and
criticism for its graphic portrayal of the crucifixion, yet, even as bloody and violent
as Mel Gibson’s depiction was, it still does not quite meet up to the vision of Isaiah,
who prophesied the Messiah’s visage would be marred beyond recognition.

Behold, my servant shall deal wisely, he shall be exalted and lifted up,
and shall be very high. Like as many were astonished at thee (his visage
was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of
men). (Isa 54:13-14)

230
 When Jesus rose from the dead He was not recognized by the women at first. He
looked as a normal man, not one who had endured Roman torture and crucifixion
only three days earlier. In His resurrected body, the only visible signs of His
sufferings were the scars in His hands* and His side.
Had He been an ordinary man, buried alive, it would have been impossible for
Him to roll away the stone from inside the tomb once He revived to consciousness.
Even a man in no such weakened and mutilated condition as was Jesus would have
been unable to move the stone on his own, the stone being too heavy for one man to
move independently, as was typical in ancient times of a stone covering the entrance
to a tomb.

* The scars did not remain due to an inability to fully heal His body. Rather, they
remain as a mark of the covenant God made with man. In ancient times, when two
men “cut a covenant” with one another, they often made an incision in the wrists and
joined hands, the commingling of their blood being a sign of unity between covenant
partners – they now shared one another’s nature, or essence, in the sharing of blood.
Following the rite, the scars remained as a visible sign, or reminder, of the oath made
between the two. As such, the scars in the hands of Jesus serve as a sign to His
redeemed that the sacrifice made on their behalf would never be forgotten or
revoked. The covenant God made in the presence of Abraham, and to men and
women of faith throughout every generation, will endue for all eternity, being upheld
and maintained by the power of God alone.

Theory 5: The resurrection of Jesus was a story which arose as a legend

Legends develop over long periods of time, not over the course of a mere decade
or two, and have their basis in history, as opposed to myths, which have their basis in
fantasy. While the basis for a legend is historical, the elements of the legend itself
may be exaggerated, such as the legend of Johnny Appleseed, based on an actual
pioneer named John Chapman (Sept 26, 1774- Feb 18, 1845). It may be said that
Jesus was a “legend in His own time,” as were Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy,
and Mother Teresa, but such a characterization is based on verifiable evidence
regarding one’s words, deeds, influence, or effect. Any legendary status attributed to
a person within or shortly after his or her life is due to what that person really
accomplished, rather than being exaggerated versions of the truth. In that sense,
Jesus was a legend in His own time, since He really did rise from the dead and
remained among man for a period of time. Also, legends do not have the advantage
of eyewitness testimony to the truth. When the Gospels were written, there were still
many eyewitnesses who would have been able to testify to the truth of the Gospels,
as well as many opponents who would have surely exposed the Gospels for lies,
were they not historically accurate. The apostles were the authoritative leaders of the
early church. During their lifetime, nothing that was not true of Christ would have
been accepted by the church. In fact, the early church rejected those who denied the
bodily resurrection of Christ, as it was the resurrection which was at the heart of
apostolic preaching.

231
Written evidence for belief in Christ's resurrection can be dated to within
only twenty years following the fact
Jesus was born in 4 or 5 BC, which places the resurrection at 28 or 29 A.D.
Written evidence for belief in Christ's resurrection can be dated to within a short
time following the fact. The earliest of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection is
the Gospel of Mark, written between 64-69 A.D., approximately forty years after
the resurrection. The letters of Paul can be dated even earlier than the Gospels,
since Paul was martyred in 62 A.D. The book of Acts was written around 64
A.D., and Luke, the author of Acts, wrote that book after composing the Gospel
which bears his name, placing the writing of his Gospel around 60 A.D.
Concerning the letters of Paul, It is generally agreed among scholars that the
earliest of them is Galatians, written in the late 40's A.D., only twenty years after
the resurrection.2

Oral evidence for belief in Christ's resurrection can be dated to within only
a few years following the fact
While the earliest written evidence dates twenty years after the time of
Christ, oral tradition can be dated even earlier. In his letters to the Philippians,
Colossians, and Corinthians, it is believed that Paul utilizes existing church
creeds in his writing.

The Philippian creed (c.61 A.D.)

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in
the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made
himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and
was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man,
he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of
the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him
a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things
under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:5-11)

The Colossian creed (c.58-62 A.D.)

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for
in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things
visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or
principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and
unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. And
he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the
preeminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him
should all the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things
unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross;
through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the
heavens. (Col 1:15-20)

232
The Corinthian creed (c.55 A.D.)
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was
buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was
seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part
remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was
seen of James; then of all the apostles. (1 Cor 15:3-7)

The testimony of John (c 85-95 A.D.)

That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that
which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our
hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was
manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you
the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested
unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also,
that ye also may have fellowship with us: yea, and our fellowship is
with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)

The testimony of Luke

In Luke’s Gospel (c.60 A.D.)

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative
concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even
as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also,
having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to
write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou
mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou
wast instructed. (Lk 1:1-4)

In Luke’s account of the Acts of the Apostles (c.64 A.D.)

The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus
began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was
received up, after that he had given commandment through the
Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom he
also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs,
appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the
things concerning the kingdom of God: and, being assembled
together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem,
but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye heard
from me. (Acts 1:1-4)

This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses. (Acts
2:32)

233
 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country
of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom also they slew, hanging him
on a tree. Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be
made manifest, not to all the people, but unto witnesses that were
chosen before of God, even to us, who ate and drank with him after
he rose from the dead. (Acts 10:39-41)

The testimony of Paul (c.35 A.D.)

In the passage just quoted, Paul states, “I delivered unto you first of
all that which I also received.” (1 Cor 15:3) What he received was the
doctrine that “Christ died for our sins … was buried, and that he rose
again the third day.” The question then is when did he receive this
doctrine, and from whom? Concerning the latter question, Paul gives
his answer is his letter to the church in Galatia:

For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which

was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I
receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through
revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12)

Concerning the latter question regarding the time of the revelation,

the book of Galatians states that Paul journeyed to Arabia
“straightway” (that is, immediately) following his conversion, where he
“conferred not with flesh and blood.”

But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even
from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, to
reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles;
straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up
to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away
into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. Then after three
years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him
fifteen days. (Gal 1:15-18)

The indication in the passage above is that Paul likely received the
revelation of doctrine during this time in Arabia. He then returned to
Damascus and “straightway” began preaching the Gospel (Acts
9:19-20). While the duration of his stay in Arabia is not specified, it is
certain that his preaching in and around Damascus occurred within
three years following his conversion (Gal 1:18), after which time he
escaped to Jerusalem upon threat of his life (Acts 9:23-26). Assuming
29 A.D. as the date of the resurrection, Paul would have been converted
about 32 A.D. His arrival in Jerusalem would have been around 35
A.D., therefore his early preaching ministry occurred between 32-35
A.D.

234
 The testimony of Peter (c.29 A.D.)
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made
known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Pet 1:16)

The following passage is an extract from the first recorded public

sermon by Peter following the ascension of Christ, and well before the
conversion of Paul.

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man

approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs,
which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also
know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have
crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the
pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden
of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord
always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not
be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was
glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt
not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to
see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou
shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Men and brethren,
let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both
dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with
an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh,
he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before
spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell,
neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up,
whereof we all are witnesses. (Acts 2:22-32)

The earliest non-canonical records

Early Christian writings, dating within a generation of Christ and continuing
through the early church era (c.30 A.D.-313 A.D.) display an early belief not
only in the resurrection of Christ, but also in the bodily resurrection of Christ, in
stating He was raised from the dead. These excerpts from the early church
Fathers has been previously listed in the section titled “Concerning the
historicity of Jesus” and here I will merely invite the reader to refer to the
material contained within that portion of this book.

235
XI. The characteristics of the original source material
regarding Jesus stands as added testimony to its reliability
The primary source of information concerning Jesus is the Bible. How can we trust it
as a reliable source? In the next section, we will turn our attention to the source itself.

236
 Are the Gospel accounts accurate in their depiction of the life of Jesus, both in their
relation to each other and to the rest of Scripture, and also in their historical accuracy?
Regardless of one's view of the truthfulness of Christianity, it must be admitted that
Christians, since the days of the New Testament writers and the early church, believe
Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God, born of the virgin
Mary, lived a sinless life, performed miracles, was crucified, as both He and the prophets
foretold, and was later resurrected as the Redeemer of man, for whom He now acts as
Mediator between man and God the Father. Since this is so, then why are these beliefs
held with such firmness? Is it the result of the life of Christ being “the greatest story ever
sold,” as the critic D. M. Murdock claims, or is it believed because it is the truth? Does
the account of Jesus’ life, as portrayed in the Gospels, describe the actual events of His
life? In answering this question, we must consider the earliest source material from which
we have record: the Bible itself and the documents of the early church.

I. The early date of the Gospel records testify to their

historical accuracy
What has been said previously on this matter needs only be stated here in summation.
The earliest written record of Jesus' life is the Gospel of Mark, written about forty years
after Jesus' death and resurrection. While the date of the remaining three Gospels have
been in debate, it is certain that all were completed no later than the mid 80s A.D. (see
previous discussion on canonical dating), or no later than sixty years after Christ. Such a
length of time is not sufficient for one's biography to become tainted by myth or legend.
The supernatural elements of the narrative were either a work of fiction or historical
fact. If fiction, such a record would not have survived without early refutation, of which
no such response exists within early literature. At the time of the writing of the Gospels,
eyewitnesses, including disciples, skeptics, and opponents of Jesus, were still living and
able (and certainly willing) to decry such a record of Jesus' life as false, had the Gospel
writers embellished their accounts. If the apostles had made use of embellishment, then
certainly the ruling political or religious powers would have exposed the Gospels as non-
historical writings, in order to quench the rise of Christianity.
Finally, the writings the early church fathers testify to the authenticity of the Gospels'
authorship. Of particular note if the writing of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in the second
century.

“But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations,

whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and
stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth.
For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in
those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but
in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and
proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders
came, I asked minutely after their sayings, — what Andrew or Peter said, or
what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew,
or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter
John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from

238
 books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding
voice.”1

“Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately

whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related
the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied
Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his
instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a
regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in
thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took
especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything
fictitious into the statements.”2

II. Concerning the supposed silence of the remainder of the

New Testament regarding Matthew and Luke’s virgin birth
narratives
Of the four Gospels, only Matthew and Luke contain an account of Jesus' birth. Given
the unique manner of His conception, and His resulting two-fold nature, why did not
Mark and John include the account in their Gospels as well? Furthermore, some have
asked, why does the remainder of the New Testament seem to remain silent concerning
the manner of Jesus’ conception? Does the remainder of the New Testament discredit
Matthew and Luke's narratives by virtue of such silence? First, the critic must admit that
silence, if such silence exists, is not ample evidence for an admission of denial. Second,
indirect affirmations of the virgin birth are found in the writings of the other New
Testament books.

Concerning Mark
Mark's purpose in writing his Gospel was not to give an account of the life of
Jesus, but to give an account of His public ministry, as noted in the outset of his
Gospel: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (1:1) For
that reason, Mark begins his account with Jesus' baptism, the event which officially
marked the beginning of His public ministry. Additionally, two passages in Mark
make reference to Jesus' parentage.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of
Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at
him. (Mk 6:3)

Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren,
James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with
us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mk 13:55-56)

In the first instance, Mark refers to the actual parentage of Jesus, when he speaks
of Jesus as the “son of Mary,” but not the son of Joseph. In the second, he refers to

239
Jesus’ assumed parentage as “the carpenter’s son,” as Jesus’ virginal conception was
not a thing of public knowledge during His ministry. Had Jesus been conceived
naturally by Joseph and Mary, there would be no need for the distinctly different
references concerning whose son Jesus really was.

Concerning John
There are several reasons why John would not have included an account of Jesus’
conception and birth.
First, Matthew and Luke had already composed their Gospels at the time of John's
writing; therefore, there already existed two separate witnesses to the truth, and there
was no need for a third. In the Makkot (the fifth volume in the Nezikin, the code
used by the Sanhedrin), the testimony of two witnesses was considered sufficient
testimony to the truth, so long as their testimonies were in agreement.1 It is this
judicial standard which Paul makes reference to in his letter to the Corinthian church.

This is the third time I am coming to you. At the mouth of two witnesses or three
shall every word established. (2 Cor 13:1)

The fact of the matter is, even if all four Gospels included an account of the birth
of Christ, those hostile to Christianity would still be blind to the truth, for it is their
lack of faith, rather than a lack of evidence, which serves as their condemnation.
Second, John was devoted to the truth, and had he believed the two previous
records contained false information, he would have surely written to their correction.
In fact, Polycarp (a disciple of Ignatius, who was a disciple of John) testifies that
when Cerinthus of Ephesus began teaching that Jesus was not virgin-born (he taught
that Jesus was a normal man upon whom the Divine Christ descended at His
baptism), John publicly opposed him, so far as to not even be in Cerinthius'
presence.2 Additionally, while Jesus hung on the cross, He committed his mother
Mary to John's care (Jn 19:26), therefore, John had close ties with Jesus' mother and
would certainly have known the truth concerning the manner of Jesus' conception. If
Mary knew the accounts in Matthew and Luke’s Gospel to be an embellishment of
the true manner of Jesus’ conception, John would have been aware of this
embellishment and would have written to their correction. An early church tradition
holds that Mary resided with John in Ephesus in her latter years.
Third, the opening of John's Gospel assumes that Jesus' origin was supernatural.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. he same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and
without him was not any thing made that was made. (Jn 1:1-3)

John clearly believed in Jesus’ pre-existence and oneness with deity. In accordance
with such a belief, the incarnation of God as a human being conceived through
normal means becomes a thing which must be denied, so as not to elevate am
ordinary man to divine status.
Fourth, John makes no reference to Jesus' conception at all, whether natural or
supernatural. If his silence is presumed as evidence that John did not believe Jesus
was virgin-born, so may it be presumed that John did not believe Jesus was born at

240
all, but was just a manifestation of God as a man; however, a reading of John's
Gospel clearly indicates he believed Jesus to be a real man having flesh and blood.
Fifth, John's Gospel is the most theological of all four Gospels, with an emphasis
on Jesus' work as man's Redeemer. John explicitly stated the purpose for his Gospel
in the passage quoted below:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are
not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his
name.(Jn 20:30-31)

Having an emphasis on Jesus' teaching rather than His actions, John's Gospel
contains lengthy discourses not found in the other Gospels. With such an emphasis
on Christ's deity, although not with lack of recognition of His humanity, the birth of
Jesus was simply outside the scope of John's purpose.
Sixth, a large portion of John's Gospel (chapter twelve onward) takes place during
the week prior to Jesus' death. With such an emphasis on a short period of time, John
excludes details, in addition to Jesus' birth, that the other Gospel writers chose to
include in their work. As John's silence concerning certain miracles or discourses is
not a denial of the historicity of those events, so is true of his silence concerning the
virgin birth.
Seventh, John records Jesus' teaching on the state of natural-born man.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (Jn 3:6-7)

If John truly believed the words of his Lord, then he recognized that a man born of
normal human conception was not suited as one who could redeem other men, for he
would be in need of redemption himself. Also, John would have also been aware of
Paul’s letters which state the human sinful condition is one passed through the seed
of Adam. Paul was martyred in c.62 A.D., twenty to thirty years before the writing of
John’s Gospel. Had Paul made an error in his view of the doctrine of original sin,
John would have discussed the correct doctrine in his Gospel, being a Gospel greatly
concerned with theological issues.

