Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A Sure Foundation: Answering The Charge Against Christianity

    Uploaded by

    Michael Sturgulewski
    3K views696 pages
    In 2007 the controversial film The Zeitgeist Movie was released as an effort, in part, to expose Christianity as a conspiracy which does not have its basis in a historical Savior known as Jesus of Nazareth. The thrust of the argument against Christianity is that the belief in Jesus as the Son of God is a belief which was fabricated through a conglomeration of pre-existing myths and astrological beliefs. The film attempted to claim the story of Jesus is merely a re-imagining of the accounts of such pagan deities as Horus, Attis, Mithra, Krishna, and Dionysus, each of whom is said to share certain biographical characteristics with Christ, such as a virgin birth announced by a star in the east, a visit by wise men, baptism and ministry around age thirty, a following of twelve disciples, the performance of miracles, that they were known by such titles as “Son of God,” “Light of the World,” “King of Kings,” and “Alpha and Omega,” a death by crucifixion, and a three day burial followed by a bodily resurrection. The film also claims that other Biblical accounts were the result of a re-imagining of other figures, such as Moses and Sargon, both of whom were said to have been adopted after being found in a basket floating in a river, or the Genesis flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh, both of which contains an account of a watery global destruction from which the animal species of the world and only a small number of individuals survived within the shelter of an ark. This “copycat theory,” while not a new theory, has experienced a revival due to the increasing popularity of the Zeitgeist film and Internet propaganda. In this book, these and other claims will be scrutinized and found to be baseless in nature. In addition, it will be shown that the person of Jesus of Nazareth is the only crucified Savior the world has ever known, and in what ways He is unique from the deities recognized by the many religions of the world. Finally, the Gospel records themselves will be shown to be authentic and historical documents, providing a genuine and accurate account of the one who came to save His people from their sin.

    Original Title

    A Sure Foundation: Answering the Charge Against Christianity

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    In 2007 the controversial film The Zeitgeist Movie was released as an effort, in part, to expose Christianity as a conspiracy which does not have its basis in a historical Savior known as Jesus of Nazareth. The thrust of the argument against Christianity is that the belief in Jesus as the Son of God is a belief which was fabricated through a conglomeration of pre-existing myths and astrological beliefs. The film attempted to claim the story of Jesus is merely a re-imagining of the accounts of such pagan deities as Horus, Attis, Mithra, Krishna, and Dionysus, each of whom is said to share certain biographical characteristics with Christ, such as a virgin birth announced by a star in the east, a visit by wise men, baptism and ministry around age thirty, a following of twelve disciples, the performance of miracles, that they were known by such titles as “Son of God,” “Light of the World,” “King of Kings,” and “Alpha and Omega,” a death by crucifixion, and a three day burial followed by a bodily resurrection. The film also claims that other Biblical accounts were the result of a re-imagining of other figures, such as Moses and Sargon, both of whom were said to have been adopted after being found in a basket floating in a river, or the Genesis flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh, both of which contains an account of a watery global destruction from which the animal species of the world and only a small number of individuals survived within the shelter of an ark. This “copycat theory,” while not a new theory, has experienced a revival due to the increasing popularity of the Zeitgeist film and Internet propaganda. In this book, these and other claims will be scrutinized and found to be baseless in nature. In addition, it will be shown that the person of Jesus of Nazareth is the only crucified Savior the world has ever known, and in what ways He is unique from the deities recognized by the many religions of the world. Finally, the Gospel records themselves will be shown to be authentic and historical documents, providing a genuine and accurate account of the one who came to save His people from their sin.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3K views696 pages

    A Sure Foundation: Answering The Charge Against Christianity

    Uploaded by

    Michael Sturgulewski
    In 2007 the controversial film The Zeitgeist Movie was released as an effort, in part, to expose Christianity as a conspiracy which does not have its basis in a historical Savior known as Jesus of Nazareth. The thrust of the argument against Christianity is that the belief in Jesus as the Son of God is a belief which was fabricated through a conglomeration of pre-existing myths and astrological beliefs. The film attempted to claim the story of Jesus is merely a re-imagining of the accounts of such pagan deities as Horus, Attis, Mithra, Krishna, and Dionysus, each of whom is said to share certain biographical characteristics with Christ, such as a virgin birth announced by a star in the east, a visit by wise men, baptism and ministry around age thirty, a following of twelve disciples, the performance of miracles, that they were known by such titles as “Son of God,” “Light of the World,” “King of Kings,” and “Alpha and Omega,” a death by crucifixion, and a three day burial followed by a bodily resurrection. The film also claims that other Biblical accounts were the result of a re-imagining of other figures, such as Moses and Sargon, both of whom were said to have been adopted after being found in a basket floating in a river, or the Genesis flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh, both of which contains an account of a watery global destruction from which the animal species of the world and only a small number of individuals survived within the shelter of an ark. This “copycat theory,” while not a new theory, has experienced a revival due to the increasing popularity of the Zeitgeist film and Internet propaganda. In this book, these and other claims will be scrutinized and found to be baseless in nature. In addition, it will be shown that the person of Jesus of Nazareth is the only crucified Savior the world has ever known, and in what ways He is unique from the deities recognized by the many religions of the world. Finally, the Gospel records themselves will be shown to be authentic and historical documents, providing a genuine and accurate account of the one who came to save His people from their sin.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 696

    A SURE FOUNDATION: ANSWERING THE CHARGE AGAINST CHRISTIANITY

    by
    Michael Sturgulewski

    Copyright © 2008 by Michael Sturgulewski.

    First Printing: May, 2009.

    Published by Light and Life Graphics, Vestal, 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 Revised Standard Version (RSV). Copyright 1971 by National Council of
    Churches
    The New American Standard Bible (NASB). Copyright 1995 by Lockman
    Foundation
    The New Testament in Modern Speech. Public Domain
    Young's Literal Translation. Public Domain
    People's New Testament. Public Domain

    Book design: Michael Sturgulewski

    Cover: Woodcut by Gustave Doré, The Angel at the Empty Tomb. Public Domain.
    Corner and top center images: Christian engravings found on catacombs in Rome.
    Background text: The Apostles' Creed. Public Domain.

    All images, except where credited, are the work of the author.
    Noah's Ark, p 117. Copyright © 2008 Michael Sturgulewski. All Rights Reserved.

    ISBN: 1441402381
    EAN-13: 978-1441402387

    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

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

    Synopsis of the video titled The Great Arcanum (i.e. The Great Knowledge) . . . . . . 18

    Part 1: Gospel or Myth?

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

    II. December 25th date of birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

    III. Star in the east accompanied His birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

    IV. Upon His birth, three kings came to adorn the newborn Savior . . . . . . . . . . . 47

    V. His mother was named Mary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

    VI. He was born in a manger or a cave in the “house of bread,” also translated
    as “Beth-lehem” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

    VII. At age twelve He was known as a teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

    VIII. At age thirty, He began His ministry after being baptized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

    IX. He had twelve disciples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

    X. He was a traveling teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

    XI. He performed miracles, such as walking on water or turning water into wine 63

    XII. He was known by titles such as “King of Kings” and “Alpha and Omega”. . 66

    XIII. He held a communal last supper with His disciples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

    XIV. He was crucified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

    XV. Concerning the constellation Crux as being the supposed origin for the
    crucifixion of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

    XVI. He was dead for three days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

    XVII. He was resurrected from the dead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

    XVIII. Concerning the observance of Easter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

    5
    XIX. Concerning Sunday as the sacred day of worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

    XX. The Unusual Suspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

    XXI. Jesus vs. the cookie cutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

    Part 2: The Origins of Paganism

    I. Lucifer and the sin of Adam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

    II. Freethought: the philosophy of atheism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

    III. Luciferianism: the philosophy of self-deification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

    IV. Nimrod and the beginning of pagan religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

    V. The Monomyth formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

    Part 3: Shattering the Mirror – Debunking the Claims of the Critics

    I. Concerning Zoroastrianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

    II. Concerning the Luxor inscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

    III. Concerning suspect confessions of prominent ancient Christian writers . . . . 200

    IV. A Pope's Confession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

    V. Concerning the similarities between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah’s


    Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

    VI. Concerning the claim that the account of Moses’ life in the Pentateuch is a
    fabrication of existing motifs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

    VII. Concerning the proposed relationship between Jesus and the signs and
    ages of the Zodiac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

    VIII. Concerning the proposed similarity between various Biblical concepts


    and pre-existing beliefs and icons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

    IX. Concerning the claim that the life of Jesus is merely a revision of the life
    of Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

