The first and second centuries witnessed the preaching of many salvation cults and their deities, such as Isis, Mithras, Attis and Jesus (god incarnate).

There is not one piece of evidence, outside Christianity's own story, that this individual referred to as Jesus ever existed, certainly not as a son of god ― the Invisible Man in the Sky. The Christian story is appears as composite of much older pagan myths of “gods” who died and were reborn in the spring; a demigod, who had a human mother but a god for a father. These mythological religions also had sons of god: Mithras, Osiris, Attis, Dionysus, Hercules, Krishna. The preaching of savior gods and personal salvation was the obsession and spirit of the age. Early Christians simply reflecting these age-old expressions in their own ways, preaching a divine entity like all the rest, and had no trouble finding an primitive and literate audience to listen and believe.

As for preaching a kingdom of god, this too was an expression of the age among Jews, based on five centuries of prophetic expectation. It came to a head in the first century in a wave of reform and repentance movements (Baptist sects, groups rejecting the temple cult, etc.), aggravated by a spirit of rebellion against Roman occupation throughout the land. Such things needed no unique individual ‘starter;’ the populace was primed and ready.

Besides, if the “something” was a wise man or sage who preached the coming of the kingdom, how did this sage manage to get himself turned into the divine Son of God, pre-existent creator of the world, sustaining force of the universe and a cosmic redeemer ― as the epistles variously describe him? Such things were hardly the usual attributes attached to even the “wiser and more charismatic” among such figures. This mind-boggling elevation, together with the early record about the Christian divine son, shows no sign of Jesus having preached (or even lived a life) as a “wise sage.”

After 2,000 years of “spinning” the Christian myth, Christian apologists try to explain away certain events, behavior on the part of the apostles, characteristics allotted to Jesus, etc., which appear embarrassing, unflattering, and paint a negative picture and rejects the notion that this man was the Son of God. 

The rejection of Jesus in his home-town:

"And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.  And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself." Mark 3:20-21 (KJV)

"His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For neither did his brethren believe in him. John 7:3,5 (KJV)

His “brethren” are his blood brothers, not his cousins, friends, or disciples.

Jesus’ brothers, at this point during his ministry, are reported to have no belief in him. Isn’t this surprising? For if the story of the miraculous birth and announcement of the messiah child were true, Jesus’ home would have been filled with a wondrous awe. Did not his mother have any clue what the Holy Ghost told her?

The failure of the disciples to understand Jesus’ teaching:

"And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:  That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." Mark 4:11-12 (KJV)

Also the denial by Peter hardly presents a picture of “a perfect son of god.”―as told in Mark 14-26, Matthew 26:34, Luke 22:31-34 and John 13:36-38.1.

Sectarian groups, in the face of failure, often take refuge in declaring their doctrines fit only for the spiritually mature, something they know cannot be proven one way or another, inaccessible to any, but the "special" mind with an ‘inside track.’ This is the case for the New Testament's (NT) failure of Jesus’ disciples to understand him. It is supposed to make acceptable the outsiders failure to understand the new sect’s preaching. According to the NT, god himself has set up this ‘chosen-few’ response capability, a kind of predestination, which is the theme of Mark 4:11-12. Mark’s dim-witted apostles, slow to understand, serve these archetypal purposes. Sometimes they are portrayed as guilty of other failings, even of denial of Jesus himself.  

When the later evangelists deliberately changed such potential “problems,” this helps prove that. Matthew, Luke and especially John regularly change Mark’s features which they, or their communities, cannot accept, because they would have had different standards. John recasts Jesus as indeed “the perfect Son of God,” fully in control of the situation, never doubting, barely suffering not needing baptism (because he was perfect). This is no more that a fictional creation fitting John’s tastes and requirements. But if John and to some extent Matthew and Luke could create their own revised portraits of Jesus to fit their needs, why not Mark? If it is claimed that Mark had to be “true to tradition” and was forced to include elements, which were supposedly problematic, why did not the same strictures apply to the other NT writers?

John in particular shows not the slightest regret about doing a thorough recasting job on his Jesus story. He chucked not only the baptism, but also Gethsemane and the Last Supper. If such important events had taken place―how could he not have known of them? Could they really have ended up as wads of paper in his waste basket? The whole picture of how the various evangelists have constructed their stories of Jesus leads to only one conclusion: they were not following tradition, they were not reproducing history, they were not the slightest bit concerned with any sort of accuracy, simply they were creating their own version of the fictional character Jesus. However they viewed and used it, apparently each community was constructing its own Jesus story for its own needs and purposes.