Concerning the book of Acts

The author of the book of Acts was the evangelist Luke, the same one who wrote
the Gospel of Luke and gave an account of Jesus' birth. Luke wrote the book of Acts
following his Gospel. Since he already gave an account of the birth in his previous
work, there was no need to repeat it in his second work (see Acts 1:1). Whereas
Luke's first work was concerned with the activity of Jesus during His time on earth,
Acts is concerned with the activity of the early days of the church, with particular
attention to apostolic preaching and the spread of Christianity. While the doctrine of
the virgin birth is a doctrine essential to the Christian faith, it is not essential to one's
understanding of the Gospel message, and therefore was not a topic of apostolic
preaching. Even Peter's sermon in Acts chapter two makes no mention of Christ's
conception. Rather, the focal point of apostolic preaching found in Acts is Christ's

241
resurrection – not that it is the only essential doctrine, but that it is the doctrine
essential to the message of salvation. Salvation comes by faith in the fact that Jesus
died for the sin of man. Jesus' virgin birth is essential to His role as Savior, Mediator,
and High Priest, in that it made Him suited for such roles, but it is not essential to
one's initial act of faith in Christ.

Concerning the writings of Paul

Paul does not give an account of Jesus birth in any of his letters, nor is the virgin
birth a topic to which he focuses his attention. However, the writings of Paul are in
accordance with a belief that Jesus was born through virginal conception.
.
First, Paul makes no specific mention of the virgin birth; however, neither
does he make mention of a natural conception of Jesus. Some of Paul's letters
were written after Matthew and Luke composed their birth narratives, yet, as is
the case with John, Paul makes no effort to state either of the two evangelists
was in error in their account. Furthermore, the language Paul uses in his creedal
formulas display a belief in the virgin birth.

The Galatian creed

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made
of a woman, made under the law. (Gal 4:4)

The phrase “made of a woman” is an allusion to the virgin birth of

Christ, although not an express reference to it, since John the Baptist is also
referred to as being born “of a woman.” (Mt 11:11) In this statement, the
key word is “made,” in contrast with the word “born” used in Matthew's
Gospel. According to Strong’s Lexicon, the meaning of the word “born”
(Greek: gennētos) in the Matthean text is “to be born or begotten,” denoting
normal human generation. However, in the Pauline text, he uses “made,”
(Greek: ginomai) which means “to become, to begin to be; to appear in
history, to come upon the stage,” a reference to one's being or existence,
rather than to the manner in which that existence began. The same word is
used in Paul's letter to the Romans when he said Christ was “made of the
seed of David according to the flesh.” (Rom 1:3) In other words, in the case
of Jesus, He who had previously existed was then “made of a woman.”

The Philippian creed

But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of men. (Phil 2:7)
The word here translated “made” is the same word used in the Galatian text
(Greek: ginomai), meaning “to become, to begin to be; to appear in history,
to come upon the stage.” Elsewhere, the same writer speaks of the birth of
Abraham's sons Isaac and Ishmael, yet uses different terms in reference to
their births.

For 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

242
 after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. ... Now we,
brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that
was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit,
even so it is now. (Gal 4:22-23, 28-29)

Both Isaac and Jesus were children of promise. God promised Abraham
that through Isaac would Abraham’s seed be blessed. God also promised
Israel that through the Messiah would He provide salvation for His people.
Yet, Paul uses different language when speaking of the manner in which
these ones came into being. In the case of Isaac and Ishmael, he uses
gennaō (a derivative of ginomai, above), meaning “to be born or begotten,”
but when referencing the conception of Jesus, Paul uses a word which
denotes pre-existence rather than an origin due to normal human
conception.

In the above passages, John the Baptist, Isaac, and Ishmael are said to have
been born as human beings, but Jesus is said to have become a man. The
distinction is that in the case of Jesus, He, Who already existed as the Son of
God, took on a human nature, thus becoming man. Had Paul not believed in the
supernatural origin of the man Jesus, such a distinction in his terminology would
be needless.
Second, Paul did not write biographical narratives, as did the Gospel writers.
Rather, his focus was on doctrine and, as stated previously, the focal point of
early Christian preaching was Christ's death and resurrection.
Third, the evangelist Luke accompanied Paul on many of his travels (Acts
16:10–17; 20:5—21:18; 27:1—28:16). Paul would have also come in contact
with Matthew in his association with the disciples at Jerusalem. It is unlikely
that neither of them would have not discussed with Paul the manner of Jesus'
conception. James Orr, professor of apologetics and systematic theology at the
United Free Church College of Glasgow, Scotland, notes similarities in
terminology between Luke and Paul when discussing the Person of Jesus
Christ.3

Parallels between Luke and Paul

Luke
And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and
shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of
the Most High: … The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of
the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which
is begotten shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 2:31-32, 35)

Paul
concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the
flesh, declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of
holiness. (Rom 1:3-4)

243
 Fourth, Paul's theology requires that he believe Jesus was not conceived by
normal means. Paul's teaching on sin was that it was a state into which every
man is born.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. ... For if by one
man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive
abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by
one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon
all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift
came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall
many be made righteous. (Rom 5.12, 17-19 NASB)

Paul taught that sin was passed onto everyone by virtue of normal human
generation, everyone having their ultimate ancestry in Adam, being the first
man. If Jesus was born of natural generation, then he would not have been
“obedient” or “righteous” and one through whom justification comes to “all
men” (that is, all men who are united with Christ through faith). Paul had to
have believed that Jesus' conception was supernatural; otherwise, his own
theology would be self-contradictory in nature.

III. Concerning the supposed silence of the New Testament

letters regarding Jesus' humanity
Critics have pointed to the lack of biographical information concerning Jesus found in
the New Testament outside of the Gospel record. Whereas the Gospels concern
themselves with accounts of Jesus' life, the remaining books of the New Testament
appear to be silent on a great number of such events, such as Jesus' nativity, the miracles
He performed, the speeches He delivered, His acts of healing and compassion, and His
arrest, trial, execution, and burial. The Christ of the New Testament letters (Romans
through Revelation), they say, is a being who did not exist as an historical figure, but as a
spiritual or mystical being who interacted in a metaphysical fashion with man. However,
New Testament letters' silence regarding an historical Jesus is not as sparse as the critics
would have us believe. Before considering just how silent these letters are regarding
Jesus' life, a few considerations are first in order.

The recipients of the letters

The recipients of the New Testament letters were Christian churches or individual
believers. The letters of Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and
Thessalonians were written to churches in each of the cities referenced in the letter's
title (that is, Romans was written to the church at Rome; Ephesians, to the church at
Ephesus, etc.). Likewise, the letters of Timothy, Titus, and Philemon were written to
individual Christians from whom each letter eventually received its title. The letters
of Hebrews and James were addressed to an unidentified group of Jewish Christians.
The letters of Peter were addressed to churches in Asia Minor. The first, second, and

244
third books of John were addressed, respectively, to the churches in Asia Minor, an
unidentified body of believers, and to Gaius, believed to be one of John's converts.
The book of Jude was written to an unidentified group of believers, presumably of
Jewish heritage. Finally, the book of Revelation was addressed to the seven Christian
churches mentioned in the second and third chapter divisions of the book, with the
remainder of the book intended for the church at large. As letters addressed to a
Christian or group of Christians who knew and believed the account of Jesus' life, it
was not necessary to elaborate on history familiar to them. By analogy, a lecturer at a
gathering of Edgar Rice Burroughs' fans, speaking on the influence of the Tarzan
character and believing that his audience is familiar with the character, may not feel
the need to discuss how it was that Tarzan came to raised by apes in the jungle, yet
that does not mean the lecturer is unfamiliar with Tarzan's origin story or finds it
insignificant. However, if he compares Tarzan with other pulp fiction characters, such
as Solomon Kane or Kull, a little elaboration on the character's history may be in
order, since fans of Edgar Rice Burroughs may not be as familiar with the characters
of Robert E. Howard. The entire argument from silence is based on the notion that the
apostles needed to include such information about Jesus, and such was not the case.

The scope of Apostolic preaching

In the book of Acts, the Apostles' preaching was evangelical in nature, not for the
purpose of instructing unconverted Jews and pagans in systematic theology. As such,
they did not preach He was virgin-born, since belief in the virgin birth is not essential
to one's initial act of faith leading to repentance. In Acts, the history of Jesus is briefly
recounted in sermons given by the Apostles, and this history largely focuses on Jesus'
resurrection. It was the resurrection, not Jesus' birth, miracles, or sermons, which was
at the center of Apostolic preaching; therefore, the exclusion of such in the Apostles'
preaching is in line with their message at hand. In fact, Peter's sermon in Acts chapter
two does reference Jesus' working of miracles, but does not refer to a specific
instance.
The focus in the New Testament books following the book of Acts is on the deity
of Jesus, not His humanity. When the humanity of Jesus is mentioned in the New
Testament letters, it is mentioned in the context of His redemptive work, in the
shedding of His blood on the cross. In order to make it clear that Jesus did in fact
suffer, bleed, and die, it needed to be said that He was a man, possessing literal flesh
and blood. Still, even when Jesus' humanity is mentioned in these letters, it is within
the framework of His divine nature, which He possessed before taking on flesh and
blood.

The purpose of the letters

Second, the purpose of the letters of the New Testament were to address doctrinal
and practical matters, not to supply historical narratives. Outside of the Gospels, the
only New Testament book which bears an historical character is the book of Acts,
which is largely concerned with the history of the early church during the years
immediately after Jesus' ascension. Since the author of Acts was Luke, the same
evangelist who penned the third Gospel, there was no need to repeat the history given
in his previous work. Concerning the remainder of the New Testament (Romans
through Revelation), these letters were intended to address specific issues faced by

245
the recipients, and none of these issues involved a dispute over the historicity of
Jesus. The purpose of these letters is as follows:

Romans – In preparation for his upcoming first trip to Rome, Paul sends this
letter before him to outline his doctrine, to separate true doctrine from the
doctrine of false teachers. After Clausius exiled the Jews from Rome in 49 A.D.,
the leadership of the Roman church transitioned from Jewish to Gentile,
resulting in some conflict and errors within the church with respect to their
conduct.

1 Corinthians – Paul wrote this letter in response to errors he observed within

the church at Corinth. The church there had become divided into sects, each
following the teaching of an erred believer in Christ. Paul then wrote this letter
as an exhortation to unity and to correct false doctrine which had arisen within
them.

2 Corinthians – After the reception of his first letter, Paul saw the need to write
this second letter to further defend his apostleship and affirm his love for the
Corinthians.
Galatians – Paul wrote this letter to counter a false gospel which had been
adopted by the church in Galatia, which concerned itself with salvation through
the keeping of the law, rather than by grace alone.

Ephesians – The church at Ephesus was composed of a multicultural body of

believers, and Paul send this letter as an exhortation to unity.

Philippians – The church at Philippi sent Epaphroditus, one of their own, to

minister to the needs if Paul. In response, Paul replies with this letter of gladness
over their love for him, and his purpose is to instill like joy in them also.

Colossians – Paul had received from Epaphras a report that the church at
Colosse had fallen prey to false teachers, and he admonishes them to cling to
Christ, as the head of all things.

1 Thessalonians – Timothy had reported to Paul that the church at Thessalonica

had misunderstood certain aspects of Paul's teaching, specifically regarding the
afterlife and the promised resurrection of the dead, while he was in their
company. Paul then writes this letter to correct these errors and exhort them in
right living.

2 Thessalonians – After it was reported that the Thessalonians misunderstood

Paul's teaching, and after he sent a letter to clarify what he meant, it was
reported that the Thessalonians then misunderstood Paul's letter. Therefore, he
sent this second reply to further clarify his teaching on the second coming of
Christ

246
1 Timothy – Timothy was the bishop or pastor of the church at Ephesus. Paul
sends this letter to admonish him to continue his good work there. Special
attention is given in this letter to church organization.

2 Timothy – Nearing the end of his life, Paul sends this letter to Timothy as
some final exhortations to remain diligent in his ministry, abstain from false
teachers, and be patient in persecution.

Titus – Titus was placed sole charge of the churches on the island of Crete. Paul
send him this letter to provide counsel and encourage him to perform his duty in
the spirit of an apostle.

Philemon – Philemon was a runaway slave of Onesimus, a fellow Christian, and

had been converted to Christianity after coming in contact with Paul. This letter
is sent to Onesimus on Philemon's behalf in the hopes of effecting reconciliation
between the two believers.

Hebrews – Hebrews was written to an unidentified group of Christians who

were persecuted to the point of facing execution if they did not renounce their
faith. The author of this letter (widely thought to be Paul or his companion
Barnabus) wrote to encourage them to endure whatever persecution they face
and not renounce the cross of Christ.

James – James, the brother of Jesus, sent this letter to an unidentified group of
believers, believed to be facing persecution, in order to address a variety of
issues relating to the standard of conduct befitting a believer, and to admonish
them to remain patient in the face of persecution.

1 Peter – After receiving a report of persecution which faced the churches in

Asia Minor, Peter sends this letter as words of comfort and strength, along with
exhortations to be faithful, patient, and live in purity.
2 Peter – Peter composed this letter to correct doctrinal errors within the church
at large.

1-2 John – John (the same John who penned the fourth Gospel) writes to correct
errors concerning the incarnation of Christ. False teachers had arisen
proclaiming that Christ did not come literally in the flesh, but had only appeared
in the likeness of flesh. If any of the letters of the New Testament could
conceivably digress into an historical narrative of Jesus' life, it would perhaps be
the letters of John. However, the appearance of Christ as a man was not in
debate; but rather, the manner in which He walked among man was the subject
in question. False teachers did not deny the events as told and witnessed by the
Apostles. Rather, they denied that Christ performed these deeds in a physical
body, proposing that He remained a spiritual being who only appeared human.
In response to this, John writes to exalt the bodily incarnation of Jesus (without
the need to appeal to specific events in Jesus' life) and to proclaim the imitation
of Christ's love as the mark of a true believer.

247
 3 John – John writes this letter to Encourage Gaius, a fellow believer, and to
warn him against the followers of a false teacher named Diotrephes.

Jude – Jude, believed to be Judah, also known as Judas (not Iscariot, the
betrayer), a brother of James and Jesus, writes this letter to warn of false
teachers and exhort Christians in general to be steadfast in their faith.

Revelation – John wrote this letter after receiving a revelation from the Lord.
The first two chapters concern itself with specific issues facing seven local
churches, many of which had fallen into one error or another. The remainder of
the letter details the revelation he received from the Lord. The church at large
was experiencing a violent persecution, and the vision John received was to
strengthen the church during its persecution, provide hope in the eventual
glorification of believers, and ensure the church of Christ's final victory over
their enemies.

As seen above, the events concerning Jesus' life were not of immediate relevance
to the point at hand. As letters addressed to a Christian or group of Christians who
knew and believed the account of Jesus' life, it was not necessary to include within
these letters a biographical sketch of Jesus, any more than it would befit the
paragraphs here to elaborate on specific events in Jesus' life, for such a digression
would stray from the issues under discussion. Since the focus of the letters above are
doctrinal and/or practical in nature, the focus on Jesus throughout these letters is on
His deity, rather than His humanity. When His humanity is referenced, it is done so
only in terms of His redemptive work. For instance, His role as Mediator and High
Priest, as discussed in the book of Hebrews, is as much dependent on His humanity as
it is on His divinity. Also, His shedding of blood and death on the cross required that
He possess a human nature.