    X. Concerning Constantine and the Nicean Creed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

    XI. Concerning the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and the Inquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

    6
    XII. Concerning the historicity of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

    XIII. Concerning alternate gospels and suspect ancient texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

    XIV. Concerning the “Jesus family tomb” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

    Part 4: 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 . . . . 377

    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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382

    III. Other favorite tactics used by critics of Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

    IV. Logical fallacies employed by the critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

    V. Parallel vs. commonality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

    VI. The meme virus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

    Part 5: The Supremacy of Christ

    I. The Son of God is one with the Father and the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404

    II. The Son of God possesses the essence of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415

    III. Two natures, one person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

    IV. The Son of God bears the name of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467

    V. The Son of God bears the titles of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467

    VI. The Son of God holds the authority of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469

    VII. The Son of God performs the work of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

    VIII. The Son of God is pre-existent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474

    IX. The Son of God possesses the character of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481

    X. Jesus’ birth was not the product of a lustful god . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499

    XI. Jesus took part in bringing about His own birth, death, and resurrection . . . 501

    XII. Jesus foreknew the time of His death and resurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502

    7
    XIII. Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection were foretold long before His
    arrival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503

    XIV. Jesus' death was voluntary, sacrificial, and redemptive in nature . . . . . . . . 505

    XV. Jesus' death was a victory, not a defeat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505

    XVI. Jesus' resurrection compared to other resurrections found in the Bible . . . 506

    XVII. Jesus' resurrection was a bodily resurrection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507

    XVIII. Jesus' resurrection is a fact of history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513

    XIX. Jesus' sacrifice was once for all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528

    XX. Jesus is the High Priest for His people and the Mediator of the covenant
    God made with man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530

    XXI. Jesus existed as an historical figure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543

    XXII. The Gospel of Christ does not change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543

    XXIII. Concerning Jesus' state of mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543

    XXIV. The characteristics of the original source material regarding Jesus stands
    as added testimony to its reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550

    Part 6: The Gospel Record

    I. The early date of the Gospel records testify to their historical accuracy . . . . . 552

    II. Concerning the supposed silence of the remainder of the New Testament
    regarding Matthew and Luke’s virgin birth narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

    III. Concerning the supposed silence of the New Testament letters regarding
    Jesus' humanity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558

    IV. Concerning the Gospels’ references to Jesus being of human descent. . . . . . 568

    V. The authenticity and integrity of the Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571

    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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577

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


    possess elements which do not bear the marks of invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581

    8
    VIII. The Gospels' portrayal of the person and work of Jesus does not fit
    Messianic concepts prevalent during the first century. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584

    Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627

    The Journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634

    The Author's Creed: The Death and Life of Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640

    About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644

    Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645

    Online Resources for Further Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689

    Photo Credits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691

    Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692

    Future books available through Light and Life Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694

    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

    10
    is generally rejected by mainstream scholars, it continues to gain popularity with
    conspiracy theorists and Internet antagonists. The theory gained notable popularity in the
    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 (for more on this point, see the heading regarding
    Freethought, under Part two of this work). 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

    11
    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
    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

    12
    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


    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

    13
    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
    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

    14
    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
    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)

    15
    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
    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

    16
    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
    consider factors which gave rise to paganism in general, along with motifs found to be
    common within many religious systems. Part three 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 four 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 five 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 six 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
    Synopsis of the video titled The Great Arcanum
    (i.e. The Great Knowledge)

    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. Following that, the remaining deities listed*** (as well as others not listed, yet
    worthy of mention) will be examined in brief fashion.

    *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.

    ***As will be shown, some of the “deities” named in this list are simply alternate
    spellings of the five primary deities under discussion (such as Chrishna and Atys).

    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

    24
    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
    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

    25
    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
    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

    26
    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),
    “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

    27
    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 will be discussed later under the heading “The
    Unusual Suspects,” however, I will simply state here that his 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 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

    28
    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,
    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, 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, 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. (emphasis mine, when added in the passages below)

    Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his
    mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
    she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her
    husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public
    example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought
    on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in
    a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto
    thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the

    29
    Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
    name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all
    this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
    Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child,
    and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,
    which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised
    from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took
    unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her
    firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Mt 1:18-25)

    And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a
    city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man
    whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's
    name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail,
    thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art
    thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at
    his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this
    should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou
    hast found favour with God. 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 Highest: and
    the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
    And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
    kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel,
    How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel
    answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
    and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
    that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son
    of God. (Luke 1:26-35)

    And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth,
    into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;
    (because he was of the house and lineage of David) To be taxed
    with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was,
    that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she
    should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and
    wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger.
    (Luke 2: 4-7)

    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

    30
    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
    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.

    31
    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
    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

    32
    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:

    “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).

    33
    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

    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

    34
    * 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.

    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,

    35
    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
    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

    36
    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
    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.

    37
    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
    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.

    38
    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
    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 six 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

    39
    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
    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.

    40
    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
    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

    41
    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.
    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 five 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

    42
    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
    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 five.

    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,”

    43
    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
    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 church Fathers who become victim to this scheme are among the most
    highly revered among the early church writers (Augustine, Justin Martyr, and,
    especially, the Apostles), which serves to fuel the critics’ fire until one looks beyond
    their claims and understands how words have been manipulated. This tactic will be
    addressed in detail in Part Three under the heading concerned with “suspect
    confessions” of prominent Christian writers. Here, I will only preview that section by
    making a brief comment on this passage which critics use in their attempts to
    convince others that Christian worship is synonymous with sun worship. The point

    44
    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.

    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,

    45
    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,
    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

    46
    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
    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

    47
    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
    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

    48
    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
    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.

    49
    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
    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

    50
    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,”
    “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

    51
    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 below, 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.

    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.
    (Athena and many other deities will be addressed under the later heading “The Unusual
    Suspects.”)

    52
    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 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.

    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)

    53
    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

    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.

    54
    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.

    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

    55
    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. (for more
    on this, I refer the reader to the section regarding Iraeneus in Part three under the heading
    “Concerning suspect confessions of prominent ancient Christian writers”) 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
    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

    56
    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 reserve a fuller treatment on this topic for Part three where the
    tenants of Zoroastrianism will be examined and compared to Christian beliefs (See
    the section “Concerning Zoroastrianism” in Part three under the sub-heading “Spirits
    of malevolence”) 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)

    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)

    57
    Since a more detailed discussion of these passages will be reserved for Part five,
    when addressing the sovereignty of God vs. the problem of evil, I will only here
    make the claim that 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 (see the section “Concerning
    Luciferianism” in Part Two). 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
    of an ancient tribal god demoted to human status.” Murdock’s reasoning here is

    58
    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 (for more on the development
    of the Nimrod legend, see Part two: “Nimrod and the beginning of pagan religion”).

    “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

    59
    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.

    60
    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
    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!

    61
    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
    ‘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

    62
    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
    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

    63
    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.

    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

    64
    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
    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.

    65
    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.

    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

    66
    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
    “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
    three 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

    67
    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
    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

    68
    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
    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 three)

    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

    69
    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)
    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.

    More will be said on the concept of a covenant meal in Part four of this work.
    Here, I simply wish to point out that 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

    70
    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.

    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

    71
    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.

    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

    72
    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

    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'

    73
    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 below) 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

    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:

    74
    “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 four, and it will be
    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

    75
    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.

    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

    76
    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.

    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

    77
    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)

    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).

    If Jesus was crucified on a Friday and rose on a Sunday, how can it be said He
    was dead for three days?
    Briefly stated (for the discussion would be quite lengthy), there are two views
    concerning on what day Jesus was crucified. Some hold the position He was
    crucified on a Wednesday, while others believe He was crucified on a Friday. The
    issue centralizes around the Jewish festive year in comparison to the narratives found
    in the Gospels. In short, those who hold that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday,
    regard the three-day death to be comprised of three twenty-four hour periods from
    sunset to sunset, since Jews regarded sunset as the beginning of a new day. Hence,
    Jesus would have been in the tomb from sunset on Wednesday through sunset on
    Saturday, rising sometime after sunset on Saturday (i.e., early Sunday morning,
    according to Jewish reckoning). Those who hold to a Friday crucifixion, point out
    that Jewish custom regarded a portion of the day as a whole day. Thus, according to
    the Jewish idiom, Friday evening, all day Saturday, and Sunday morning would
    make up three “days,” despite these days not being literal twenty-four hour periods.
    For now, without engaging in a discussion concerning the Jewish calendar, it will
    suffice to say that according to either view, it is proper to say that Jesus was dead for
    three days, as stated in the Gospels.

    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.

    78
    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.