The reason why so many believe in Christianity is ignorance, conditioning, brain-washing and mind control. Christians do not think for themselves.

Christians have been told the outcome of their book of lies, the NT. Christians have a preconceived notion of Jesus, and therefore, everything they read enforces that preconceived notion. Hence, anything they read would fit into everything they had been told. This would be like knowing the murderer first, and then reading the book. All the actions of the murderer will jump out at you in every page of the book.

To fully understand the Christian bible one MUST have a clear mind. Empty it from any thoughts of Jesus. Go back in time when there were just two groups of people, the monotheistic Jews and the polytheistic non-Jews. Then, supposedly Jesus was born. There were a few Jewish followers of Jesus looking for their savior/messiah to save them not from sin, but to save them from the harsh Roman oppression. It was Paul, knowing he could not convert Jews away from Judaism, who took on the task to convert those pagan Gentiles, giving them a great “easy hook” ― believing in a one god, no circumcision, and no following the Hebrew law. He succeeded.

In 313 CE Roman Emperor Constantine I and Licinius issued the Edict of Milan which made the empire officially neutral regarding religion. There was no longer any state religion. Christianity was a much simpler religion than its predecessors ― just believe and there was also the "forgiveness of sins. Constantine eventually converted to Christianity, not aas a "believer," but using its ease of observance as a mechanism to unite the empire. It was not until much later, 380 CE, that Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the “Official Religion” of the entire Roman Empire, much of the civilized world.  With the snap of an emperor’s fingers, millions were forced to accept Christianity. Those were the ancient parents of most Christians of today.

The New Testament that today’s Christians hold so dear was canonized at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, and subsequent councils.  Did this canonized scripture contain the words of their Jesus? NO! The Christian bible, what Christians read today, is only what the Early Church Fathers wanted you to "believe." Once learning this, one would think Christians would get their backs up and say “Whoa right here.” You’d think they would do some serious research into the matter of betting their souls. Most sports gamblers do a lot of research before they place their bets – should not Christians do likewise?

Father Eusebius, who wrote the History of the Church, had his own ideas, and the early writers later copied and edited (altered) to fit his agenda―the image the Early Church Fathers wanted to paint. Those writings were gathered together and re-written to present Jesus in a different light. From that time on Jesus was to be seen as a miracle worker, a prophet, a supernatural being on par with God.

History shows that the church closely held all information. People did not have―until the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in c1450―a bible. They only knew what the Catholic Church told them, and in many cases they HAD to believe or else face death/execution. It does not take too many years of this oppression and ignorance for a NEW replacement myth to take hold.

To recap:

1.  With a snap of the finger, millions became Christians.

2.  The Christian church leaders decided what they wanted their “sheeple” to follow.

3.  Those same leaders canonized the books they wanted their “sheeple” to learn.

4.  The Christian layman were not allowed to read the bible.

5.  The Christian layman only heard the words of their bible through the clergy.

Hopefully, you will now see how the myth of Jesus grew.  The pulpit could tell their audience anything and they would believe it. Would the pulpit lie? After nearly a thousand years of “brain-washing,”  Christian finally had a bible to read. Be honest; do you think those Christians had preconceived notions of Jesus? Do you think they built up a dream out of sand?

Christians will just take the words of their leaders without verifying that what they have been told is correct or not, and then go happily along their way, singing their hymn, “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so.”1  They erroneously think that everything in their bible was “inspired” by god, the Invisible Man in the Sky. Christians, with their bible intoxicated mentality, cannot and will not see the forgeries, errors, fictions and misquotations in their bible and the source from which it claims its authority, the Hebrew bible.

So many times a fable will grow because the followers are too embarrassed to admit that what they believed in was a bunch of lies. No matter how much proof is shown them, they are so embarrassed that they had been living in a world of lies and they just continue the myth. Well, as the old saying goes, “no guts, no glory!”

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the gospels in praise of intelligence." -Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)


“Jesus Loves Me, a Baptist hymn written by Anna Warner



Copyright © 2004-2009, Christianity-Revealed. All rights reserved.