Having examined the occasion and purpose of the New Testament letters, is is now
time to turn the attention to the supposed silence itself concerning the biographical
aspects of Jesus' life. The writers of these letters are seven in number (or six, if Paul is
indeed the author of Hebrews), two of whom also penned two of the four Gospels: Luke,
Paul, James, Peter, John, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews. Here, the writings of each of
these writers will be considered separately in order to determine just how silent each one
was concerning Jesus' historicity (emphasis, when added, is mine).

Luke
He referred to Jesus as a man from Nazareth who lived and experienced bodily
death and resurrection.

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of

God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him
in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know. (Acts 2:22)
Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in
righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given

248
 assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Acts
17:31)
He identified Jesus as having flesh and blood relatives

These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the
women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. (Acts 1:14 )
Paul
He referred to Jesus as a man and mentions him with Adam, the first man, in a
comparison/contrast. The contrast was between Adam's disobedience and Jesus'
obedience, while the comparison was concerning the human nature possessed by
these two men.

But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of
one [Adam] many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by
grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. For as
by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous. (Rom 5:15, 19)
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the
dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1
Cor 15:21-22)
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man,
he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross. (Phil 2:7-8)
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus. (1 Tim 2:5)
He identified Jesus as a literal flesh and blood man who experienced physical
death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh. (Rom 8:3)
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked
works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to
present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight. (Col 1:22)
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Col 2:9)
He identifies James as Jesus' earthly sibling. It has been argued that the
brotherhood Paul was referring to when speaking of James was the brotherhood
shared among believers of the same faith, however, immediately before his
reference to “James, the Lord's brother,” he makes reference to Peter and the
apostles, yet neglects to mention them as sharing in the brotherhood that he
associates with James.

249
 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with
him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the
Lord’s brother. (Gal 1:18-19)
He makes reference to Jesus' final meal with His disciples and His betrayal by
Judas.

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That
the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And
when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body,
which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. (1 Cor 11:23-24; cf.
Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:19)

He makes reference to Jesus' death by crucifixion, His burial, His three days in
the tomb, and His appearances after His resurrection.

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became

obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Phil 2:7-8)
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried,
and that he rose again the third day [cf. Mk 9:31, Lk 9:22] according to the
scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas [Peter; cf. Jn 21:1-14], then of
the twelve [cf. Mt 28:9, Mk 16:14, Jn 20:19, 26]: After that, he was seen of
above five hundred brethren at once*; of whom the greater part remain unto
this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James;
then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one
born out of due time. (1 Cor 15:3-7)

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among
you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection
of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our
preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. ... But now is Christ risen from
the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man
came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. (1 Cor
15:12-14, 20-21)
*This instance is not mentioned in the Gospels, however, in Jn 21:25 and
Acts 1:3, Johna and Luke, two of the Gospel writers, confirm that many of
Jesus' acts, including those post-resurrection, were not recorded in the
Gospels.
Peter
He confirms Jesus' bodily death by crucifixion.

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree*, that we, being
dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were
healed. (1 Pet 2:24)

250
 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he
might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the
Spirit. (1 Pet 3:18)
*A common reference to crucifixion.
He confirms Jesus' demeanor during His trial.

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us,
leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 2:22 Who did no
sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 2:23 Who, when he was reviled,
reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed
himself to him that judgeth righteously. (1 Pet 2:21-23; cf. Mt 27.12, Lk
23:9)
The writer of Hebrews
He makes reference to Jesus' human nature.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also
himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy
him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who
through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily
he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of
Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things
pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (Heb
2:14-17)
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering
thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: ... Then said he, Lo, I
come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish
the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:5, 9-10)
John
He refers to Jesus as a literal human being.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have
seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have
handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have
seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was
with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (1 Jn 1:1-2)
Some have argued this passage does not reference a physical Jesus; but
rather, could just as easily refer to His appearing in spiritual form as a man,
as He did to the Old Testament patriarchs, kings, and prophets. However,
this passage bears a striking resemblance to another passage penned by the
same author, in which he specifically makes reference to the incarnation of
the Word into literal human flesh. “In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... And the Word was made

251
 flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the
only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (Jn 1:1, 14) When
considering the two passages together, along with other passages in 1 John,
it is clear that the author had a bodily appearance in view when speaking of
Jesus' manifestation.
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one
with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all
sin. (1 Jn 1:7)
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that
spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even
now already is it in the world. (1 Jn 4:2)
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 Jn v.7)
It is clear from these last two passages what import John places on the
belief in Jesus' human nature, going so far as to identify the denial of Jesus'
bodily incarnation as a mark of an unbeliever.
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the
Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;
not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth
witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 Jn 5:5-6)
James and Jude
It is true that neither James nor Jude, the brothers of Jesus (by majority
scholarship consensus), does not make reference to the human nature of Jesus, nor to
any events of Jesus' life, in their writings. Then again, it must be asked, why should
they make such a reference? The purpose of neither apostle was to provide a
biographical sketch of his brother, nor to write an apologetic work defending Jesus'
historicity. Both authors had a similar purpose in view, and neither one requires an
historical narrative, or even mention of events in their brother's life. In the case of
James, his purpose was to emphasize a lifestyle proper to a man of faith. His focus is
not on faith, but on works as a byproduct of one's faith. Even still, contextual
similarities exist between James' letter the Jesus' sermon on the mount, with James
echoing the words spoken by the Lord during public ministry (1:2, 4-5, 9, 20;
2:13-14; 3:17-18; 4:4, 10-11; 5:2, 10-11; cf. Mt 5:3-7:27)1. In a similar fashion, Jude's
purpose for writing is specifically stated in v.3-4:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it
was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly
contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are
certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this
condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness,
and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

252
 While Jude had intended to write concerning the salvation he shared with his
recipients, he thought it necessary instead to write of false teachers which had crept
into the church. These teachers were attempting to convince believers that since the
guilt for their sin had been borne by Christ, thereby making them forever righteous in
the sight of God, that a manner of living separate from sinful pleasures was not
needful for them. It was in response to this false doctrine that James wrote this letter,
so that he might exhort his readers to continue steadfast in their proper manner of
conduct.
Some have pointed to Jude's identifying himself as “the servant of Jesus Christ,
and brother of James” (v.1) as his denial that Jesus possessed a human nature. If Jude
and Jesus were half-brothers by blood, why would Jude neglect to identify himself as
Jesus' brother, especially when, immediately after, he took care to identify James as
his brother? Likewise, why did James identify himself as Jesus' servant, rather than
His brother, a relationship which, it would seem, would be held with honor among
believers? In both cases, their apostleship rested not on a blood relation with the
Lord, but on their service to Him. It was because they were faithful servants of Jesus,
not simply because they could cry “brother,” that they were recognized as pillars (Gal
2:9) within the early church and given apostolic authority. Additionally, their
acceptance of Jesus as God incarnate served to minimize their blood relation to Him.
Jesus' relationship to them as their Lord served to override His relationship to them as
their brother. While both James and Jude remained Jesus' brethren, they became, first
and foremost, His servant, through their faith in Him as their Lord.

In conclusion, it has been shown that five of the seven writers (again, six, if Paul
wrote Hebrews) of the New Testament books outside of the Gospels made reference to
Jesus' existence as an historical flesh and blood figure. It has also been shown that, while
these references are not in abundance compared to the whole of the books beyond the
Gospel record, the writers' occasions for composing their works did not require the
inclusion of such biographical data regarding Jesus. However, when such information
does appear in their letters, it appears in corroboration with the Gospel record, as a
doctrine essential to the faith, and, at times, as a very mark of a true believer. Therefore, it
is absolutely untenable to suggest that these writers not only did not believe Jesus was
made manifest in the flesh, but also did not regard His bodily incarnation as absolute
truth. Finally, it has been shown that the two New Testament writers who did not include
mention of Jesus' earthly existence (each of whom wrote very little when compared to
Luke, John, and Paul – five chapters attributed to James; one chapter to Jude) did so
because it was outside the scope of their purpose for writing. Yet, the critics persist to
declare, futilely so, that these writers remain silent regarding Jesus as an historical figure.
The truth is, the Gospels are silent on one thing: the idea that Jesus never existed or
existed only as a spiritual manifestation as a man. However, when it comes to their
recognition of Jesus as an historical figure, the truth is loud and clear: that Jesus of
Nazareth was the virgin-born, God-incarnate son of Mary, who lived a sinless life, who
was crucified, and who rose from the dead in absolute accomplishment of the redemption
of God's people.

253
IV. Concerning the Gospels’ references to Jesus being of
human descent
The Gospels contain references to Joseph being the biological father of Jesus. Some of
these references are by the same writers who penned Jesus’ virgin birth narratives. How
can the two views on Jesus’ conception be reconciled?

And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch
that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and
these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called
Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his
sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mt
13:54-56)

And he began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your
ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the words of grace which
proceeded out of his mouth: and they said, Is not this Joseph’s son? (Lk
4:21-22)

Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom
Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
(Jn 1:45)

The Jews therefore murmured concerning him, because he said, I am the bread
which came down out of heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of
Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how doth he now say, I am come
down out of heaven? (Jn 6:41-42)

And he came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the
child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law, …
And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover. And
when he was twelve years old, they went up after the custom of the feast; and
when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried
behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not. (Lk 2:27,41-43)

Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God
unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the
midst of you, even as ye yourselves know. (Acts 2:22)

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh. (Rom 1:3)

First, the virgin birth of Jesus was not known publicly during His lifetime. For all
we know, while Jesus was living, the only two who knew of the manner of His
conception were Mary and Joseph. It is likely Mary told Elizabeth, but such is not
explicitly stated in Luke’s account. She may have confided in those closest to her,

254
being her parents, some relatives, some of Jesus' female followers, and certain of
Jesus’ twelve core disciples, however, who or how many people knew of it during
Jesus’ lifetime is a thing that cannot be known today. All that we can be certain of is
that the perception of Jesus’ contemporaries was that Joseph was Jesus’ natural
father, a perception expressed by those in the majority of the above passages.
However, in the second chapter of Luke’s Gospel, Luke refers to Joseph and Mary as
the parents of Jesus, and such description is apparently stated as Luke’s own view,
rather than the view of those who simply did not know any different. It must be
remembered that Joseph, although not the biological father of Jesus, was His legal
father, which made him as much Jesus’ father as it would had he actually sired the
boy, and so it was proper for Luke to refer to he and Mary as Jesus’ parents. While
Joseph’s paternity to Jesus was by adoption, the adoption was only known to Joseph
and Mary when Jesus was presented in the Temple as an infant, for the natural
assumption of the officiating priests would have been that Joseph was Jesus' natural
father. In a physical sense, it could not be said that Joseph was Jesus’ father any more
than could be said of another man. However, in a legal sense, Joseph was Jesus’
father as if he were related to Him by blood. The same is true even today concerning
the relationship between a man and his adopted son. The adoptive parent is referred
to as the child’s father, and upon him is conferred parental rights equal to those of a
biological father. As stated before, the adoption was only known by a select few, if
any at all, other than Joseph and Mary, but by the time of the writing of Luke’s
Gospel, such had been made known, at least among those named within the church.
Second, even in Nazareth the assumption would have been that Jesus was
naturally conceived. The Nazarenes would have known Mary’s conception was pre-
marital, but the circumstances surrounding that conception would remain a mystery
to them.
Third, the mention of “Jesus of Nazareth” in the book of Acts does not negate
Bethlehem as Jesus’ birthplace. Remember, Acts was written by Luke after he had
penned Jesus’ birth narrative; therefore, the author of Acts certainly knew Jesus’
birthplace to be Bethlehem. Here, he is merely making reference to where Jesus was
raised and had spent most of His life. Also, Luke is here relating a sermon by Peter,
given shortly after Jesus’ resurrection. Peter also knew Jesus was born in Bethlehem;
otherwise, Jesus would not have met the qualifications for the Messiah, whose
birthplace in Bethlehem was foretold by the prophet Micah (Micah 5:2)
Fourth, Paul's mention in his letter to the Roman church of Jesus being of the
“seed of David” is not an admission to belief in a natural human conception for
Jesus. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was betrothed to Joseph at the time of Jesus'
conception (Lk 1:27) and the two later became husband and wife prior to Jesus' birth
(Mt 1:25). Luke records that Joseph was of the lineage of David (Lk 1:27), which
was also the reason they needed to travel to Bethlehem, the city of David, to register
according to their ancestry (Lk ch 2). When Joseph and Mary presented the infant
Jesus in the Temple for circumcision and naming, Joseph became the legal, and
presumed, father to Jesus. Therefore, Jesus, although virgin-born through Mary, was
legally of the seed of David through Joseph. It is speculated by many that Mary was
also of Davidic descent and that their marriage was inter-tribal, both spouses being of
the same ancestry. Were that the case, Jesus would also be genetically of the seed of
David. Since legal Davidic ancestry is all that was needed to fulfill God's covenant to

255
 David that the Messiah would come from his lineage, and since genetic lineage is not
in view in Paul's writings, the ancestry of Mary is not relevant in proving Paul did
not believe Jesus to be of normal human generation. Even if Mary was not of
Davidic descent, Jesus would still be “of the seed of David,” through Joseph's legal
paternity, as well as being born “according to the flesh,” through Mary's human
paternity.

V. The authenticity and integrity of the Gospels

Some critics have argued that the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke were later
additions to the Gospels and are not the original writing of the apostles. However, early
belief in the virgin birth is a matter beyond dispute. It has already been shown that the
remainder of the New Testament supports the birth narratives. It has also been shown that
early church writings support not only the virgin birth, but also the authorship of the
Gospels.

Early church testimony

Justin Martyr (c.100-165 A.D.) attests to original apostolic authorship when he states
that the Gospels were “memoirs of the apostles.”

“For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels,
have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread,
and when He had given thanks, said, ‘This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is
My body;’ and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given
thanks, He said, ‘This is My blood;’ and gave it to them alone.”1

“And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the
wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all
things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son
Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who
live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of
the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits;
then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to
the imitation of these good things.”2

“For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those
children whom their daughters bear. For [Christ] called one of His disciples —
previously known by the name of Simon — Peter; since he recognized Him to
be Christ the Son of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it
recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God.”3

“For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the
voice spake to Him, ‘Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten Thee,’ is
recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him,
even so far as to say to Him, ‘Worship me;’ and Christ answered him, ‘Get thee
behind me, Satan: thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou
serve.”4

256
Papias (early second century A.D.) also testified to the early acceptance of the
accuracy, integrity, and apostolic authorship of the books of the New Testament.

“But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations,

whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and
stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth.
For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in
those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but
in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and
proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders
came, I asked minutely after their sayings, — what Andrew or Peter said, or
what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew,
or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter
John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from
books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding
voice.”5

“Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately

whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related
the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied
Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his
instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a
regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in
thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took
especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything
fictitious into the statements.”6

Origen (185–c.254 A.D.) rebuked the second century Epicurean heathen Celsus for
his attacks against the integrity of Scripture.