    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

    79
    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
    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. More will be said on this aspect of the God-Man
    in Part five, dealing with the dual natures of Jesus Christ.

    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:”

    80
    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
    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

    81
    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
    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

    82
    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
    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.

    83
    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

    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

    84
    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
    [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

    85
    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
    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

    86
    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
    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

    87
    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.

    XX. The Unusual Suspects


    After its blatant misrepresentation of its five so-called pagan “christs,” The Zeitgeist
    Movie scrolls through a list of other deities, then claims, “The fact of the matter is, there
    are dozens of virgin-born, crucified saviors from all over the world who fit these
    descriptions [referring to the categories previously under discussion].” The film does not
    list any specifics on these deities, other than suggesting they share certain biographical
    characteristics with Jesus of Nazareth. Here, we will look at these, and other, remaining
    “saviors” in order to determine just how similar each one's story is to the Gospel of
    Christ. I have titled this section “The Unusual Suspects,” since many of the names on this
    list do not deserve to be compared with Christ any more than does the actor Kevin
    Spacey (no offense intended to Kevin). Also, the deceptive purpose of the mythicists will

    88
    become even more evident as the examination progresses. That said, we begin with
    suspect number one:

    Adad of Assyria
    Adad (also known as Hadad, Teshub, Resheph, and Rimmon) was the
    Babylonian-Assyrian storm god, usually depicted with a lightning bolt in his right
    hand and an axe in his left hand. Critics like to refer to his seven year disappearance
    in a bog as an indication of a resurrection, but in his story there is no mention of any
    death – just a disappearance and, seven years later, a reappearance. A resurrection
    cannot be said to apply to Adad any more than a resurrection can be applied to the
    many animals of the world who emerge from their annual post-winter hibernation.
    Certainly those of us in the northern states do not gaze in wonder at the miraculous
    annual “resurrection” of the birds who flew south for the winter.

    Adonis of Greece
    Adonis is said to have been a very attractive young man in the Greek pantheon
    and was recognized as a vegetation deity. Critics claim he was born of a virgin and
    resurrected after death. The truth is that Adonis' mother, Myrrha, the wife of the
    King of Assyria, conceived a child through union with her husband, who was
    angered with the news of her pregnancy. For the sake of her protection, she is turned
    into a tree by the gods. Myrrha, as the tree, later cracks open and out comes Adonis.

    Adonis' life came to an end when he was killed by a boar. At his death, the drops
    of his blood brings forth roses from the ground. After the emergence of Christianity,
    the Adonis myth claimed that his body was cremated and his ashes spread to the
    wind with the proclamation that “Adonis lives!” Aside from this account being post-
    Christian, a scattering of one's ashes is certainly not a resurrection.

    Aeneas of Greece and Rome


    Aeneas was the son of prince Anchises and the goddess Venus. According to the
    Iliad, Aeneas is a lieutenant among the Dardanians, allies of the people of Troy, and
    one who is favored by the gods, frequently aiding him in conflict. Following Aeneas’
    demise, Venus petitioned the god Jupiter to grant him immortality, which he agreed
    to do. Aeneas was purged of his mortality and made into a god by being anointed
    with Ambrosia and Nectar, the food and drink of the gods.

    Suggested parallels: Aeneas’ post-mortem transformation from a mortal being to a


    god is sometimes likened to the resurrection of Jesus, however, Aeneas’ experience
    involves a transformation, not a resurrection, since he is changed from a mortal man
    to a god. Prior to this transformation, he did not possess deity at all. In the case of
    Jesus, His human body did not exist prior to the incarnation, but the person of Christ
    existed without beginning before the foundation of the world. An in-depth treatment
    of the two-fold nature of Christ will be reserved for Part five. For now, I will only
    state that the person of Jesus, as god, possesses eternal existence, whereas the human
    nature which He assumed in the incarnation did not exist prior to its conception
    within Mary’s womb. When Jesus’ body was raised from the dead, it was the same

    89
    body which had been crucified and buried. Although His human body was raised in a
    glorified state, it was still a flesh and bone body. In other words, Jesus’ humanity was
    not non-divine prior to the resurrection, than made divine after the resurrection, for
    divinity belongs to the person of Christ, which had been divine all along. After the
    resurrection, His divinity remained divine and His humanity remained human. Jesus
    was neither divinity lowered to humanity, nor humanity elevated to divinity. Finally,
    eternality is intrinsic to the divine nature of God, and the human nature of Jesus did
    not possess such a characteristic. While His humanity is everlasting (without end), it
    is not eternal (without beginning and end). Thus, when Jesus said He is the
    “beginning and end,” He is referring to His person as the second member of the
    divine Trinity, rather than to His humanity – but because His humanity became
    inseparably linked to the person of Christ, Jesus could rightly say, “I [referring to the
    person which took upon humanity] am the beginning and the end.”

    Alcides of Greece
    Alcides is an alternate name for Heracles or Hercules, as he was known by the
    Romans. Of him, it is claimed that he was a virgin-born son of god and savior of
    man, whose birth was foretold and announced by music and a display in the heavens,
    that his birthday was on December 25th, that his life was threatened as an infant, that
    he was shown the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain, that he walked on
    water, that he died violently as his mother and friends stood by and the sky was
    darkened, and that he was later resurrected and ascended to heaven, conquering
    death. Such is the myth of Alcides, according to the mythicists.

    According to the myth, Alcides was born after Zeus deceived the wife of King
    Amphitryon, disguising himself as her husband. Believing Zeus' trickery, she slept
    with him and was impregnated as a result. Since she was already married, the notion
    that she was a virgin at the time of Zeus' appearing is untenable. Equally untenable is
    the idea that Zeus' coupling with a woman constitutes virgin birth. Although he was a
    god, his act of union with the mortal woman was in the form of man and through the
    normal process of insemination. By analogy, if Jesus had sired children during His
    time among man, although He was God incarnate, His body was still human and any
    offspring that He could have produced would not have been rightly said to have been
    virgin-born. Alcides was a son of Zeus (the critics get that much right), but he was
    not Zeus' only son, nor was his birth anything other than the result of Zeus' burning
    lust and his desire to sire a champion in the upcoming battle between the gods and
    the giants. As such, he was not born to be the savior of man, nor was his birth
    foretold by anyone. Finally, neither Alcides nor Jesus was born in December.

    An attempt was made on the life of the infant Alcides as his step-mother Juno, or
    Hera, the wife of Zeus, placed a snake in his cradle, but this does not mirror the
    attempt on Jesus' life by Herod, who feared the child may grow to pose a threat to
    the crown.

    Alcides does not die in the myth; but rather, is poisoned by the centaur Nessus.
    However, before the poison claimed his life, Zeus took Alcides up to the abode of

    90
    the gods in a flash of lightning. As such, Alcides cannot be thought of as conquering
    death; but rather, escaping it, and not by his own doing, but by the hand of Zeus.

    Concerning the remaining claims that Alcides was shown the kingdoms of the
    world, that he walked on water, and that the sky was darkened, none of these
    elements play a part in the Alcides myth.

    Amun of Egypt
    Prior to his being worshiped as a deity bearing form, Amun symbolized the air, or
    the breath of life. This eventually resulted in Amun’s promotion to a creator deity
    and father to the gods. After the Egyptians conquered Kush, the chief god of the
    Kushite pantheon was regarded as identical with Amun, and it was at this time that
    Amun began to be represented as a ram, since such was the representation of the
    Kushite equivalent. Since the Kushite deity was representative of the reproductive
    properties of humans, Amun at this time became a god of fertility. Later, Amun was
    merged with the sun god Ra and his name changed to Amun-Ra. As a result of this
    merger of deities, Amun, as Amun-Ra, became inseparably linked with the
    movement of the sun. During the day, he ruled as Ra, but at night, he was hidden as
    Amun.

    Suggested parallels:
    In the book of Genesis it is said that God made man from the dust of the earth and
    breathed into him the breath of life. Similarly, in the myth of Amun it is said that he
    gives man his breath. However, the similarity does not exist anywhere other than on
    the surface, for Amun was originally nothing more than a concept applied to air. As
    such, he was not even a god nor a person. As such, the concept of Amun had no will
    of its own and no ability to give man anything, for Amun itself was not even a thing
    and, as such, has no power, movement, or will of its own. Air does not decide itself
    which way to move. Rather, it is guided by external factors. Therefore, the breath
    man received through the concept of Amun was only due to the natural current by
    which the flow of air was directed. In Genesis, the creation of man and the giving of
    man’s breath was by a being with personality, will, emotion, and sovereign self-
    determination. God gave man his breath. It was an act involving purpose, intent, and
    design.