“After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps also
from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our Savior at His
baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the statement, alleging that
the narrative is a fiction. Having completely disposed, as he imagined, of the
story of our Lord’s birth from a virgin, he does not proceed to deal in an orderly
manner with the accounts that follow it; since passion and hatred observe no
order, but angry and vindictive men slander those whom they hate, as the feeling
comes upon them, being prevented by their passion from arranging their
accusations on a careful and orderly plan. For if he had observed a proper
arrangement, he would have taken up the Gospel, and, with the view of assailing
it, would. have objected to the first narrative, then passed on to the second, and
so on to the others.”7

“For Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all
matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skillful
manner against the credibility of Scripture.”8

257
 Manuscript evidence
The earliest extant copy of a portion of the New Testament is the John Ryland’s
Papyri, containing a portion of John chapter eighteen, and dated to c.125 A.D.,
approximately twenty-five to thirty years after the original writing of the Gospel.

Bodmer Papyrus II (150-200 A.D.) – containing most of John’s Gospel

Chester Beatty Papyri (200 A.D.) – containing major portions of the New Testament

Codex Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) – containing almost the entire Bible

Codex Sinaiticus (350 A.D.) – containing all of the New Testament and half of the
Old Testament

Codex Alexandrinus (400 A.D.) – containing almost the entire Bible

Codex Ephraemi (400s A.D.) – containing most of the New Testament

Codex Bezae (450 A.D.) – containing the four Gospels and the book of Acts

The early date of these manuscripts provides evidence that the New Testament in
its present form is the same, in meaning, as the original.

As shown above, numerous copies of the Bible, in whole or in part, can be dated
to within the first five hundred years of Christianity. In contrast, the earliest extant
copy of Homer’s Illiad dates to five hundred years after Homer penned his epic
poem,9 yet the authorship of the Illiad is not questioned by critics, as is the
authorship of the New Testament books. Below is a comparison of the survival of the
New Testament compared to the writings of other ancient works10:

Author/ Date Earliest Copy Time # of extant

Historian from Original Span Copies
Plato 427-347 BC 900 AD 1,200 7
(Tetralogies)
Pliny (History) 61-113 AD 850 AD 750 yrs 7
Suetonius 75-160 AD 950 AD 800 yrs 8
Demosthenes 383-322 BC 1100 AD 1,300 yrs 8
Caesar 100-44 BC 900 AD 1,000 yrs 10
Tacitus 100 AD 1100 AD 1,000 yrs 20
Aristotle 384-322 BC 1100 AD 1,400 yrs 49
Sophocles 496-406 BC 1000 AD 1,400 yrs 193
The New 64-85 AD 120-150 AD 56 - 65 yrs over 20,000
Testament

258
Version evidence
The virgin birth narratives are contained in the following early translations of the
Gospels.
All the Latin versions

Jerome’s Vulgate

The Old Latin versions dating as far as the days of Tertullian (c.160 – c.220
A.D.)

All the Syriac versions

All the Egyptian (Coptic) versions

The Diatessaron, an early harmony of the Gospels completed by Tatian in 160 or

170 A.D. Tatian eliminates the genealogies, leaving the remainder of the
Gospels intact.

Textual evidence
The birth narratives penned by Matthew and Luke are found in the first two
chapters of each book. Beyond these two opening chapters, each book contains
internal evidence that the birth narratives were original to these works.

Evidence in the Gospel of Matthew

The third chapter of Matthew begins with “in those days,” a reference to a
preceding portion of the Gospel. The authorship of the third chapter is not
disputed by the same ones who dispute the birth narrative in the first two
chapters of Matthew’s Gospel, yet this third chapter contains a clear reference to
a preceding portion of the book.
The fourth chapter of Matthew makes reference to Jesus leaving Nazareth,
yet the only previous of Nazareth in the Gospel is in 2:23, where Joseph and
Mary are said to return to Nazareth after their return from Egypt.

Now when he heard that John was delivered up, he withdrew into Galilee;
and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum. Mt (Mt 4:12-13)

The language of the birth narrative of the first two chapters mirrors the
language of the remainder of the Gospel, particularly with respect to Matthew’s
use of the writings of the prophets. Matthew chapters one and two contain
quotes from the Old Testament Scriptures, each quoted in the same formulaic
manner.

Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by the Lord through the prophet, saying, … (Mt 1:22 NASB)

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the
prophet, saying, … (Mt 2:15 NASB)

259
 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the
prophet, saying, … (Mt 2:17 NASB)

The Old Testament quotes in other portions of the Gospel are presented in the
same Matthean formula

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet,
saying … (Mt 3:3 NASB)

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet,
saying … (Mt 8.17 NASB)

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying
… (Mt 13.35 NASB)

Evidence in the Gospel of Luke

In attempting to discredit Luke’s account of Jesus’ virgin birth, critics have
directed their attacks to two verses in particular, claiming that they were not
original to the Gospel.

And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also
the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God. (Lk 1:34-35)

Not only are these verses included in almost all early manuscripts and versions,
but, as Orr notes, other passages in the text indicate that the verses 34-35 were
original to the Gospel (James Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, p 54), as shown
below:

Luke 2:5 states that Mary was “betrothed” to Joseph. If she had conceived
within the bonds of matrimony, then “betrothed” in 2:5 would need to be
changed to “wife.”

Also, were these verses removed, then Luke 1.27 would also need to be
removed, since there Mary is declared to be “a virgin betrothed to a man
whose name was Joseph.”

If these verses were added to the original Gospel text, Luke’s apostolic
contemporaries would have challenged him and the early church writers
would have corrected the addition. Yet, the remainder of the New Testament
supports Luke’s virgin birth and the early church fathers are silent about any
alleged addition to the original narrative.

260
The virgin birth narratives are historical accounts
Unlike the rest of the New Testament, the Gospels are largely historical in nature;
however, allegations have been made that the Gospels’ contain historical
inaccuracies.

The enrollment of Quirinius

Luke mentions that Jesus was born during a Roman census conducted by
Quirinius, the governor of Syria.

Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar
Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first
enrollment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (Lk 2:1-2
NASB)

According to Josephus, Quirinius’ enrollment occurred in 6 A.D.11, yet Jesus was

born in 4 or 5 B.C. However, Luke also stated that the enrollment was the “first”
enrollment. According to Orr, the German scholar A. W. Zimpt discovered that
Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, with his first governorship being
between 1 A.D. and 4 A.D.12, yet this is still too late to give accuracy to Luke’s
statement. Historians have learned, from census papers found in Egypt, that a
Roman enrollment was attributed to the governor under whose rule the census
was finished, even if the census had begun under a previous governorship.13
Varus was Quirinius’ predecessor, and it is likely that the census mentioned in
Luke began under Varus, at the time when Christ was born, but was then later
completed by Quirinius several years later under Quirinius’ first government.

The massacre of the innocents

Matthew mentions that in order to kill the infant Jewish Messiah, Herod sent
his soldiers to slaughter all make children two years and under in Bethlehem and
the surrounding vicinity. This event is not recorded in any other historical
record, with the possible exception of an allusion made by the Roman
grammarian Macrobius, writing in the firth or fifth century A.D.14 First, lack of
mention does not discredit the event as an historical account. There are many
events in history which have a single historical mention, yet the historicity of
these events is still without question. However, it seems odd to some that such a
crime against humanity would go unnoticed by ancient secular historians. Even
the noted historian Josephus does not mention the massacre, nor does Philo,
although as noted previously, Philo’s histories were biographies of Greeks and
Romans. Philo’s writing concerning Judaism was of theological, rather than
historical, interest.
Herod was a vile man. His cruelty was a thing widely known. Many people
were murdered at his behest, including his own wife and children. Herod knew
the Jews despised him, therefore, shortly before his death, he ordered that some
of the most noble and respected Jews in Judea were to be killed upon his
passing, so that the people of Judea would have cause for mourning, rather than
joyfulness (fortunately, his order was not carried out, for fear of uprising).
Among the many atrocities committed by Herod, the slaughter of the children in

261
 Bethlehem, tragic as it was, pales in comparison, for the victims of this atrocity
may not have been as large in number as some may think. Bethlehem did not
have a large population, and among those residing therein (including the
surrounding area), there may have been only a few dozen male children two
years and under who were murdered at Herod’s decree. Even if news of the
event traveled far and wide, which is unlikely due to the scope of the slaughter,
it may have been regarded as just one of his many cruelties, and not worthy of
great notation in comparison to other of his atrocities. In a recent comparison,
there were many evil acts done against the Jews by Adolph Hitler, and no doubt
there are stories of his cruelty which have never been told, not because these
stories are any less wicked, but because they are simply considered as having
less historical import.

The existence of Nazareth

Until the mid-twentieth century there was no extant record that Nazareth
existed as a settlement prior to the sixth century A.D. That changed in 1962
when the ruins of a synagogue in Caesarea was discovered and in it was found a
marble fragment, dating to the third or fourth century, naming Nazareth as a
town which was the residence of Happizzez, one of the twenty-four priestly
divisions.15 Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, or in
any of Josephus’ writings, however, so are many other ancient Palestinian cities
and towns. The status of Nazareth was not one which would merit the attention
of any ancient author. It was a small town, having less than five hundred
residents.16 Nazareth was also a town generally regarded as a place of ill repute,
being known for the lack of moral virtue of its inhabitants. Additionally, the
Anchor Bible Dictionary states that archaeological excavations in Nazareth have
uncovered Herodian tombs dating to the time of Jesus,17 thus serving as evidence
that Nazareth was a settlement prior to Christ being born.

VI. The characteristics of the person of Jesus, as portrayed

in the Gospels, contradict popular Judaic concepts and, as
such, could not have been a product of invention
It has been argued that the incarnation of the Son of God in human flesh is a doctrine
which later emerged as a mythological element in the biography of Christ. First, it must
be reiterated that myths do not develop over a mere thirty or forty years – the time
between the death of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. Second, the character of the
incarnation is contrary to any Messiah that the Jews would devise of their accord, as will
be shown below. Had the Jews fabricated the idea of the incarnation on Christ, they
would have done so by one of two means: either 1) according to their own religious
preconceptions of how the Messiah should be born, or 2) by borrowing the idea from
pagan mythology and applying such concepts to the promised Messiah.

262
Jewish origin
The incarnation of God did not arise from pre-existing Judaic beliefs concerning
who the Messiah would be or how He should be born.

The concept of the incarnation was a natural offense to the Jewish way of
thinking about God
Some have argued that the incarnation of Christ is a doctrine which grew out
of Paul’s theology. Paul stated that anyone born of man is born in sin; therefore,
the Messiah could not have been born of man. A problem which this theory
cannot overcome is the fact that at the time of the alleged “conception” of the
virgin birth doctrine, there were still plenty of individuals who would have been
able to refute such a claim, were it untrue. That aside, the concept of the
incarnation is not a concept the Jews would have accepted or devised on their
own, for it stands in contrast with other Judaic concepts.

First, the Jews abhorred the very notion of reducing God to a human
level. It was for that reason they sought to kill Jesus for blasphemy when He
declared oneness with God (Jn 9:53-59) The Judaic concept of God was so
high that they even feared to speak His name, lest they speak it in vain. That
God would be born of a woman, with or without human seed, was a concept
not only foreign to their pre-conception of the person of the Messiah, but
more-so contrary to their entire theological framework. A devout Jew would
believe such a thing as the incarnation if only it were true.

Second, Jews upheld the institution of marriage and did not regard
virginity as a thing to be favored. Had the incarnation been a fabricated
element of the Gospels, then Christ would have been conceived not only in
a natural fashion, but to a woman bound in marriage. They would not have
made the Messiah a figure who could be likened to a bastard conceived
outside the bonds of marriage. Also, such a thing would have been a shame
to Mary. Although she is blessed among women as the mother of the human
nature of Jesus, her premarital conception would serve to her shame, even if
it had been the result of sexual abuse.

The virgin birth lacks precedent in Judaism

There is no precedent for the Jews fabricating the incarnation. In the Old
Testament, Isaac, Samuel, and Samson were all children of promise whose birth
was foretold, yet each was conceived naturally and within wedlock. If the Jews
decided to give supernatural origin to the birth of the Messiah, it would have
taken the same form as previous children of promise. Also, following that same
pattern, the Messiah would have been born an ordinary human being, not a
merger of both divine and human natures. None of these promised children were
regarded as God in the flesh. Even in the case of Samson, his great strength was
due to the power of God being given to a normal human being. In all likelihood,
Samson’s form did not resemble that of Arnold Schwarzenegger; but rather, that
of a man of ordinary build. Samson was not mighty because he was God, but
because he was chosen by God. The fact of the matter is that in all of Judaic

263
 literature, historical or otherwise, the only mention of a virgin birth prior to
Christ is by the prophet Isaiah when he prophesied concerning the coming of the
Messiah. Although the prophet Isaiah foretold of Christ’s virgin birth, the true
meaning of the prophecy was not understood until after Christ.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isa 9:14
NASB)

In the original Hebrew, the word translated “virgin” literally means a

“marriageable young woman.” As such, the person in view may or may not be a
virgin. However, the word is used to refer to virgins elsewhere in Scripture (Gen
24:43, Ex 2:8, Song of Sol 1:3, 6:8, Prov 30:19). Likewise, Isaiah’s use of the
word specifically refers to a virgin; otherwise, the “sign” mentioned by Isaiah
would not be a sign at all, for there is nothing significant about a non-virgin
birth. In Talmudic literature, this verse did not have Messianic import, and while
many Old Testament passages were considered in pre-Christian times as a
reference to the coming Messiah, the passage in Isaiah was not among them.

Gentile origin
As the incarnation did not have Jewish origin, neither did it have pagan origin.
Jews had no liking for pagans, especially given their prior captivity and their later
Roman occupation. The Romans, with their deeply mythological religion and their
pagan ceremonies, did not cease to exercise their religious influence even in
Palestine, and the Jews held deep resentment for them because of it. It was due to
such contempt that Herod erected a Roman amphitheater in Jerusalem and hung a
golden eagle, a Roman symbol, on the Temple as a sign of Roman supremacy. The
religion of Rome was a thing absolutely contrary to anything that a devout Jew
would believe, with its polytheistic framework, immoral gods, and emperor and idol
worship. Even German theologian and church historian Adolf von Harnack (1851–
1930), who was no friend of the doctrine of the virgin birth, said, “The unreasonable
method of collecting from the mythology of all peoples parallels for original church
traditions, whether historical reports or legends, is valueless.”1 The apostles were
men steeped in Judaism, and would not have adopted a concept abhorrent to such a
system of belief. Had the biographical elements of Jesus’ life been a product of
imagination, it would certainly bear no resemblance to pagan myth.

Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ. (Col 2:8 NASB)

Greek and Roman origin

The gods of the Greeks and Romans, with their self-satisfying passions, abuse of
women, and vile tempers are nothing like the God of Israel who is a just Judge,
dealing to men and women as they deserve, and has a people whom He cherishes
and gave His own blood to protect.

264
 First, in pagan mythology, whenever a human is born of the result of a
union between god and man, it often is the result of the god suddenly
finding himself burning with lust for a mortal woman, then doing with her
as he pleases (with or without her consent), with no divine purpose in view
for the offspring. Sometimes the god deceives the woman into mating with
him, by taking the form of her husband or another being. It would be an
insult to God and blasphemy for a Jew to compare the virgin birth to such
an immoral and selfish union.

Second, the women who give birth to these god-men are nowhere found
to be virgins; but rather, married women.

Third, the stories of supernatural births in Greek and Roman mythology

are stories that do not have any reference to history. They take place in the
past, in a time unknown, and often involve people or places which did not
exist. In all of their mythology, there is not a single instance where the
event occurs in a time and place where real people are able to testify as
eyewitnesses. How contrary this is to the Gospels, which were written
shortly after Jesus’ resurrection and during a time when a multitude of
people were able to testify to their historical accuracy, or denounce them as
fiction. Interestingly enough, no such denunciation exists.

Fables of heroes
Many heathen cultures claim their kings or heroes were men of divine origin
or position, as was the case with men such as Alexander the Great and Plato. It
was claimed that Alexander was a son of Zeus, and Plato, a son of Apollo, but
these legends formed over a lengthy period of time, not shortly after their
passing and certainly not when any of their contemporaries were still alive. In
each such legend, the mother was not a virgin, and the divine paternity was
regarded as a blessing. Jesus, on the other hand, was ridiculed and eventually
executed for claiming oneness with God.

The legend of Buddha

Buddha lived from c.563 B.C. to 483 B.C., according to most historians. His
birth took on a legendary character two to three hundred years after his death,
when it was said that his mother, who was not a virgin, became pregnant after
having a dream that a white elephant entered into her through her side. Apart
from having no similarity whatsoever to the virginal conception of Jesus, this
story would not have been known in the region occupied by the apostles during
the time when they composed their Gospels.

Egyptian origin
Egyptians believed their Pharaohs were the sons of Ra, the sun god, however,
there was no elaboration on just how these men became related, in a paternal
sense, to deity – they were simply god’s son, and that’s all there was to know.
There was no effort to alter the normal circumstances of their birth in order to

265
 raise them to a son-of-god status, and therefore no virgin birth stories exist in
ancient Egyptian mythology.

Babylonian origin
The Jews were in Babylonian captivity for a fifty-eight year period prior to
Christ. Some have alleged that during this captivity, Persian myth and concepts
crept into Judaic thought and later found its way into the accounts of the virgin
birth of Jesus. It is true that during this captivity, influence was greatly exerted,
but not on the part of the Babylonians. Rather, Judaism crept in to Babylonian
thought, largely due to the high ranking status of the Hebrew prophet Daniel. It
was due to such influence that magi from the east came to worship the Jewish
Messiah after following a sign in the heavens, a sign which they believed was
foretold in the books of Moses (Numbers 24:17-19). Still, the primary religion
of Babylon was Zoroastrianism, which does include a virgin-born Messiah,
although the manner of his birth and the character of his work are strikingly
different from Christ. The messiah of Zoroastrianism is a Saoshyant, one of
three messiahs, each appearing after a set interval. It is believed he will be a
direct son of Zarathushtra, since his mother will become impregnated after
entering a lake in which has been preserved the seed of Zoroaster (Denkard
7.10.15ff). Although his mother is virgin-born, the Saoshyant is not a son of god,
since his mother is impregnated not by Ahura Mazda, the highest of the
Zoroastrian deities, but by the seed of Zarathushtra himself, who was purely
human. In addition, it is said that Saoshyant’s body will shine like the sun,
unlike the veil of flesh which covered, in a sense, Christ’s divine glory.

VII. The characteristics of the life of Jesus, as portrayed in

the Gospels, possess elements which do not bear the marks
of invention
Had the Gospel writers invented invented their account of Jesus' life, certain elements
which exist in the narratives would surely have been omitted. Some of these items have
already been touched upon elsewhere in this volume, therefore, it will suffice to list these
items here in summation.

The hometown of Nazareth

The town of Nazareth was a lowly town, known for its corruption, and is not
a likely first choice for the town in which to raise the promised Messiah. Also,
the prophet Micah foretold Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, which is in
accordance with both birth narratives; however, this leaves us without an
explanation as to why Jesus was said to have relocated from Bethlehem to
Nazareth, unless the evangelists Luke and Matthew were reporting events as
they actually occurred. We know why Joseph and Mary left Bethlehem (at the
behest of the angel), but no explanation is given as to why they chose not to
return to Bethlehem, which was their intention, after the death of Herod, and
instead choosing to return to Nazareth. Were the Gospels fabricated, any

266
relocation from Bethlehem would have likely been to Jerusalem, the holy city
and religious center of Judaism.

Jesus' baptism
Why would the Messiah subject Himself to baptism? Although Jesus gave an
answer to John to that very question, it seems unlikely that the Gospel writers
would have placed John in a position above Jesus in this one instance.

Jesus' mission in Galilee

Jesus was from Galilee, the northern portion of Palestine, and such was
generally regarded as uneducated and of a much lower estate than those of the
southern region of Judea, as a result of the prevailing prejudice in the land at the
time, not too unlike the hostility between the north and south during the
American Civil War.

Jesus' journey through Samaria

It was not common for a Jew to take the road which led through Samaria.
Although this road was the most direct route between Jerusalem and certain
points north, the common practice of the day was to travel the longer route, thus
avoiding the Samaritans, for fear of hostility or rebuke.

The unbelief of Jesus' family and His disciples

Jesus' own siblings at first rejected Him as the Messiah. Their rejection is
understandable, if the account is historically accurate. I can only imagine what
my own brother and sister-in-law would say if it was suddenly proclaimed to
them that I was God incarnate, came to save the world. I can picture a smirk, a,
“yeah, right,” and eventually some words of rebuke if I persisted in my
Messianic claim. However, I cannot picture them on bended knee, and so it was
with Jesus' siblings and fellow Nazarenes. Two of His brothers, James and Jude,
were later writers of two of the books of the New Testament. Had their attitude
been falsely represented in the Gospels, they would likely have written to their
correction.
Also, the disciples did not believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead
until after they saw the physical proof, in His appearance to them. It is not likely
that a historian would distort events, and in so doing make himself look bad in
the public eye.

The Gospels lack certain elements found in the remainder of the New
Testament, and vice-versa
The New Testament, following the Gospels, mentions the disciples speaking
in tongues, which is not found in the Gospels. Likewise, the Gospels include
Jesus' teaching on the “kingdom” and His referring to Himself by titles which do
not appear in the rest of the New Testament. Were the Gospels fabricated, one
would expect to see more conformity on the whole in these regards.

267
Jesus' prayer in Gethsemene
In His prayer in the garden, Jesus prayed to the Father that His “cup,” or the
manner in which He would bear man's sin, would pass from Him. While His
request was a product of His human nature, it is completely untenable that the
Gospel writers would have their Messiah praying such a thing, unless He
actually uttered those words.

Judas' betrayal
The idea that Jesus was betrayed by one within His own inner circle of
disciples does not do much to account for the other disciples' ability to judge
another's character. If the Gospel accounts were fabricated, it is not likely that
the writers would have portrayed themselves, and their Messiah (as some would
suspect), as so easily duped by one of their own.

The disciples' abandonment of Jesus in His hour of trial

Similar to the argument relating to their unbelief, the disciples would not
have portrayed themselves as cowards and deserters after Jesus' arrest.

The crucifixion
Crucifixion was the punishment of slaves and criminals. The worst of the
worst and the most lowly were given a place of ill repute on the cross. If the
Gospels were fabricated, not only is Jesus' execution unlikely, but more so His
manner of death. Also, why did He remain silent before His accusers, rather than
give a long sermon about His mission? Why did the disciples not seem to expect
that Jesus' death was the ultimate act of the Messiah? Why did He not take over
the Temple priesthood and claim Himself as the object of the sacrificial system?

Jesus' burial
Jesus was buried, not in a family tomb, as was the custom, but in a tomb
purchased by a member of the Sanhedrin, most of whom who were regarded as
Jesus' enemies. Also, Jesus was buried not in the town of His birth, or even in
Nazareth, but in the city in which He was only ever a visitor.

The account of Jesus’ resurrection

Nowhere in the four Gospels is Jesus’ actual resurrection depicted. After His
burial, the next event portrayed is the discovery of the empty tomb. The Gospel
writers were not afraid to portray the life of Jesus in a supernatural fashion, as
attested by the many miracles depicted in their writings. It seems unlikely that
they would have left out how the actual resurrection took place, since that event
is the most important event in the New Testament. Surely, if the Gospel writers
were nothing more than writers of fiction, such an event would have found its
way into their account.

The testimony of the women

Ancient Palestine was a patriarchal society in which women were held in
lower esteem than men. Even in a court of law, the testimony of a woman was
often inadmissible simply because those of the feminine gender were regarded

268
as less credible. Nevertheless, in the Gospel accounts, it is the female disciples
of Jesus who first bear witness to the empty tomb.

269
 Conclusion

Spiritual blindness: the true stumbling block

According to The Zeitgeist Movie, "The fact of the matter is, there are dozens of
virgin-born, crucified saviors from all over the world.” The present work has shown this
supposed “fact” to be anything but factual, and contrary to Kersey Graves’ imagination,
the world has not known “sixteen crucified saviors.” The true fact of the matter is that the
evidence surrounding Jesus of Nazareth reveals that the account of His life as presented
in the Gospels reflects an historical account of the incarnation of God in human flesh,
born of a virgin, crucified, dead for three days, then rose from the dead, ascending to
heaven where He presently serves as High Priest and Mediator in God’s everlasting
covenant which He made for His elect. The length to which a person will go in an attempt
to expose Christianity as a fraud is a testament to his or her spiritual blindness. Salvation
comes through faith. If one has no faith, then regardless of how clear the truth is
presented or how many evidences are shown to validate the Christian faith, the
understanding of that one will remain darkened and the heart hardened against the truth.
As one apologist stated, truth cannot penetrate their hearts and minds any more than a
dart can penetrate a brick wall, simply because the surface of the wall is such that it is
unable to receive the dart1 So it is true with the critic so steadfast in and devoted to his
prejudice against Christianity. He is unable to see the light of truth because he does not
want to see it, for in the seeing does his own shortcoming become evident. When faced
with the reality of who God is, the natural result is the opening of the eyes to one’s own
sin and need for a Savior. Yet, because of the grace of God, the story does not end with
the sinner on his face before God, crying, “Woe is me, for I am undone,” as did Isaiah
upon his vision of God’s glory. Rather, the nail-scarred hands of Christ extends to the
sinner and raises him to new life in which all the former trespasses are forgiven and he
who formerly stood as one guilty of the most reckless of abandon now stands as one
named among the children of God.

“The evidence is already there. The denial of Christ has less to do with facts and
more to do with the bent of what a person is prejudiced to conclude.”2

The inevitable triumph of truth

The fact that Jesus Christ is the world’s only crucified Savior is a fact in which
everyone will eventually come to believe, but, for some, this belief will come past the
point of no return. One day, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord. Even the critic most hostile to Christianity will one day face the very
God he denies, but for him, when that day comes, there will be no hope – and he will
have only himself to blame, having chosen in life to wallow in his own vomit and
abandon the only hope he has for a blessed eternity. For now, those hostile to the
Christian faith prefer to stand as archers with the points of their arrows aimed at the heart
of the Christian faith. Yet, in the end, it will be truth, not the inventions of deceivers,
which will conquer all.

270
“Who do you say that I am?”
During Jesus’ ministry, He questioned His disciples concerning the various opinions
circulating as to His identity, for some believed Him to be the prophet Elijah. He then
asked His disciples who they believed Him to be, as narrated in Matthew’s Gospel,
below:

Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,
saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? And they said, Some say John the
Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto
them, But who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God. (Mt 16:13-16)

The most important question that everyone will need to answer is, “Who do you say Jesus
is?” The answer to that question is of cosmic importance, for in the answering one either
condemns his soul or receives grace and freedom from the guilt of sin. For this reason,
the Biblically illiterate need to check everything carefully when making outlandish
claims that the Gospel of Christ is nothing more than a myth, for the so-called facts on
which their argument is based is nothing more than quicksand into which they will
drown. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and the Gospel of Christ is logical,
coherent, and reasonable. The critic would take heed to consider the truth of Christianity,
lest he perish in his own misconceptions.

The awful wrath of God

There are three kinds of people: those who hold to the truth, those who seek the truth,
and those who despise the truth. The first class need not fear death, for in dying are they
raised to everlasting blessedness. The second class, if sincere in their quest for truth, will
find the truth by which they will be set free. The third class, being so darkened in their
understanding and deluded in their reasoning, should tremble in terror at the thought of
death, for in dying they will face terrible wrath of God, by which they will be justly
condemned for their own unbelief. As J.I. Packer stated, “As Judge, [Christ] is the law,
but as Savior He is the Gospel. Run from Him now and you will meet Him as Judge then
– and without hope. Seek Him now, and you will find Him, and you will then discover
that you are looking forward to that future meeting with joy.”3

The nonsense of grace

Why would God redeem man? Even more, why would He create man, only for man to
turn his back on his Creator? To the human mind, this makes no sense, and yet, God has
mercifully decreed it to be so. I am really not surprised at the fact that God knows
everything, or is everywhere, or is all-powerful. God should be those things. That only
makes sense. Someone who is so supremely sovereign and free and limitless should have
those attributes. I don't know all the implications involved with saying that God knows
everything, or that he is everywhere-present, or that he is all-powerful, but I do
understand that He is and that He should be these things. If He was any less, that would
be a cause for surprise. What does leave me stumped is His grace. Unlike grace, God's
justice in condemning a covenant breaker makes perfect sense. He should punish those
who break His covenant, which we all have done. The thing about Scripture that is
absolutely nonsense to my mind is also that which is at the core of Scripture: grace. It is

271
not a wonder that unregenerate people do not believe the Gospel – it infinitely transcends
that which understandable by a finite mind. What logic is there in condemning Jesus – the
only one who has ever perfectly kept the Law in full obedience? What justice is there in
giving the innocent plaintiff the death penalty and allowing the convicted defendant to go
free, especially when you consider the depth and severity of the crime? Only God
understands why He became man, bled and died, so that sinners would be set free. Grace
is the one thing about God and His Word that is senseless. But, in being senseless, His
grace truly does become the most amazing truth in the universe. I do not know why God
redeems man, but if there’s one thing I do know, it’s that God is good and His promises
are sure.

The awesomeness of God

Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby
we may offer service well-pleasing to God with reverence and awe. (Heb 12:28
NASB)

Christian churches sing, “Our God is an awesome God, ” but I cannot help but wonder
how often those words grasp the mind of the worshiper. What does it mean to be truly
awesome? The word is used so flippantly today. Many things are called awesome – a
good movie, a book, a fun roller coaster ride, grandma’s home cooking, the list goes on.
But, how often do these things, and others, really fill a person with awe? Do they
paralyze the tongue and swell the eyes with tears? Scripture describes men who truly
realized that God is an awesome God, and the effect that realization had upon them.
When Isaiah saw a vision of God, he cried, “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a
man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes
have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.” (Isa. 6.1-6 NASB) Likewise, the apostle John,
when he received a revelation of the risen, glorified Son of God, he “fell at His feet as
one dead.” (Rev 1:12-17 NASB) God is awesome, in the truest sense of the word. His
grace is that which is beyond comprehension. His love is greater than any love man has
ever known, and for this reason believers can proclaim His amazing grace, which can
save the most wretched of sinners. When a person is confronted with the greatness of
God, it is evident just how awesome He is, and it is this realization which brings one to
lay himself bare before God and in utter helplessness.