    When Amun was named as a deity, he became the father of the gods. Some could
    liken this to the title of Christ as the Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Aside from
    what has already been said under a previous heading concerning such divine titles, it
    only here bears to mention that this status attributed to Amun was one which was
    added to the myth, rather than being an essential characteristic all along, as is the
    case with Jesus, and was only reflective of his newfound status as creator.

    After Amun became merged with Ra, the sun god, his daily “death and
    resurrection” was nothing more than symbolic of the daily setting and rising of the
    sun. Therefore, his death and resurrection was not anything which resulted from any
    predetermined purpose of Amun. At the end of the day, he would die – like it or not.
    However, he could rest assured that his death would be short lived, for the sun would

    91
    surely rise the next day, thus giving new “life” to the god. Such a naturalistic
    approach to death and resurrection does not at all characterize the manner in which
    such concepts are applied to Christ.

    Apollonius of Tyana
    Apollonius of Tyana lived c. 40-c.120 A.D., whereas Jesus was crucified in c.29
    A.D. Any claim that Apollonius is a prototype for Jesus is as plausible as claiming
    the Lone Ranger is a prototype for Robin Hood. Still, critics suggest Apollonius
    performed miracles, such as raising the dead, was later tried, then ascended to
    heaven after his death. Apollonius will be addressed in Part five when discussing the
    historicity of Jesus, but here it will suffice to briefly state that he was not regarded as
    divine until Philostratus (c.170-c..247 A.D.) composed a biography of Apollonius in
    which he praised him for mighty deeds.

    Atunis
    Atunis is simply another name for Adonis, previously discussed.

    Atys of Phrygia
    Atys is simply an alternate spelling of the god Attis, previously addressed.

    Baal
    The tablets which provide the earliest account of Baal indicate that he may have
    been resurrected from the dead. A portion of the tablets is lost, and critics suggest the
    resurrection account they are referring to is, of course, in this lost portion. What we
    do know from the tablets we have is that Baal died and was buried, then re-emerges
    later in the account. Attention is drawn to a phrase in the tablets which is said to read
    that Baal is “brought to life,” but the phrase can be just as easily translated as
    describing Baal as one who “brings to life.” As far as his postmortem appearance, it
    is not said in what form this appearance takes, whether bodily, spiritual, in a dream,
    as an image burned into a piece of toast, or an engraving on a coffee mug. The best
    the critic can plausibly claim is that perhaps Baal was believed to have been
    resurrected from the dead, but with only circumstantial evidence available to the
    claimants in their attempt to prove their case without a shadow of a doubt, Baal is
    one contender who is hereby acquitted of all copycat charges.

    Balder of Scandinavia
    Balder, or Baldr, is a Norse deity of light and beauty, and the son of Odin. His
    earliest account comes from Danish composers writing in the twelfth century A.D.
    Nevertheless, in order to humor the critic, I will give a brief account of his myth.
    Balder is known as the “bleeding god,” since the focus of his story is on his death.
    After riding to the land of the dead, he learned of his impending demise at the hand
    of his own brother, Hodr. Odin's wife, Frigg, in an attempt to save Balder, obtained
    the guarantee of every creature and element that no harm would come to Balder.
    However, the god Loki learned that Frigg failed to obtain the guarantee of the
    mistletoe plant in her quest to secure Balder's well-being. Loki then constructed a
    spear from mistletoe, by which Balder was struck dead. Odin plead to the goddess of
    death for his son's resurrection, which she promised to give if every creature wept

    92
    for Balder's passing. Since Loki failed to show the required grief, Balder remained
    dead. Now, does someone want to explain how this is similar to the Gospel account
    of Jesus?

    Bali of Afghanistan
    It is uncertain to whom the mythicists are referring here, as Bali is a demon from
    Indian mythology. The Indian Bali was ruler of the earth and sky, but the god Vishnu
    succeeded in taking this honor from him. After being stripped of his exalted position,
    he contents himself with being the ruler of the underworld.

    Beddru of Japan
    As mentioned previously, Beddru does not exist in any mythology or religion. He
    was a deity invented by the late Jesus myth proponent Kersey Graves in his book
    The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors. Graves' supporters claim he simply made a
    typo and had intended to write “Buddha,” however, Graves lists Buddha elsewhere
    in his book and attributes to him different characteristics than he does to Beddru.

    Bremrillah, of the Druids


    Bremrillah appears to be another invented deity, although the god's creator
    remains unknown. Druidic sources reference no such deity by this name, and any
    sincere mention of him on the Internet is only by those claiming Bremrillah is a
    candidate for “Let's Make a Jesus Parallel.”

    Budha Saki (or Buddha Sakia) of India


    The famous Siddhartha Gautama and Shakyamuni Buddha (563-483 B.C.), the
    founder of the religion which bears his name, was not a deity, nor did he claim to be
    so. His story is told in the Buddhacarita which dates to the first century A.D. A
    number of claims are made by mythicists concerning him.

    The Buddhacarita Buddha born to the King of Shakyas and his wife, Maya. His
    birth is not described as having a supernatural character until after the influence of
    Christianity, and even then it is not specified that Maya was a virgin at the time of
    conception (after all, she was still a married woman). The supernatural character
    constituted Maya being impregnated by a white elephant which entered into her side.
    Some critics have drawn attention to the early Christian writer Jerome (347-420
    A.D.) who claimed it was said that Buddha was virgin-born.

    To come to the Gymnosophists of India, the opinion is authoritatively handed


    down that Buddha, the founder of their religion, had his birth through the side
    of a virgin. … Let these allusions to the virgins of the world, brief and hastily
    gathered from many histories, now suffice.1

    Gymnosophists is the name the Greeks gave to certain Indian philosophers who took
    an extreme vow of asceticism. They regarded even food and clothing as a hindrance
    to purity. Buddhist monks do take a vow of asceticism, but not to the exclusion of
    such things as food and clothes. The alleged view of the Gymnosophists, as

    93
    described by Jerome in the late fifth century A.D., is not testified to in the
    Buddhacarita, the first century A.D. account of Buddha's life, not by any other
    Buddhist sect. Given the Gymnosophists' extreme ascetic lifestyle and contempt for
    even the most essential of physical needs, which is not common with mainstream
    Buddhism, it is not unthinkable that they adopted the existing Christian doctrine of
    virgin birth as their own doctrine, to rid Buddha's conception of even a hint of sexual
    union.

    Buddha's birth was not accompanied by a star or angels, although the king and
    father of Buddha did invite Brahmins (teachers and scholars) to the palace upon his
    son's birth. Such an invitation is to be expected of a son of royalty, whose arrival
    would be accompanied with honor and pageantry. The Brahmins prophesied that
    Buddha would be a world leader or a founder of a great religion, which does not bear
    any resemblance to the account of the wise men in Matthew's narrative, in which no
    statement whatsoever is attributed to them. It is simply said they worshiped Jesus
    and presented Him with gifts. However, prior to their visit, Jesus' mission was
    prophesied by angels, both to Joseph and Mary, to whom it was announced that Jesus
    would save His people from their sin, and this was in conjunction with the
    prophecies made by the Old Testament prophets long before Jesus' birth. Finally,
    Buddha's birthday is traditionally observed on May eighth and never in December.

    To come to the Gymnosophists of India, the opinion is authoritatively handed


    down that Buddha, the founder of their religion, had his birth through the side
    of a virgin. … Let these allusions to the virgins of the world, brief and hastily
    gathered from many histories, now suffice.1

    According to a rare and unofficial account of Buddha's story, after his birth, his
    life was threatened by king Bimbasara who advised to kill the child for fear that he
    would grow to be an usurper of the throne. The king's advice was not heeded and the
    child's life was spared. This does not compare to Herod's scheme to kill male
    children two years and under in Bethlehem and the surrounding vicinity, which he
    did in fact do, and not at the advice of his counselors.

    Jesus and Buddha were both of royal lineage, but the character of Jesus' lineage
    was not like that of Buddha's. Buddha was the son of a ruling king, whereas Jesus
    was the adopted son of a poor carpenter from Nazareth and was Joseph's son
    according to law, not by blood. While Joseph was a descendant of King David, his
    relation to a sitting king was removed by hundreds of years. The throne of David
    came to an end with King Jehoiachin whose reign was overthrown by Babylonian
    invaders in 597 B.C.

    Buddha is said to have taught in a temple at age fifteen, however, in Matthew's


    account of the boy Jesus in the Jerusalem temple, Jesus was twelve, not fifteen, nor
    did he teach there. Rather, he engaged in a question and answer session with the
    rabbis.

    94
    Buddha endured temptation and is said to have killed a serpent, which some
    critics claim he did so by crushing its head, reminiscent of the prophecy of Genesis
    3:15.

    And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art
    cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt
    thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity
    between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise
    thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen 3:14-15)

    However, the serpent's head is not said to have been crushed anywhere in the
    Buddha story. Also, the prophecy in Genesis (composed long before Buddha was
    even born) figuratively portrays Jesus' victory over sin, death, and the forces of evil
    – which is not a literal snake whose head will be crushed by Jesus' foot. As far as
    Buddha's temptation by a demon named Mara, Mara is not likened to Satan, since he
    is not the representation of a supremely evil being. The only real similarity between
    the two accounts is that both Jesus and Buddha were fasting at the time of
    temptation, and it is not an uncommon practice to attack an enemy when he is at a
    weak point. In addition, the setting and manner of the temptation of Buddha was
    different from that of Jesus.

    Some critics claim that Buddha was baptized in water as the spirit of god looked
    down, but such an event is not found in the myth.

    It is said that Buddha abolished idolatry, which is not true. Buddha encouraged
    such a practice. Likewise, neither did Jesus abolish idolatry, since the Jews were not
    an idolatrous people; but rather, strictly a monotheistic who were divinely forbidden
    from worshiping any idol, even one representing Jehovah. In addition, Jesus'
    preaching did not mirror that of Buddha, who was not a “preacher of righteousness,”
    nor taught the coming of a kingdom. Neither did Buddha claim to fulfill any divine
    law, as did Jesus. Buddha's followers were required to renounce the world and take a
    vow of poverty, but poverty is not required of Jesus' followers. Christians are to be
    non-materialistic, but material wealth is not forbidden in the Gospels. Jesus'
    command to a wealthy young man to renounce his riches was only to point out the
    man's love for material things over and above spiritual things.

    Buddha was known as “Lord,” but not, as some suggest, “Master,” “Light of the
    World,” “God of Gods,” “Father of the World,” “Almighty and All-knowing Ruler,”
    “Redeemer of All,” “Holy One,” the “Author of Happiness,” “Possessor of All,” the
    “Omnipotent,” the “Supreme Being,” the “Eternal One,” the “Sin Bearer,” the “Good
    Shepherd,” the “Infinite and Everlasting,” or the “Alpha and Omega.”

    Concerning miracles, he is said to have healed the sick, but he did not
    miraculously feed a multitude, calm a storm, raise the dead, or perform any other
    miracle described in the Gospels. In some post-Christian accounts, one of his
    devotees is said to have walked on water, but such is not said of Buddha himself.

    95
    Buddha was not transfigured, as some say; but rather, attained a level of
    consciousness which is said to have effected an outward change in him. In contrast,
    Jesus' transfiguration was not an elevation to a higher state of being. Rather, it was a
    revelation of His true nature, hidden by means of His mortal flesh, which He
    possessed since before creation.

    Any attempt to claim that Buddha died on a cross is in error. In truth, he died after
    consuming poisoned mushrooms at age eighty. Following his death, his body was
    cremated and never experienced a resurrection. As far as an ascension to heaven, the
    Buddhist concept of Nirvana is not like the Christian concept of Paradise. In
    Nirvana, the soul is freed from its bodily prison to enjoy a higher form of existence,
    but not in the form of fellowship with a deity who shed His own blood so that such
    fellowship could be provided to the believer.

    Buddhist eschatology does not involve Gautama Buddha returning in the end
    times as a judge of the dead, as some mythicists claim. A Buddha, not the Buddha, is
    believed to be born and will usher in world peace, but no such image of an
    international “buddy Jesus” appears in the Gospels. Rather, when Jesus returns, His
    coming will be accompanied with terror and the final destruction of those who live
    in unbelief.

    Cadmus of Greece
    Cadmus was the son of Agenor, king of Tyre. Bearing only one superficial
    similarity to Jesus, Cadmus' story involves his following a cow, at the instruction of
    the oracle at Delphi, to the place where it rested and there establish a city, which
    became known as the city of Thebes. Cadmus' men was attacked by a serpent of the
    god Ares, which he then slew. In the book of Genesis, after the serpent had deceived
    Eve and she and Adam had both sinned against God, God pronounced the following
    curse on the serpent:(Gen 3:14-15; see above) The bruising of the serpent,
    prophesied in Genesis, bears only one similarity to the Cadmus myth: the presence
    of a serpent. The significance of the Genesis prophecy is that it is a reference to the
    future victory of Christ (the “seed of the woman”) in overcoming death and
    delivering God's people from the ultimate curse of sin. The redemptive work of
    Christ did not actually involve stepping on a serpent's head, despite the symbolic
    scene from the movie The Passion of the Christ. As such, the Cadmus myth and the
    prophecies of the Messiah, aside from the mutual inclusion of a serpent, do not run a
    close parallel one to the other, as Cadmus' slaying of the serpent was merely an
    attempt to deliver some individual from an impending threat on their life by a
    creature sent by the god Ares.

    Chrishna of Hindostan
    Crishna is simply an alternate spelling of the god Krishna.

    Cronus of Greece
    Cronus (also spelled as Kronos) represented the harvest and time. The son of Gaia
    and Ouranos, (representing the earth and sky, respectively), he was the father of such
    gods as Zeus, Hades, and Poseiden. Gaia became angered with Ouranos when he

    96
    committed her youngest children to Tartarus. With a thirst for revenge, she tried to
    persuade her other children to kill Ouranos. Cronus, out of envy of Ouranos’ power,
    agreed to perform the task. In an ambush, Cronus severed Ouranos’ genitals and cast
    them in the sea. From his spilled blood were born the Giants, Erinyes (or Furies,
    according to the Romans), and Meliae (nymphs), and from his severed genitals was
    born the goddess Aphrodite. Cronus later defeated the serpent Ophion, thereby
    freeing the world from the serpent’s grasp and earning for himself the role as ruler of
    the world. After defeating Ouranos, Cronus became fearful for his life after a
    prophecy foretold he would be overcome by his son. In an effort to thwart the
    prophecy, Cronus swallowed his children, Demeter, Hera, Hades, Hestia, and
    Poseidon, each upon their birth. When Cronus’ wife, Rhea, became pregnant with
    Zeus, she gave birth to him in secret on the isle of Crete and hid him within the
    shelter of a cave where he was later raised by a goat (or a nymph or Gaia herself,
    according to another version of the myth). In order to protect her son, she presented
    Cronus with a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes. Thinking the stone to be his son,
    Cronus swallowed it whole. Later, and by one of various means (again, according to
    which version of the myth is being considered), Zeus caused Cronus to regurgitate
    the remaining five offspring, as well as the stone which Cronus thought to be Zeus.
    Afterwards, a war ensured between the gods and the Titans, which resulted in some
    of the Titans being banished to Tartarus, the underworld. In some versions of the
    myth, Cronus is among those banished Titans, while in other versions he is
    imprisoned in a cave for all eternity. The Titans’ fate after the war enraged Gaia and
    she gave birth to the creature Typhon (half man, half serpent) to exact revenge
    against the gods, but the creature was defeated by Zeus. In some versions of the
    myth, Cronus is freed from Tartarus and crowned King of Elysium, while in other
    versions he is named as king over the Cyclopes.

    Suggested parallels: In Genesis it is prophesied the Messiah would wound the head
    of the serpent, while in the Cronus myth it is said the god defeated the serpent
    Ophion. Since this so-called “parallel” has already been addressed, it bears no
    repetition here.

    Cuchulainn of Ireland
    The stories involving Cuchulainn emerged in Irish mythology during the Ulster
    Cycle, one of the four cycles of Irish mythology. While the composition of the
    stories date to the middle ages, the events within the stories are said to have taken
    place around or during the time of Christ, when Conchobar mac Nessa, Cuchulainn's
    uncle, ruled as king. The characters found within the myth are believed to be
    historical by some, while others regard them as wholly mythological fabrications.
    The earliest record of the events and characters of the Ulster Cycle dates to poems
    from the seventh century A.D.2

    Critics attempt to draw a parallel by stating Cuchulainn was born of a virgin. One
    version3 of his birth has his mother Deichtine adopting Cuchulainn, who later dies of
    illness. She is then visited by the god Lugh who tells her he has placed the child
    within her womb, a pregnancy which is scandalous since she is betrothed to marry
    Sualtam mac Róich. When her father is suspected of being the child's father,

    97
    Deichtine choses to abort the fetus. She later conceived through normal means. A
    later version4 has Deichtine, along with her fifty maidens, turning into birds and
    enticing the men of Uster, including Sualtam mac Róich, who in this account is
    already married to Deichtine. They are then transformed back into their human forms
    and the next day Deichtine is found to be with child, who is later named as “Setanta
    [whose name was changed to Cuchulainn], son of Sualtim." In the first account, a
    virgin conception can properly be applied to the narrative, but not a virgin birth,
    since the child was aborted prior to delivery. Even so, this cannot stand as a story
    which inspired the Gospel writers to have included a virgin birth narrative in their
    own accounts. First, the Cuchulainn myth did not take shape until well after the
    beginning of the Christian era. Second, the Jews would not have merged a pagan
    myth with the prophecies of the Messiah (more on this point will be said in Part six),
    for so doing would be in contrast with the Jews' own method of thought.