All of Grace
Although man is unable to help himself, he is not without hope, for he is not left to lie
with his face on the ground, but is changed and so completely transformed, so that he
who was formerly clothed in his own righteousness, which is as filthy rags, is now
clothed with the righteousness of Christ. He who was once ridden with sin is now made
clean and spotless in the sight of God. He who was formerly found guilty and sentenced
to everlasting damnation is now acquitted of all charges against him, freed from the sin
which once held him chained and in slavery to sin, being then made as one worthy to
abide in the presence of God. This worth by which he stands before God is not his own
worth, but is the worth of the one who gave His life so that those unworthy can live in
peace and joy with Him. This is what gives man cause to gaze in wonder at the grace of
God, and stand in awe that such a one, infinitely holy, infinitely pure, and infinitely just
would humble Himself as He did and bear the brunt of His own wrath against sin, so that

272
those whom He loves will never need endure such agony. That is the power of God unto
salvation, the power which can cleanse the vilest of sinner, forgive the most wicked and
repetitious sin, and give such a one a place of honor at His table. The second book of
Samuel narrates an instance during the reign of King David when he took in
Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, with whom David made a covenant.

And David said, Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him
kindness for Jonathan’s sake? And there was of the house of Saul a servant whose
name was Ziba, … and Ziba said unto the king, Jonathan hath yet a son, who is lame
of his feet. And the king said unto him, Where is he? And Ziba said unto the king,
Behold, he is in the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, in Lo-debar. Then king
David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir the son of Ammiel, from Lo-
debar. And Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came unto David,
and fell on his face, and did obeisance. And David said, Mephibosheth. And he
answered, Behold, thy servant! And David said unto him, Fear not; for I will surely
show thee kindness for Jonathan thy father’s sake, and will restore thee all the land
of Saul thy father; and thou shalt eat bread at my table continually. And he did
obeisance, and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead
dog as I am? Then the king called to Ziba, Saul’s servant, and said unto him, All that
pertained to Saul and to all his house have I given unto thy master’s son. And thou
shalt till the land for him, thou, and thy sons, and thy servants; and thou shalt bring
in the fruits, that thy master’s son may have bread to eat: but Mephibosheth thy
master’s son shall eat bread alway at my table. Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty
servants. Then said Ziba unto the king, According to all that my lord the king
commandeth his servant, so shall thy servant do. As for Mephibosheth, said the king,
he shall eat at my table, as one of the king’s sons. And Mephibosheth had a young
son, whose name was Mica. And all that dwelt in the house of Ziba were servants
unto Mephibosheth. So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem; for he did eat continually
at the king’s table. And he was lame in both his feet. (2 Sam 9:1-13)

As David took in the lame, lowly son of Jonathan and gave to him all that was due to
Jonathan, so does the God the Father take in all those whom His Son has redeemed, to
make whole their infirmities and grant unto them the honor and blessings due to the Son,
in whose name they stand before the Father, just and free. One preacher tells a story of a
reporter speaking to a Christian, a Muslim, and an orthodox Jew and inquiring each
concerning his eternal destiny.

The reporter comes up to the orthodox Jew and says, “Sir, if you died right now,
where would you go?”

The orthodox Jew says, “Well, I’d go to paradise.”

Reporter: “Why?”

Jew: “Well, I love the law of God. I study the law of God. I meditate on the law of
God. I’m obedient to the law of God.”

273
 Reporter: “Okay. Makes sense.” [He] comes to the Muslim. “Sir, if you died right
now, where would you go?”

Muslim: “I’d go to heaven.”

Reporter: “Why?”

Muslim: “Well, I love the Koran. I obey the Koran, and I am a righteous man, and
I’ve made the pilgrimages, and I’ve given alms to the poor, and I’ve done this and
that. I am a righteous man.”

The reporter goes, “Okay. Makes sense to me.” [He] comes to the Christian. “Sir, if
you died right now, where would you go?”

Christian: “To heaven, to paradise.”

Reporter: “Well, why.”

Christian: “In sin did my mother conceive me and in sin was I brought forth. I have
broken every law that God has ever given. I deserve the every depths of …”

Right there, the reporter stops and says, “Sir, you’re confusing me. The other two
guys I understand. I asked them where they are going and they said they're going to
heaven and they’re right with God. And I asked them why. Because they’re righteous
men in themselves. They have virtue. They have merit. So, they’re going to heaven.
Sir, I come to you and you declare with a smile on your face you’re going to heaven.
And yet, you claim to have no virtue or personal merit before God. How are you
going to heaven?”

And the Christian says, “I am going to heaven based upon the virtue and the merit of
another, Jesus Christ, my Lord. Nothing in my hands I bring.”

The grace of God is free to all who come to Him. All one needs to do is come.

A final word to the Christian

Until the end of time, critics will present their arguments against Christianity. They
will devise their arguments and craft them in such a way to appeal to the common
layman. As Christians, it is our all-too-natural tendency to shun such arguments and
regard them as simply the product of a darkened mind, thereby blindly clinging onto our
own understanding and textbook answers to such objections. When the critic presents
what he or she claims to be evidence against Christian beliefs, it is not enough to merely
reply, “the Bible tells me otherwise.” How do you know that what you believe is true? Do
you know whether or not you are understanding the Bible in its historical context? Or, are
you settling for being spoon-fed from behind a pulpit? When seemingly solid evidence is
presented by the critic, how is such evidence answered only by an appeal to faith? The
evidence presented by the critic must be examined – not for your sake only, but also for
the sake of your neighbor. When the critic claims, “Hey, I found Jesus' tomb!” it is not

274
enough to reply with a “Bah humbug” and say, “That can't be, because the Bible says
Jesus rose from the dead!” As believers in Christ, it is our duty to meet these arguments
face to face. If the evidence is indisputably solid, then pack up your Bible and become an
atheist. If the evidence is faulty, then your faith will be made stronger. If the Gospel of
Christ is true, then what have we to fear by considering the claims to the contrary? If fear
keeps you from diving into such an investigation, then perhaps it is time to examine your
measure of faith and determine if you believe what you do because it is what you were
told or raised to believe, or because you have studied the Scriptures, sought out the proofs
for Christianity, and know in your heart and mind that it is the truth. Too many Christians
today suffer from a dumbed-down measure of faith that does not exceed much beyond a
Sunday School level of understanding. Such a measure of faith is suited for children, but
not for teens and adults capable of conducting an in-depth analysis of a topic. We should
properly respond to critics by being open-minded in listening to their claims. However,
do not confuse open-mindedness with naivety. In examining the critics' claims, it is
sometimes best to approach the issue from a non-Christian point of view and play devil's
advocate with your own faith. If the claims of the critic are invalid, then the evidence
against them will surface and you will emerge with your feet more firmly planted on the
solid rock of Christ. It is by faith alone that we are saved, but it is not by faith alone that
we live. The Gospel of Christ is a rational and logical system of belief, and in the
working out of one's faith, logic should not be shunned as a humanistic philosophy. Logic
is based in truth, and truth comes from God. When Jesus appeared to Thomas, Jesus did
not stand from across the room and say, “Believe it or not.” Rather, he called Thomas to
touch His hands and see the nail prints in His hands, and He did this so that Thomas
would believe. When Paul preached to the Greeks, he did not recite the words of Christ
and simply hoped for the an affirmative response. Rather, he held dialogues with the
Greeks, using reason and philosophy, and showed them from the Scriptures why he made
the claims he did. Likewise, the Bereans, mentioned in Acts chapter seventeen, accepted
the message of the Apostles with all “readiness of mind” and consequently searched the
Scriptures daily to verify if what they believed was true. So should it be today. Claims
against the faith should not be met with fear, discouragement, apathy, or predetermined
resolve. Rather, such claims should be seen as an opportunity to put your faith to the test,
for in so doing, not only may your faith be strengthened, but you may find that doors will
open to present the truth to others, which is exactly what we, as Christians, are to do.
Simply put, the church has fallen asleep, and it is time to awaken. If God be for us, who
can be against us?

A final word to skeptics and critics

For those who are uncertain what to believe, or have already made up your mind that
Christianity is a bunch of malarkey, then perhaps you have already fallen prey to one or
more tactics used by those who denounce Christianity. The critic most hostile against the
Christian faith is equipped with a utility belt full of snares, deceptions, and agendas. If
you have determined that Christianity is false because of what you have heard in a
documentary or have read in a book or magazine, then you have likely chosen the easy
route to atheism or some other form of religion. As has been shown throughout this book,
much of what has been said against Christianity and the authority of Scripture bears the
character of deception or faulty research and assumptions, which ultimately lead to faulty
conclusions. Just as the Christian should not settle for a dumbed-down version of his

275
faith, so should the skeptic or critic not settle for an uneducated form of atheism.
Consider this: what if you are wrong? If so, when do you intend to validate your beliefs?
As it is said in Scripture, there is a way that seems right to man, but the end thereof is the
way of death. Contrary to prevailing notions, eternity is no laughing matter, and there is
only one life in which to say yea or nay to Christ. If you have examined the evidence for
yourself and, after thorough and honest research, you remain convinced that Christianity
is a fraud, then nothing more can be said. Some people simply will not believe the
Gospel, no matter what. If you fit that description, and if the reasons for your conviction
do not constitute the same deceptions of critics as those delineated in this book, then it
can only be urged of you to tread cautiously, lest you become ensnared further by such
deception. Be sure that your convictions are not based on what has been inferred; but
rather, what is indisputable. Do not be so devoted to your convictions that you fail to
consider the alternative when new revelation is presented to you. Do not become
disillusioned with Christianity based on the state of the church of the modern age, or by
the televangelist who seeks to empty the pockets of his congregation rather than further
the church of Christ, or by the Christian who wields a Bible as if it were a baseball bat.
The Gospel of Christ is based on faith, but it is a personal faith. Jesus asked His disciples,
“Who do men say that I am,” but the question did not stop after He received the answer,
for He then asked, “Who do you say that I am?” One's verdict concerning Christ must not
be based on either the Bible-thumping, over-eager Christian nor the critic claiming the
Gospels are nothing more than fables. What does the Bible and the evidence say about
Christ? Furthermore, what does it say about you and the world you live in? That is the
Gospel of Christ, that “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not
His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be
saved. He that believes on Him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned
already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (Jn
3:16-18)

276
 The Journey
Pilgrims in a foreign land
Throughout the Bible believers have expressed their journey through life as a
pilgrimage, and men of faith as strangers and pilgrims traveling in a foreign land.

And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How many are the days of the years of thy life? And
Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and
thirty years: few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have
not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their
pilgrimage. (Gen 47:8-9)

…and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they
that say such things make it manifest that they are seeking after a country of their
own. And if indeed they had been mindful of that country from which they went out,
they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better country, that
is, a heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for he
hath prepared for them a city. (Heb 11:14-16)

In The Christian Pilgrim, Jonathan Edwards states, “In confessing that they were
strangers, they plainly declared that this is not their country; that this is not the place
where they are at home. And in confessing themselves to be pilgrims, they declared
plainly that this is not their settled abode, but that they have respect to some other
country, which they seek, and to which they are traveling.”1

The concept of the Christian life as a pilgrimage is most vividly expressed in John
Bunyan’s allegorical book The Pilgrim's Progress from This World to That Which Is to
Come, first printed in 1678, and has since been translated into more than two hundred
languages. Pilgrim’s Progress chronicles the travels of Christian, a man from the City of
Destruction, who finds himself under the weight sin, depicted as a heavy burden borne
upon Christian’s back. Christian is advised by Evangelist to journey to the Wicket Gate,
where Good Will (later revealed to be Jesus) directs him to the “place of deliverance,” or
the cross, where the straps which holds his heavy burden break, causing the burden to fall
off his back. Upon being freed from his burden, Christian is given a passport to the
Celestial City, or heaven, and his journey thereunto is chronicled in the remaining first
part of Bunyan’s book. However, his journey is not without trials and anguish, as he must
contend with such villains as Giant Despair and Apollyon, yet he is given companions,
such as Faithful and Hopeful, to aid him in his journey to the Celestial City, a place
where he arrives at the end of his story.

The question remains: Why is it that the Christian life is depicted as a pilgrimage from
a foreign land to a land more suited to his habitation? The answer lies in the
transformation which a person undergoes upon placing his or her faith in Christ. When
the Spirit of God calls a person and bestows faith upon him, by which he is awakened to
his own corrupt condition, along with the desire to turn to God, his only hope of
deliverance from such a condition, the man is changed to the uttermost. He is changed

277
from a child of wrath into a child of God, a transformation which Scripture speaks of as a
remaking or rebirth into a new creature.

Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed
away; behold, they are become new. (2 Cor 5:17 NASB)

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God
afore prepared that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:10 NASB)

This new identity in which the believer is fashioned connects him with Christ in an
everlasting union, and results in the believer sharing in Christ’s possessions. It is said in
Scripture that Christians are remade in the likeness of Christ’s righteousness, and share in
the inheritance given to Him.

We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ
was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in
newness of life. (Rom 6:4)

The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: and if
children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer
with him, that we may be also glorified with him. (Rom 8:16-17)

It is because of this union with Christ that the believer’s allegiance is altered and he is
given a newfound citizenship in heaven. Whereas he was once bound to sin, in a natural
state of condemnation, and alienated from heaven, he is now bound to God, reborn into a
state of grace and blessing. What was once his natural habitation now becomes a land
foreign to him, for his new home is the abode of God, a home from which he was
formerly alienated, but now exists as his promised rightful inheritance. Until the day
when that inheritance is made reality, the Christian lives as a pilgrim in his present land,
awaiting the day when he will awaken to new life and see God face to face. In Scripture,
this pilgrimage of the Christian is expressed in nationalistic terms, as when the believer is
said to be a member of a holy nation, and an ambassador in his present world, an office
which, by nature, requires the one holding that office to abide in a foreign land, as one
representing the ruler of his true home.

But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own
possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of
darkness into his marvelous light: who in time past were no people, but now are the
people of God: who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. Beloved,
I beseech you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lust, which war
against the soul. (1 Pet 2:9-11)

So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners [with God], but ye are fellow-
citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation
of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone. (Eph
2:19-20)

278
 For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus
Christ. (Phil 3:20)

We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating by

us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. (1 Cor 5:20)

Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be
called children of God; and such we are. For this cause the world knoweth us not,
because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet
made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be
like him; for we shall see him even as he is. (1 Jn 3:1-2)

The pursuit of God

As pilgrims in a foreign land, Christians are to spend their effort and time in earnest
pursuit of God, a pursuit which, once embarked upon, rewards the seeker with the
abiding presence of God. Long ago, the Jews were once strangers in the land of Egypt
and in bondage to an earthly master, only later to be called out of that land and into a land
of promise, given them by virtue of their inheritance as the seed of Abraham. Likewise,
the Christian pilgrim has been called out from his land of captivity and into a land of
promise. Yet, his journey is not without challenge. As the Hebrew people left Egypt to
spend forty years wondering in the wilderness, so does the Christian wander through this
earthly realm, but he does not wander alone, for the Creator of the cosmos and the
Redeemer of man guides his steps and gives strength in times of weakness. In the end, the
seeking pilgrim will surely reach the land of his inheritance and dwell in the house of the
Lord forever.

If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where
Christ is, seated on the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above,
not on the things that are upon the earth. (Col 3:1-2)

As the hart panteth after the water brooks, So panteth my soul after thee, O God. (Ps
42:1)

O God, thou art my God; earnestly will I seek thee: My soul thirsteth for thee, my
flesh longeth for thee, In a dry and weary land, where no water is. (Ps 63:1)

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
(Jer 29:13)

One thing have I asked of Jehovah, that will I seek after; That I may dwell in the
house of Jehovah all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of Jehovah, And to
inquire in his temple. (Ps 27:4)

Such is the journey upon which the Christian embarks, but what it is that sets his feet
upon such a path? As Bunyan’s Christian was given a passport to the Celestial City, so
does the believer in Christ receive the Spirit of God as the guarantee by which he is
assured that there is an everlasting rest at the end of his journey. Still, what is it that sets

279
his sight on such a pursuit and urges him to fervently engage himself in matters
respecting this quest? The story of the Christian pilgrim is a story of grace and love, of
freedom from bondage, of death and new life, and of an everlasting habitation before the
face of God. It is the greatest story ever told, for it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“In the beginning . . .”