    Critics also claim Cuchulainn was born on December 25th, but as has already been
    shown, any such claim is irrelevant to the Gospel story. Finally, critics claim he was
    resurrected from the dead, but the myth does not provide Cuchulainn with any such
    benefit.

    Crite of Chaldea
    No historical reference could be found to a so-called crucified savior named Crite
    (perhaps the name is intended to be a play on the title “Christ”). He is said, only
    according to the mythicists, to have been known as "the redeemer," "the ever-blessed
    Son of God,,”"the savior of the race," and "the atoning offering for an angry God."
    They also claim that when he was crucified, the heavens and the earth were shaken.
    The main element the mythicist needs to now provide is a pantheon to which this
    deity exists and a credible reference to his existence apart from references found on
    unreliable cookie-cutter mythicist web sites.

    Dazhbog of the Slavs


    Dazhbog (also known as Dabog and Dazbog) is the Slavic sun god. He is said to
    have been reborn every morning, only to turn into an old man in the evening. He was
    never regarded as an historical person who experienced death and a one-time bodily
    resurrection. Rather, his daily regeneration was merely due to an association with the
    rising of the sun at every new dawn.

    Deva Tat
    Deva Tat is another name for Buddha, and just another attempt to lengthen the
    names on this list of would-be Jesus clones.

    The Divine Teacher of Plato


    Plato's teacher or mentor was Socrates, not a deity. Socrates did have an
    imaginary friend he called his “divine teacher,” who he believed could set him on the
    right path in the quest for wisdom and keep him focused on a manner of proper
    living.5 However, by Socrates' own admission, this teacher did not possess wisdom
    himself, but only knew in which direction to point in order to obtain wisdom.

    98
    Fohi of China
    Fohi, or Fu Xi, was a mythological Chinese emperor, said to have ruled from
    2900-2700 B.C., and who is credited for certain advancements in Chinese
    civilization, such as writing and fishing. He is said to have been miraculously
    conceived without male intervention. Of course, critics jump on this as an
    opportunity to gleefully shout, “Jesus myth!” from their rooftops. First, while it is
    said he was conceived of a woman and having no father, it is not said that his mother
    was a virgin at the time, having had no sexual relations prior to her miraculous
    conception. Second, and more importantly, there is some speculation that a
    matriarchal society once existed in ancient China, and that during this time,
    pregnancy was considered miraculous and children a gift from a god, due to
    ignorance or misunderstanding regarding the process of insemination. In addition,
    children were thought not to have been acquainted with their father, but only with
    the mother.6 Were that the case, then Fohi's supernatural birth was no more than a
    byproduct of the culture and development of the time. Even if Fohi was truly
    believed to be virgin-born in a manner distinct from what may have been understood
    of any other child in such a society, the characteristics of Jesus' birth still serve to
    separate Him from standing parallel to Fohi in regards to his entrance into this world.
    The ways in which Jesus' birth cannot be likened to any other birth which may
    rightfully be classified as virginal will be addressed in detail in Part five.

    Gentaut of Mexico
    The burden of proof remains in the hands of the critic as to which pantheon
    Gentaut belongs, for no research into the Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayas, or other ancient
    civilizations of Mexico turned up a deity by this name.

    Gullveig of Scandinavia
    Gullveig is an obscure figure in Norse mythology and is widely believed to be
    among one of the two warring divisions of Norse deities, the Æsir and the Vanir. Her
    story is told briefly in the poem Völuspá and is set during the war between the gods.
    Gullveig is described in the poem as thrice dying and thrice returning from the dead,
    as shown in stanza twenty one of the poem, then later returning as a witch who
    performs dark magic.

    When the gods with spears


    had smitten Gullveig,
    And in the hall
    of Hár had burned her,
    Three times burned,
    and three times born,
    Oft and again,
    yet ever she lives.
    Heid they named her
    when she came to the house,
    The wide-seeing witch,
    in magic wise;
    She performed seið where she could

    99
    worked seið in a trance,
    To evil women
    she was always a joy.7

    Suggested parallels: Little is known of this deity. Whatever was the purpose of her
    death, it is not explicitly stated in the poem, however the poem gives no indication
    that her threefold rebirth was viewed as being redemptive in purpose.

    Hesus of the Druids


    It is said that Hesus, also known as Esus, of Gaul was born of a virgin and
    crucified between a lamb and an elephant. Interestingly, I don't recall ever seeing
    such animals in a passion play! Hesus was a god of war, usually depicted as a
    woodcutter with a large axe, and took pleasure in human sacrifice, as testified by the
    Roman Lucan. The Hesus myth does not mention any virgin birth, and the
    suggestion that he was crucified is a twist on the manner of sacrifices offered in his
    name. As a sacrifice to Hesus, men were tied to or hung from a tree and flayed alive.
    Since being “hung on a tree” was a common reference to crucifixion, some suggest
    that crucifixion is an element found within the Hesus myth. First, it was not Hesus
    who was hung from a tree; but rather, humans offered in sacrifice to him. Second,
    although being “hung on a tree” was a common reference to crucifixion, simply
    being “hung” or tied to a tree did not constitute death by crucifixion.

    The most common association critics attempt to employ when linking Hesus to
    Jesus is the similarity of the name, an association rejected by scholarship. The name
    Jesus is the English translation of the name Yeshua, meaning “savior.” The name can
    also be translated as Joshua. The name Hesus, however, is from the Indo-European
    language and bears no similarity to the Hebrew Yeshua, either phonetically or
    etymologically. Any attempt to liken Jesus and Hesus by virtue of the names is the
    product of an uninformed premise.

    The Holy One of Xaca


    It is uncertain exactly who the critics are referring to here, since the “holy one” of
    Xaca, although popular among the standard mythicist web sites, is not referenced as
    a deity by a reputable source of information. Even the mythicist sites do not specify
    how this holy one is supposed to be a parallel to Jesus. Some claim that Xaca is the
    name of a god, others claim it is the name given to worshipers of a particular deity.
    Outside of mythicist sites, Xaca is said to be an alternate name for Buddha and also
    an acronym for Xbox Anti Cheat Alliance.

    Inanna and Tammuz of Sumer


    Inanna, a Sumerian goddess also known as Ishtar, has been worshiped since pre-
    Christian times. Inscriptions dating to 1500 B.C. are believed to indicate she was
    crucified and resurrected following her descent to the underworld. She descends to
    the underworld, supposedly to either attend her brother-in-law’s funeral or use this
    as an excuse to eventually conquer the underworld. The myth says, "After she had
    crouched down [before her sister] and had her clothes removed, they were carried
    away. Then she made her sister Erec-ki-gala rise from her throne, and instead she sat

    100
    on her throne. The Anna, the seven judges, rendered their decision against her. They
    looked at her -- it was the look of death. They spoke to her -- it was the speech of
    anger. They shouted at her -- it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman
    was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook."8 After Inanna hung
    there for three days, Nincurba went to Enlil (god of air), Nanna (god of the moon),
    and Enki's (god of wisdom and water) temples and demanded they save Inanna. Of
    the three, Enki agreed to come to Inanna’s aid. He formed two creatures, gala-tura
    and kur-jara, and ordered them to sprinkle her corpse with food and life-giving
    water. Following their orders, they revived Inanna successfully. The demons of the
    underworld refused to let Inanna go and demanded a replacement be left in her
    stead. They found Inanna’s husband Dumuzi enjoying the festive life, despite his
    wife’s disappearance in the underworld. This angered Inanna and she agreed to let
    the demons claim her husband so she could go free.