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1). As the culmination
of His creation, He fashioned man in His image, and man lived in perfect fellowship with
God, enjoying unhindered union and communion, free of all shame (Gen 1-2). God gave
one ordinance: that man should not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
So long as man lived in obedience to the law of God, his relationship with God remained
unbroken. This is the fellowship that God desires of His people, that they live free of
guilt, shame, and death.

A people in exile
Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, succumbed to temptation and broke the law
of God (Gen 3:6). In so doing, they became so alienated from God that all former union
and communion was completely eradicated, replaced with shame and guilt. Their very
nature became corrupt, thus meriting the righteous anger of God for their sin, the
consequence of which was certain death (Gen 2:17). The sin of man requires his blood
and, consequently, his life.(Heb 9.22) Following their sin, a curse was placed on man and
his every succeeding generation, (Romans 5:12-14) so that they shall live a life foreign to
God, as ones in exile from their former state of fellowship with God, only to suffer death
in the end. It is because of this curse that every person is born in a state of sin, (Ps 51.5)
spiritually dead to God, but “alive unto sin.”(Rom 6.11) The vanity of fallen man is most
expressed in his contentment with his present state of being, in living a life foreign to that
which he was created to lead – a life without the abiding presence of God.

Man’s inability to embark on the journey

Having set himself on a path of destruction, man then became unable to right his
wrongs, to regain his footing on the path of righteousness. Still, he tries his best to set his
path straight. This he does by attempting to perform good deeds, think proper thoughts,
and have proper desires, however, only blood can provide the required payment as the
penalty for iniquity, and so man remained sinful, despite his most earnest effort to restore
communion with God. (Rom 3:23) In an act of grace, it was promised to man that one
day God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, would right the wrongs done from the
heart of man, (Jn 1:29) since the righteousness gained by man, through good deeds, is
righteousness in man’s eyes only, but to God, is as filthy rags. (Isa 64:6) With respect to
the promise of a coming Deliverer, God instituted a sacrificial system, in which man
offered the blood of animals as a sacrifice for sin. (Lev 4:27-31) These sacrifices served
only as a shadow of the coming reality, for the blood of lambs was not sufficient to
eradicate man’s guilt. Rather, they served to make man aware of his sin and to give him
hope in the one future sacrifice by which man’s guilt would be completely wiped clean.
So it was that man continued for many of his generations, living under the shame brought
by sin, but in faith and hope in the coming Messiah who would save them.

280
The way to the Promised Land
One day, in a small village named Bethlehem, God took on human flesh and was born
of a girl named Mary. He grew as would any other boy, yet with the knowledge that He
was sent to be the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. As the God-
Man, he gained many disciples and performed miraculous works. Still, He was rejected,
for He did not meet the Jews' preconception of what the Messiah should be like, since
Jesus was a man with no home of his own and from a poor family. The life Jesus lived
was a life of perfect obedience to the Law, (Mt 5.17) a life which man became unable to
live after his fall into sin. It is often said that Jesus was “born to die,” and it was in His
eventual crucifixion that He was offered as the spotless Lamb, not shedding His blood for
sin of His own, but for the sin of whose whom He came to save. (Lk 24.45) Having shed
His innocent blood for the sin of others, He cried, “It is finished,” and with that
declaration, the work of man’s redemption was accomplished. The salvation that man
could not earn for himself was then earned for Him, by the only one who did not share in
man’s guilt. This is why God became man, that He could shed His own blood and provide
a sacrifice which held enough value to cleanse man’s sin. (Heb 9.13-14) However, the
story does not end with the cross, for three days later, He arose from His grave in
complete victory over the curse of death, (Jn 20-21) and not for Him only, but for all
those whom He came to redeem. In His death, He guaranteed salvation for His people,
and in His resurrection, He provided the surety of His claim to be the Lamb of God, for if
Christ were not risen, then Christians would be without hope entirely.

Journeying down a better road

Having provided the perfect and effectual sacrifice for man’s sin, man is now drawn to
God upon the leading of the Spirit of God. Man no longer needs to strive to perform
works unto the attainment of salvation, for Jesus performed the work Himself. All that
now remains is to trust in His work and cling to Him by faith. Salvation has been
provided for man, and by man’s faith is that salvation applied to man’s account. Once this
salvation is applied, the man becomes a new creature, no longer a slave to sin, but free
unto God, and made a citizen of heaven.

This is where man embarks on his pilgrimage, from this world to a better world, a
world where God and man can once again speak face to face and walk side by side, man
being able to see God as He is. It is this goal which the Christian pursues, for such a life
is so much greater than even the life of the wealthiest of earthly kings. As Edwards stated,
“Therefore it becomes us to spend this life only as a journey towards heaven, as it
becomes us to make the seeking of our highest end and proper good, the whole work of
our lives, to which we should subordinate all other concerns of life.” The contentment
that man once had for the land in which he had his former citizenship is now replaced
with a longing for his new home, a home for which his journey is now set. Along this
journey, and having his hope set on that which is to come, all earthly pleasures should
become as that which passes with the blowing of the wind, for in them rests not the hope
of eternity with God. The pilgrim is then equipped with all that is necessary for the
journey, being equipped with the armor of God and a heart turned from stone to flesh.

Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of
witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let

281
 us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and
perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,
despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb
12:1-2)

Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole
armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our
wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the
powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of
wickedness in the heavenly places. Wherefore take up the whole armor of God, that
ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand. Stand
therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of
righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
withal taking up the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery
darts of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God. (Eph 6:10-17 NASB)

As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby. (1
Pet. 2:2)

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (1
Cor 10:31)

Journey’s end
As Bunyan’s pilgrim finished his journey and entered into the Celestial City, so shall
the Christian enter into everlasting, either as a good and faithful servant or as one who
has never entered into a personal relationship with the King of the universe. The work of
Christ was a perfect sacrifice; therefore, the Christian has the surety that the blessing
conferred by virtue of that sacrifice is his everlasting possession.

“They shall hunger no more nor thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them,
nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne, shall feed them and
shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears
from their eyes.” (Rev. 7:16-17)

All that it takes to begin this pilgrimage to heaven is to place your trust in the sacrifice
of Christ as the perfect sacrifice for sin. Confess yourself as a sinner before God and
believe that Jesus is the only hope for your salvation. Such a confession does not involve
praying in “thee’s” and “thou’s,” as expressed in the old English versions of the Bible.
All that is takes is faith, for by grace are you saved, through faith, not of yourselves. It is
the gift of God. Confess –Believe – Trust – Hope. That’s the simple truth. Salvation is
free to all those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that
there is salvation in no other name but His.

For questions or more information on what it is to become a Christian,

please write to lightandlifegraphics@yahoo.com

282
 About the Author

Michael holds a bachelor's degree in commercial art and has been a lay student in
theological studies for more than twenty years. Presently, Michael is a candidate for a
Master of Divinity degree. He has spent the past decade working on various book
projects with friend and fellow artist Jonathan Myers. He is also the graphic designer for
a card game based on Tom Kidd’s masterwork Gnemo. In the year 2000 Jonathan and he
founded Ambition Studios, through which they published the black and white graphic
novel Swamp Fox: Birth of a Legend, a Disneyesque revision of the adventures of
Revolutionary War hero Francis Marion. The project received critical acclaim through
local media and industry reviewers, and is currently being remodeled into a full color
book. In November 2008, Michael formed Light and Life Graphics, through which he
published his first book A Sure Foundation: Answering the Charge Against Christianity.
A proficient oil painter, he continues to work on projects of his own making, as well as in
conjunction with other studios. Formerly a Pittsburgh, PA native, Michael currently
resides in upstate New York with his five cats: Toby, Pippin, Merry, Mooch (the stray),
and Nikki, and is the proud uncle of two nieces, Emily and Sara, and a nephew, Matthew.

283
 Notes

Introduction
1. Smith , Jonathan Z. The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Mircea Eliade,
Article titled "Dying and Rising Gods", volume 4, New York: MacMillan
Publishing Company, 1986. pp. 521-522.
2. <www.zeitgeistmovie.com/q&a.htm> Accessed August 10, 2008.
3. <benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/12/zeitgeist-of-zeitgeist-movie.html>
Accessed August 10, 2008.
4. <www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm>
Accessed August 11, 2008.

Part 1: Gospel or Myth?

Virgin birth
1. Plutarch. A Hymn to Osiris and a Legend of the Origin of Horus.
<www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg22.htm> July 16, 2008.
2. Article from History News Network, <hnn.us/articles/6641.html> Accessed
July 16, 2008.
3. Plutarch. On Isis and Osiris, Moralia V, 18.
4. Lesko, Barbara S. Great Goddesses of Egypt. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1999. p. 162.
5. Dunand / Zivie-Coche. Gods and Men in Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 2005. p. 39.
6. Acharya S, The Companion Guide to Zeitgeist Part 1. Seattle: Stellar House
Publishing, 2008. p. 41.
7. ibid., p. 39.
8. Plutarch, op. cit., ch. 9.
9. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 40.
10. ibid., p. 39.
11. < egyptianmyths.net/neith.htm> Accessed December 30, 2008.
12. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis> Accessed January 1, 2009.
13. Acharya S, op. cit., p.42.
14. Mahabharata, 12.68.
15. Srimad Bhagavatam, 10.2.17-18.
16. ibid., 10.3.15 17.
17. <www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-acharya-s/a-
refutation-of-archary-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy-pt-1> Accessed July 13,
2008.
18. Clauss, Manfred. The Roman Cult of Mithras. New York: Routledge, 2001.
pp. 62-63.
19. Commodianus, Instructions 13.
20. Encyclopedia Britannica. Article entry: “Mithraism” Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 2004.
21. Clauss, op. cit., p. 168-169.
22. Pausanias, Description of Greece 7.17.8.

284
 23. ibid., 7.17.10-12.
24. Euripides, The Bacchae.
25. Encyclopedia Mythica, Article titled “Zeus”,
<www.pantheon.org/articles/z/zeus.html> Accessed December 8, 2008.

December 25th date of birth

1. Plutarch, op. cit., ch 65.
2. <www.tektonics.org/copycat/attis.html> July 23, 2008.
3. <www.experiencefestival.com/a/Krishna_Janmaashtami_-_Date/id/593952>
Accessed July 23, 2008.
4. <www.tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.html> Accessed July 25, 2008.
5. The New Catholic Encyclopaedia Vol. III, 1967 edition, p. 656.
6. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 2.1.3.
7. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 17.8.1.
8. Brown, William. The Tabernacle: Its Priests and Its Services. Peabody:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1996. p. 129.
9. Ramsay, Sir William. Was Christ Born at Bethlehem. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1979. p. 193.
10. Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1930. pp. 240-243.
11. Manual of Liturgical History, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 67.
12. Acharya S, op. cit., p.24.
13. <tbknews.blogspot.com/2006/06/christ-code-stolen.html> Accessed January
12, 2009.
14. <newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm> Accessed January 12, 2009.
15. Acharya S, op. cit., p.25.
16. ibid.
17. ibid., p. 33.
18. ibid.

His mother was named Mary

1. <www.touregypt.net/featurestories/mut.htm> Accessed December 12, 2008.
2. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneith> Accessed December 12, 2008.
3. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 36
4. ibid.
5. Ovid, Metamorphoses, 10.298-518.
6. Buddha-karita, 1.9, 15, 19-20.
7. Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Peabody:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1993. p. 104.
8. Acharya S, op. cit., p.40.
9. ibid., p. 44.
10. <www.ankerberg.com/Articles/historical-Jesus/the-Jesus-family-tomb/the-
Jesus-family-tomb-9-facts-that-disprove-discovery-channel-lost-tomb-of-
jesus.htm> Accessed December 12, 2008.

285
He was born in a manger or a cave in the “house of bread,” also translated as “Beth-
lehem”
1. Strong, James, S.T.D. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Peabody:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.
2. <www.egyptianmyths.net/horus.htm> Accessed July 21, 2008.
3. Targum Jonathan on Micah 5:2 in the Tanakh.
4. Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth.
5. Abarbanel, Mashmiah Jeshua, fol. 62, c. 2.
6. Edersheim, Alfred. Sketches of Jewish Social Life. Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1994. p. 49.
7. Josephus, op. cit., 8.1.
8. Buttrick, George Arthur, ed. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An
Illustrated Encyclopedia. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962. p.97.

At age thirty, He began His ministry after being baptized

1. Acharya S, op. cit., p.19.
2. ibid., p. 18.
3. ibid., p. 22.
4. ibid.

He had twelve disciples

1. Encyclopedia Mythica, Article titled “Horus”, <www.pantheon.org/articles/h/
horus.html> Accessed July 13, 2008.
2. <www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message436598/pg1> Accessed July
13, 2008.
3. <faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/ChurchHistory220/Mithras.html> Accessed July
13, 2008.
4. <www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-acharya-s/a-
refutation-of-archary-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy-pt-1.html> Accessed July
14, 2008.
5. Acharya S, op. cit., p.19.

He performed miracles, such as walking on water or turning water into wine

1. Pausanias, op. cit., 6.26.1-2.
2. Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 2.106.

He was known by titles such as “King of Kings” and “Alpha and Omega”
1. <www.touregypt.net/featurestories/horus.htm> Accessed August 2, 2008.
2. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 12.
3. ibid., p. 13.
4. ibid., p. 14
5. ibid., p. 23

He held a communal last supper with His disciples

1. Clauss, op. cit., p. 109.

286
He was crucified
1. <www.earth-history.com/Egypt/Legends/gods-30isis.htm> Accessed July 23,
2008.
2. Mahabharata, 16. 4.
3. Ovid, Fasti, 4.221.
4. <www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/A/Atys.html> Accessed July 23,
2008.
5. Pausanias, op. cit., 7.19.9-12.
6. <www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/A/Atys.html> Accessed July 23,
2008.
7. Pausanias, op. cit., 7.17.9-10.
8. Herodotus, Histories 1.34-45.
9. Arnobius, Adversus Gentes, 5.5-7.
10. <www.tektonics.org/books/jesmystrvw.html> Accessed July 24, 2008.
11. Guthrie, W.K.C. Orpheus and Greek Religion. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1993. p. 265.
12. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 43.
13. <touregypt.net/isis.htm> Accessed August 4, 2008.

Concerning the constellation Crux as being the supposed origin for the crucifixion of
Jesus
1. Ptolemy, Amalgest, 8.1.H161-162.
2. <www.xanga.com/JB_Fidei_Defensor/638110989/zeitgeist-rebuttal-
speech.html (cf. Ptolemy, Amalgest, 8.1.H161-1622) > Accessed Aug 14, 2008.
3. <www.preventingtruthdecay.org/> Accessed August 15, 2008.

He was dead for three days

1. Mahabharata, Book 16.4.
2. <tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html> Accessed August 18, 2008.
3. Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible,
Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers;
1st edition , 1991. p. 1475.