    The resurrection in the myth of Inanna bears no resemblance to the resurrection


    of Jesus. First, there was no precognition that the death would occur, whereas Jesus
    foretold His own death. Second, the manner of death bears very little resemblance to
    way Jesus died. Inanna was hung on a hook, whereas Jesus was crucified on a cross.
    The only commonality is that they were both suspended above the ground, no reason
    to link the two together. Third, Inanna’s resurrection was brought about by a god’s
    whim; Jesus’ resurrection was planned within the ageless eternity past. Fourth,
    Inanna’s resurrection was temporal – she could be killed again; Jesus was
    resurrected to an eternal glorified state. Fifth, Inanna’s resurrection resulted in
    nothing; Jesus’ resurrection bridged the gap between God and man. Sixth, Inanna
    was resurrected by the gods, whereas Jesus raised His own body from the grave.
    Seventh, Inanna’s resurrection did not conquer death, for another being had to take
    her place among the dead in order for her to be rise from death. In contrast, Jesus’
    resurrection resulted in life for those who believe in Him. Following Inanna’s
    resurrection, another was consigned to the underworld in her place. Following Jesus’
    resurrection, a multitude is freed from death.

    Tammuz is the Akkadian name for Dumuzi, the consort of Inanna, or Ishtar.
    Following Inanna’s return from the underworld, Dumuzi was consigned to the
    underworld in her stead. It was originally thought he remained there, never to make
    a return to the land of the living. It was as such that he was mentioned in the Epic of
    Gilgamesh*, in which Ishtar is rebuked for bringing about the death of per past
    lovers, among whom is named Tammuz. However, a Sumerian tablet uncovered in
    1963 reveled Dumuzi as a deity who was consigned to the underworld only to
    reappear among the living,9 and this he did on an annual basis. Following his
    original consignment to the underworld, Inanna mourns for the loss of her husband
    and arranges for his release. The arrangement allowed Dumuzi to be consigned to
    the underworld for six months of every year, with his sister Geshtinana taking his
    place for the remaining six months. The tablet reads: "You [Dumuzi], half the year.
    Your sister [Geštinanna], half the year!" Dumuzi was not a vegetation god, since his
    underworld consignment was annually from July to December, during which time he
    “died,” then returned to “life” from January to June. No vegetation deity was
    believed to die during a time when vegetation was in a state of renewal. Rather, their

    101
    death was likened with the return of winter, and their resurrection, with the return of
    spring. The cult which bore Tammuz’ name was largely a funereal cult, celebrating
    his death rather than a resurrection or return to the land of the living. Tammuz’
    mourning ceremonies were widely practiced, even in Jerusalem, as witnessed by the
    prophet Ezekiel:

    Then he brought me [Ezekiel] to the entrance to the north gate of the house of
    the LORD [the Temple in Jerusalem], and I saw women sitting there, mourning
    for Tammuz. He said to me, Do you see this, son of man? You will see things
    that are even more detestable than this. (Ezekiel 8:14-15 NIV)
    * This poem is discussed in detail later in this book under the heading concerning
    Noah’s Flood.

    The resurrection of Tammuz is distinct from the resurrection of Jesus for the
    following reasons:

    1. Tammuz died and rose on an annual basis. His resurrection was not “once
    for all,” as was Jesus’ resurrection.

    Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first
    for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he
    offered up himself. (Heb 7:27)

    But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a


    greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say,
    not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his
    own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained
    eternal redemption for us. (Heb 9:11-12)

    By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of
    Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:10)

    2. Although Tammuz’ consignment to the underworld was to secure Inanna’s


    release, Tammuz was not considered a savior by his followers.

    3. Tammuz’ death and resurrection were not foreordained or prophesied


    beforehand, as was many circumstances and events in the life of Jesus.

    4. His resurrection was only due to his place in the underworld being filled by
    his sister, during the time he returned to the land of the living. When Jesus
    rose from the dead, there was no need for His tomb to be occupied by another,
    since in His resurrection from the dead, He conquered death itself. Tammuz’
    resurrection necessitated the death of His sister. Jesus’ resurrection
    necessitated everlasting life for those who place their faith in Him as Savior.

    102
    5. Celebrations in Tammuz’ name was in observance of His death; Christians
    celebrate Jesus resurrection.

    6. Tammuz’ resurrection did not result in salvation. It was his death, not his
    resurrection, which secured Inanna’s release from the underworld. Tammuz’
    resurrection in fact resulted in death, for every year when he made his return
    from the underworld, his sister entered the underworld to take his place
    among the dead.

    Other reported similarities between Tammuz and Jesus include the following:
    “He wore a crown of thorns at his passion in Jerusalem and was called god's
    'only begotten son' and 'son of the blood.'” The truth is that none of these
    elements are found in the myth.
    “He was known as a healer, savior, shepherd, and anointed one.” Of these,
    only roles of a healer and shepherd can properly be applied to Tammuz, but
    not in the same sense that it can be applied to Jesus. Tammuz was a healer and
    a shepherd in the literal sense, as it was his by profession, whereas Jesus is the
    Great Shepherd and the Great Healer, come to save His sheep and restore
    them to fellowship with God.
    “He was born in the very cave in Bethlehem now considered to be the
    birthplace of Jesus.” The only mention of Tammuz being born in a cave comes
    to us from the early Christian writer Jerome, who states:
    “From the time of Hadrian to the reign of Constantine — a period of
    about one hundred and eighty years — the spot which had witnessed
    the resurrection was occupied by a figure of Jupiter; while on the rock
    where the cross had stood, a marble statue of Venus was set up by the
    heathen and became an object of worship. The original persecutors,
    indeed, supposed that by polluting our holy places they would deprive
    us of our faith in the passion and in the resurrection. Even my own
    Bethlehem, as it now is, that most venerable spot in the whole world of
    which the psalmist sings: “the truth hath sprung out of the earth,” was
    overshadowed by a grove of Tammuz.”10
    As testified by Jerome, the association of Tammuz' birthplace as the cave
    regarded as the birthplace of Jesus was a post-Christian invention of Rome, in
    an attempt to “deprive” Christians of their faith. The cave was not regarded as
    the actual birthplace of Tammuz.
    Indra of Tibet
    Indra was formerly the chief of the gods in India and Tibet, is a war and storm
    god. At his birth, he burst from his mother's side, thus killing her. Riding through the
    heavens in a chariot, and carrying a lightning bolt in his hand, he travels about
    slaying his enemies and reviving warriors killed in battle. His primary association is
    as a demon-slayer, having killed the serpent Vritra, and in so doing, generated life
    and caused the sun to rise. In one instance he is known as a redeemer, but those
    whom he redeemed were cows which had been stolen from the gods. As the bringer

    103
    of light and rain, he eventually became known as a fertility god. Indra is depicted as
    a heavy drinker, having a large belly, and his followers partook of the intoxication
    drink Soma during their rituals. According to the Hindi epic Ramayana, Indra
    became infatuated with the wife of Gautama, disguised himself, and won her over as
    his lover. In a fit of rage, Gautama cursed Indra, causing his genitals to fall off;
    however, the gods later replaced them with the genitals of a ram. Now, apart from
    the notion that his followers consumed a beverage (which holds no relevance to the
    sober character of the Lord's Supper) where exactly does anything described in the
    Gospels fit in with this story?

    Ischy of the island of Formosa


    All attempts to uncover a deity known as Ischy proved to be futile. It appears this
    is the critics' attempt to suggest that the Christian fish symbol (as seen on many
    bumper stickers), also known as Ichthys, was based on this apparently non-existent
    deity.

    Ixion of Rome
    Ixion was a Thessalian king of Larissa and, in some accounts, the son of the god
    Ares. He fell in love with a woman named Dia, and in order to avoid paying the
    required price to her father for his daughter's hand in marriage, Ixion caused him to
    fall into a pit, whereby he was killed in the fall. Later, Ixion's attraction fell upon
    Hera, the wife of the god Zeus, for which he was bound to a wheel (not crucified to
    it) and sentenced to an eternity in the underworld. Why critics choose to list Ixion as
    a Jesus parallel remains to be seen.

    Izanagi of Japan
    Izanagi was the husband of Izanami and the two figures were regarded as the ones
    from whom emerged the deities and forefathers of Japan, and even the land of earth
    itself. Their act of creating land was through the use of a spear, given to them by the
    primordial gods Kunitokotachi and Amenominakanushi, with which they churned the
    waters of earth and caused the first land to appear. After creating land, they
    descended to earth and made their abode therein. After his wife died in childbirth,
    Izanagi was so consumed with rage over her passing that he killed the child born to
    him by her. He then attempted to bring her back from the Yomi, the underworld, but
    his efforts were unsuccessful, since she had already eaten the food of the underworld,
    thereby committing herself as a permanent resident among the dead. He drew the
    anger of his dead wife after he caught a glimpse of her now-horrid form in the
    underworld. Terrified by the sight of her, Izanagi turned and ran like a bat out of hell
    (or, in this case, Yomi), thus abandoning his wife as one of the dead. Angered by her
    husband’s abandon, she pursues him in an attempt to slay him, but fails to do so and
    instead vows to kill one thousand of his people daily.