He was resurrected from the dead

1. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 14.
2. ibid.
3. <www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Krishna>
Accessed August 23, 2008.
4. Mahabharata, 16.4.
5. Ovid, op. cit., 4.221.
6. <www.theoi.com/Phrygios/Attis.html> Accessed August 23, 2008.
7. Pausanias, op. cit., 7.19.9-12.
8. <www.mythindex.com/greek-mythology/A/Atys.html> Accessed August 25,
2008.
9. Pausanias, op. cit., 7.17.9-10.
10. Herodotus, op. cit., 1.34-45.
11. Arnobius, op. cit., 5.5-7.

287
 12. Gasparro, G. Sfameni. Soteriology: Mystic Aspects in the Cult of Cybele and
Attis. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 1997. p. 198.
13. ibid., p. 198.
14. Firmicus Maternus, Error of the Pagan Religions, 3.1-2.
15. <www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm>
Accessed August 28, 2008.
16. Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, p. 203.
17. Schaff, Philip, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Tertullian, Prescription
Against Heretics, ch 40. AGES Software.
18. Spiedel, Michael P. Mithras-Orion, Greek Hero and Roman Army God.
Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 1997. p 172.
19. McGrath, Alister. Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993. p. 121.
20. Smith, Jonathan Z. Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early
Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. Chicago: University Of
Chicago Press, 1994. p. 101.

Concerning Sunday as the sacred day of worship

1. Rosen, Ralph Mark, ed. Time and Temporality in the Ancient World,
University of Pennsylvania Press. 2004 pp.192-207.

Part 2: Shattering the Mirror – Debunking the Claims of the Critics

Concerning suspect confession of Justin Martyr

1. <paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/disturbing_quotes.htm> Accessed
September 16, 2008.
2. <www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html> Accessed September 16, 2008.
3. Schaff, op.cit., Vol. 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies. 2.22.
4. ibid., ch 20, 22.
5. ibid., ch 22.
6. Schaff, Philip, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.23. AGES Software.
7. Henry, op. cit., p. 1974.
8. Schaff, Philip, ed., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Irenaeus, Against Heresies,
2.22.6. AGES Software.
9. ibid., 3.17.2.
10. ibid., 2:22:3.
11. <www.tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html> Accessed September 17, 2008.
12. Schaff, Philip, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 1.4. AGES Software.
13. ibid., ch. 5.
14. ibid., 1.3.
15. ibid.
16. ibid., 1.4.
17. ibid.
18. Kuhn, Alvin Boyd. Shadow of the Third Century. Quezon City: Theosophical
Publishing House, 1949 p. 3.

288
 19. <www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT> Accessed September
19, 2008.
20. Schaff, op. Cit., Series I, Vol 1. The Letters of St. Augustine; Letter 102 .
11-15. AGES Software.
21. ibid., Vol 4. Anti- Manichaen & Anti- Donatist Writings, The Manichaean
Heresy, ch 8.
22. Wheless, Joseph. Forgery in Christianity. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1930. p.
147.
23. Schaff, Philip, ed., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Tertullian. Ad nationes,
1.13. AGES Software.
24. ibid., Vol. 3. Justin Martyr. First Apology, ch 21.
25. ibid., ch 22.
26. ibid., ch 24.
27. ibid., ch 21.
28. ibid., ch 23.
29. ibid.
30. ibid., Vol. 3. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70.
31. ibid., First Apology, ch 64.
32. Machen, op. cit., p. 336.
33. Schaff, op. cit., ch 117.

Concerning the similarities between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah’s Flood
1. <www.zeitgeistresponse.info/index.html> Accessed September 16, 2008.
2. <www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp> Accessed
September 16, 2008.
3. ibid.
4. <www.godandscience.org> Accessed September 16, 2008.
5. <www.archaeology.about.com/od/bcthroughbl/qt/bitumen> Accessed
September 16, 2008.
6. <www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp> Accessed
September 17, 2008.
7. ibid.

Concerning the claim that the account of Moses’ life in the Pentateuch is a
fabrication of existing motifs
1. <www.preventingtruthdecay.org/nopaganot.shtml> Accessed October 2, 2008.
2. <johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2003/exodus.html> Accessed
October 2, 2008.
3. <www.tektonics.org/copycat/sargon.html> Accessed October 2, 2008.
4. ibid.
5. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Smriti#cite_note-7> Accessed October 2,
2008.
6. <www.wn.com/s/ancientgreece/index24.html> Accessed October 3, 2008.
7. <www.reference.com/browse/Minos?jss=1> Accessed October 3, 2008.
8. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 2. Theophilus to Autolycus, 3.23.
9. <www.touregypt.net/bod122.h> Accessed October 3, 2008.

289
Concerning the proposed relationship between Jesus and the signs and ages of the
Zodiac
1. Ulansey, David. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1989. p. 76.
2. <www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-acharya-s/a-
refutation-of-archary-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy-pt-1.html> Accessed
October 8, 2008.
3. <www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html> Accessed October 8, 2008.
4. Ulansey, op. cit., p. 79.
5. Josephus, Wars of the Jews. 4.9.3; 2.14.3.
6. Edersheim, Alfred. Sketches of Jewish Social Life. Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1994. p. 92.
7. Edersheim, op cit., p. 47.
8. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 1. The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, ch 5.

Concerning the proposed similarity between various Biblical concepts and pre-
existing beliefs and icons
1. Lloyd, Alan B. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1983. ch 4.

Concerning the claim that the life of Jesus is merely a revision of the life of Joseph
1. <www.answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/others/a-review-of-brian-
flemmings-dvd-the-god-who-wasnt-there.html> Accessed September 30, 2008.
2. <www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation08.html> Accessed
September 30, 2008.
3. Nash, Ronald. Article titled "Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan
Religions," Christian Research Journal, Winter, 1994.

Concerning Constantine and the Nicean Creed

1. Witherington, Ben, III. The Gospel Code: Novel Claims About Jesus, Mary
Magdalene and Da Vinci. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. pp. 63-64.
2. Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1. The
Writings of Eusebius, Tertullian. Life of Constantine, 4.36. AGES Software.
3. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment> Accessed October 5, 2008.

Concerning the historicity of Jesus

1. Tacitus, Annals 15.44.
2. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64.
3. ibid., 20.200.
4. Feldman, Louis. Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980. Berlin:
Walter De Gruyter, Inc., 1984. p. 690.
5. Schaff, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus. 1.47.
6. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 1. The Epistle of Barnabus.
7. ibid., The First Epistle of Clement, chapter 24.
8. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, ch 9.
9. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, ch 3.
10. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, ch 9.

290
 11. ibid., The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ch 9.
12. ibid., Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord,
Fragment 1.
13. ibid., Fragment 6.
14. ibid., Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 50.
15. ibid., Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, ch 32.5.
16. Leith, John H. Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine, from
the Bible to the Present. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1983. p. 18.
17. Schaff, op. cit., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.
18. ibid., pp. 22-24.
19. Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1977. pp. 199-200.
20.<home.earthlink.net/~douglasofcalifornia/christ/socrates/socrates00.htm>
Accessed October 4, 2008.
21. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 3. Tertullian, Apologeticus, Ch 50.
22. <www.preventingtruthdecay.org/dje.shtml> Accessed October 4, 2008.
23. ibid.
24. <jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html> Accessed October 6,
2008.
25. The Jewish Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.
26. The Babylonian Talmud; b.Yebamoth 49a; m Yebam. 4:13.
27. ibid.; b. Sanh. 106a.
28. ibid.; b. Sabb. 104b.
29.<en.wikisource.org/wiki/Report_of_Pilate_to_the_Emperor_Claudius_(M._R
._James_translation)> Accessed October 6, 2008.
30. Anthropoetics - The Electronic Journal of Generative Anthropology, Vol III,
No 1.
31. <www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/peregrinus.htm> Accessed October 7,
2008.
32. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus. 2.14.
33. ibid., 2.33.
34. ibid., Vol. 6. Julius Africanus, Extant Fragments, 18.1.
35. ibid., Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus. 2.59.
36. ibid., Vol. 6. Julius Africanus, Extant Fragments, 18.1.

Part 3: Snares of the Deceivers

Proper use of terminology is often disregarded in claims which attempt to liken

events in the life of Christ to events which occur in pagan mythology.
1. <www.preceptaustin.org/covenant_oneness_notes.htm> Accessed August 18,
2008.
2. Clauss, op. cit., p. 112.

Logical fallacies employed by the critics

1. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 8.
2. ibid p24
3. <www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm> Accessed September 5, 2008.

291
Part 4: The Supremacy of Christ

The Son of God is one with the Father and the Spirit
1. Tozer, A. W. The Knowledge of the Holy. London: Harper Collins, 1992. p. 1.
2. Geary, Patrick J. Readings in Medieval History. Ontario: Broadview Press,
1998. p. 11.
3. Zacharias, op. cit., p. 6.
4. Tozer, op. cit., p. 22.
5. Earle, Ralph. Word Meanings in the New Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1986. p. 82.
6. ibid., p. 349.
7. Acharya S, op. cit., p. 17.

The Son of God is pre-existent

1. Rhodes, op. cit., p. 39.

Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection were foretold long before His arrival
1. <www.messianic-prophecy.net/> Accessed October 15, 2008.

Jesus' resurrection is a fact of history

1. <home.earthlink.net/~jimpool2/stories/doctor.html> Accessed October 17,
2008.
2. Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1998. p. 33.

Part 5: The Gospel Record

The early date of the gospel records testify to their historical accuracy
1. ibid., Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord,
Fragment 1.
2. ibid., Fragment 6.

Concerning the supposed silence of the remainder of the New Testament regarding
Matthew and Luke’s virgin birth narratives
1. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony_in_Jewish_law> Accessed October 9,
2008.
2. Schaff, op. cit., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4.
3. Orr, James. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1907. p.
121.

Concerning the supposed silence of the New Testament letters regarding Jesus'
humanity
1. Bagster's Bible Handbook. New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1983. p. 78.

The authenticity and integrity of the Gospels

1. Schaff, op. cit., Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 66.
2. ibid., ch 67.

292
 3. ibid., Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, ch 100.
4. ibid., ch 103.
5. ibid., Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord,
Fragment 1.
6. ibid., Fragment 6.
7. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus, Book 1, ch 40.
8. ibid., Book 2, ch 32.
9. <www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/new_testament_reliability.htm#7>
Accessed October 10, 2008.
10. <www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/02/intro.html> Accessed October 10,
2008.
11. Josephus, op. cit., 18.
12. Orr, op. cit., p 70.
13. <www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.iv.iii.html> Accessed October 10,
2008.
14. Ramsay, op. cit., p. 219.
15. <www.jerusalemperspective.org/%5Cdefault.aspxtabid=27&ArticleID=
1847> Accessed October 10, 2008.
16. Kesich, Veselin, Kesich, Lydia W. Treasures of the Holy Land. New York: St
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997. p. 27.
17. Freedman, David Noel. Anchor Bible Dictionary, K-N: Vol. 4. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1992.

The characteristics of the person of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, contradict

popular Judaic concepts and, as such, could not have been a product of invention
1. Quoted by J. Gresham Machen, Princeton Theological Review, Jan., 1906, p.
74.

Conclusion
1. <www.tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html> Accessed October 21, 2008.
2. Zacharias, op. cit., p. 50.
3. Packer, op. cit., p. 147.

The Journey
1. <www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/pilgrim.htm> Accessed October 21, 2008.

293
 Online resources for further study

Dare 2 Share; www.dare2share.org

Training Teenagers to transform their world. Also excellent for adults, providing
information on various ways to share your faith with others.

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry; www.carm.org

From the site: CARM offers a concise, comprehensive explanation of the
Christian faith along with logical analysis of errors in popular beliefs, both secular and
sacred. It is easy to use, written for the layman, and covers a huge range of topics.

Tekton Apologetics Ministries; www.tektonics.org

Featuring the latest in Christian apologetics.

Hall of Church History; www.spurgeon.org

An impressive archive of some of the best in Christian reading, both ancient and
contemporary.

Christian Classics Ethereal Library; www.ccel.org

A massive collection of writings covering numerous theological, historical, and
church related topics.

The Ligonier Study Center; www.ligonier.org

The home of Dr. R. C. Sproul, featuring archives of streaming audio and video
from his Renewing the Mind radio broadcast. Top notch material.

Project Gutenberg; www.gutenberg.org

A literary hub featuring hundreds of titles in the public domain, Christian and
secular.

Providence Baptist Ministries; www.pbministries.org

A collection of writings from classic theologians such as John Gill, A. W. Pink,
and R. L. Dabney

The Calvinist Corner; www.calvinistcorner.com

A good starting point for those who wish to learn more about Reformed
theology or Calvinism.

Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics; www.reformed.org

Containing a wealth of information, this site could not be any more highly
recommended.

The Ultimate Christian Apologetics Website;

www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/page2.htm
A wealth of articles concerned with the defense of the fChristian aith.

294
Internet Sacred Text Archive; www.sacred-texts.com/chr/index.htm
A massive literary hub of both Christian and non-Christian writings, sacred and
non-sacred..

Christian Answers; www.christiananswers.net

From the site: Our primary goal is to provide accurate, biblical answers on a
wide variety of questions asked by Christians and non-Christians.

Academy of Christian Apologetics; www.hisdefense.org

From the site: The Academy is a ministry to the body of Christ whose goal is to
provide each and every Christian with the materials needed to learn how to articulate and
defend their faith in a way that stands up to intellectual criticism.

Lion of Judah Christian Apologetics; www.lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com

An excellent site to equip the Christian with answers for his faith.

Rational Christianity Christian Apologetics; www.rationalchristianity.net

A good site to dive into when combating skepticism.

Sermonaudio.com; www.sermonaudio.com
From the site: Some of our broadcasters include R. C. Sproul, Sinclair Ferguson,
Bob Jones University, Ian Paisley, Alan Cairns, Albert Martin, Clarence Sexton, Joel
Beeke, John Barnett, Eric J. Alexander, Ken Ham, Jay Adams, Jeff Noblit, and a host of
"classic" sermons by Spurgeon, A. W. Tozer, Jonathan Edwards, and many more..

Rich's Hone Page for Reformed Theology; www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/

An excellent site with archives of Christian literature and links to various areas
of study in theology.

Gospel.com; www.gospel.com
A community of online ministries.

Recommended resources for children

A Kid's Heart; akidsheart.com/bible/bible.htm

Featuring Bible studies, games, activities, and helpful resources for parents and
teachers.

His Kids Radio; hiskidsradio.gospelcom.net

From the site: HisKids.net is an alliance of ministries whose cornerstone is Jesus
Christ and whose passion is reaching kids with Biblical truth through excellent media
resources. We've gathered the best in children's Christian programming and put it in one
place so you can easily find safe, entertaining, and enriching content just for kids! Our
alliance of broadcasters and partners work hard to make HisKids.net a place you and
your child want to be.

295
 Photo Credits

Page 73 - Amulet depicting crucified Dionysus:

<user.tninet.se/~npt994z/jesus_parallels.htm>

Page 76 - The cross of the Zodiac: <www.labyrinth13.com>

Page 143 - The Ark of the Covenant: <www.virginmedia.com>

Page 143 - Egyptian ark thrones: <www.kingsolomonsastonishingtemplesecrets.org>

Page 143 - Cave painting of the throne of Rameses III: <www.gutenberg.org>

296
 Acknowledgments

Special thanks to:

Jonathan Myers

and

Tim Spanjer

For your contributions,

your devoted friendship,

and the enrichment you bring to my life.

297
 M ay the Lord bless you and keep you;

M
ay He make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you;

M ay He turn His face toward you and give you peace.

Numbers 6:24-26

298