    Suggested parallels:

    The book of Genesis opens with the account of creation, beginning as follows:

    104
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was
    waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit
    of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen 1:1-2 NASB)

    Such description bears a likeness to the myth here in question, but given the late
    dating of the Japanese myth, if there was any borrowing of one creation account to
    another, it is no wonder who borrowed from whom.

    Izanagi’s return from the underworld cannot be likened to the resurrection


    account of the Gospels. In the Japanese myth, Izanagi returns from the land of the
    dead without ever having died in the first place and, upon his return, not even his
    wife emerged with him to the land of the living.

    Jao of Nepal
    This deity appears to be, yet again, an invention of the mythicists.

    Jarilo of the Slavs


    Jarilo was a god of fertility, vegetation, and the harvest, and was the son of Perun,
    the chief of the gods. By some accounts, on the night Jarilo was born he was stolen
    from Perun by Veles, the lord of the dead, and taken to the underworld, there to be
    raised by Veles himself. In Slavic mythology, the underworld was not your typical
    run-of-the-mill land of the dead. Rather than being a place filled with stench, decay,
    and things creepy and kooky, mysterious and spooky, and altogether ooky (if I may
    borrow a line from the theme to The Addams Family), the underworld was a fertile
    land which lay across a sea and was filled with grassy plains where Jarilo watched
    over cattle. Every spring, Jarilo would traverse the sea and travel from the land of the
    dead to the living, ushering in the spring season. Jarilo then caught the eye of
    Morana, a nature goddess, and the love between the two figures resulted in a time of
    fertility for the earth, thus guaranteeing a bountiful harvest later in the year. At the
    end of the harvest, Jarilo was thought to have been killed by Morana as retribution
    for infidelity, and with his death came the death of the crops. Later, before year’s
    end, Morana also meets her demise. Such is the myth of Jarilo, a myth which
    recycles itself from year to year, with both he and Morana being reborn at the dawn
    of the new year and dying before the year’s end.

    Suggested parallels: The annual death and resurrection of Jarilo is just another
    mythic interpretation of the natural changing of the seasons and, as such, does not
    mirror the redemptive value of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

    Karna of India
    The pre-Christian Hindu epic Mahabharata describes Karna’s birth to Queen
    Kunti prior to her marriage to King Pandu. The conception of Karna was effected by
    the god Sunya, who was summoned by Kunti after using a mantra given to her, when
    she was a youth, by the sage Durvasa, as a form of gratitude for her year of service
    to him. Through the deity’s intervention, Kunti became pregnant and gave birth to
    Karna, who was born in full armor and wearing a pair of earrings. Following her
    marriage to the king, Pandu was told that he would be cursed if he embraced Kunti

    105
    or his other wife. Through the use of the mantra, Kunti again summoned the god,
    that he might cause to cause her and her husband’s other wife to bear children to
    their Pandu. Thus, Karna, as well as his five brothers (the Pandavas) were said to
    have been born without male seed.

    After Karna’s birth, Kunti set him adrift in the river Ganga, where he was later
    found and adopted by a chariot driver, who lovingly raised Karna as his own son.
    Later, Karna was trained to be a mighty warrior and skilled archer. One day, after
    killing a cow with an arrow, he was cursed by a Brahmin who said Karna would be
    killed in a moment of weakness as consequence for slaying a helpless animal. Karna
    developed a strong friendship with prince Duryodhana after Duryodhana made
    Karna eligible to participate in a tournament with the royal guru Drona. Karna later
    ascended to the throne of Anga and gained widespread popularity as a benevolent
    ruler. Karna then secured the allegiance of other ruler to his friend Duryodhana, by
    using military might to bring them under Duryodhana’s subjection, thus establishing
    Duryodhana as Emperor of the World.

    The god Indra, knowing that Karna would be indestructible as long as he wore the
    armor and earrings with which he was born, approached Karna while in disguise and
    persuaded Karna to hand over the armor and earrings. Indra was humbled by Karna’s
    generosity and responded by permitting Karna to make use of the Vasavi shakti,
    Indra’s most powerful weapon, with the stipulation that he be allowed to use it on
    only one occasion.

    On the seventeenth day of The Great War, after battle with the Pandavas, Karna
    faced Arjuna, the third of the five Pandavas, in a confrontation concerning which it
    was prophesied that only one would survive. Karna attempted to deal a fatal blow to
    Arjuna but was foiled due to the intervention of Krishna. Karna then dismounts from
    his chariot after the wheels become stuck in the ground. He then requests that Arjuna
    hold from further assault until he is able to mount his chariot again. Arjuna, at the
    instigation of Krishna, disregards Karna’s request and delivers to him a fatal blow.

    The only characteristic of the Karna myth which is similar, superficially, to the
    Gospels’ account of Jesus, is the virgin birth. However, Karna’s birth served no pre-
    ordained purpose and was merely brought about through a maiden’s “wishing upon a
    star,” as it were.

    Mikado of the Sintoos


    The word “Mikado” is indeed Japanese, but does not refer to any deity. There are
    two usages of the word: first, as a former title to the emperor of Japan11, and second,
    as the title of a comic opera (The Mikado) by Gilbert and Sullivan.

    Mohamud, or Mahomet, of Arabia


    Mahomet is an alternate spelling of Mohammed (c.570-632 A.D.), or
    Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and is also the title of a play written by Voltaire
    and was first performed on April 25, 1741, as a biography of Mohammed.

    106
    Odin of Scandinavia
    The similarity between Odin and Jesus centers on Odin's voluntarily act of
    hanging himself upon Yggdrasil, the cosmic tree. After his death, which came by
    him being eaten by a wolf, not by his attachment to the tree, he was resurrected by
    magic and proven to be wiser than he was before his death. This similarity becomes
    deadly to the critics' cause when one considers that the earliest account known of this
    myth dates to 950 A.D. If there was any borrowing here, it was on the part of the
    Norse myth, which perhaps borrowed from the Christian account of God being
    “hung on a tree” and His subsequent resurrection.

    Orpheus of Greece
    Orpheus, the son of the Thracian king Oeagrus and the muse Calliope, was a
    Greek hero who was a skilled poet and musician, so much so that his music could
    enchant beasts, fish, and fowl, and cause trees to dance and rivers to divert their
    course. He married Eurydice who was fatally bitten after running into a nest of
    snakes. In his grief for his wife’s demise, Orpheus played songs of mourning so
    skillfully that it caused even the gods to grieve. The gods instructed Orpheus to
    journey to the underworld and, through his music, persuade Hades to permit
    Eurydice to return to the land of the living. With music from his lyre, Orpheus
    charmed Charon, the ferryman which carried deceased souls across the River Styx to
    the underworld, into granting him passage to the land of the dead. Once there, and
    after enchanting Cerberus, the three-headed guard dog of the underworld, Orpheus
    petitioned Hades to free Calliope and allow her to return to the living. Hades
    consented to his request on the condition that Orpheus escort his wife from the
    underworld by going before her and not looking back until they had both exited the
    land of the dead. Orpheus failed to heed Hades’ instructions and upon turning back to
    look at his wife, she vanished from his sight, never to return to the living. Orpheus
    later met his own demise when he went to worship the sun god Apollo, but was
    dismembered by Thracian Maenads (followers of the god Dionysus) for not paying
    homage to Dionysus instead. Orpheus’ severed head, singing songs of mourning all
    the while, floated down the Hebrus River to the shores of Lesbos. His head was
    placed in a shrine constructed there, while his lyre was placed as a star in the
    heavens. Orpheus was then reunited, in spirit, with his wife in the underworld.

    Suggested parallels:

    The myth of Orpheus is similar to the myth of Izanagi due to the common story
    element of each figure’s journey to the underworld to retrieve his dead wife. As in
    the case of Izanagi, Orpheus descends to the underworld without having died in the
    first place, and in his return he is not accompanied by anyone who had previously
    died.

    Some believe Orpheus was crucified based on an amulet (shown on next page)
    which is believed to depict him in a crucified state. This amulet is the same one
    which others believe to depict a crucified Dionysus. The fallacy of this claim has
    already been discussed in this work (see the section regarding Dionysus under the
    previous heading “He was crucified”).

    107
    Orus of Egypt
    Orus is just an alternate spelling of the Greek god Horus, as well as the name of a
    village in south-western France.

    Osiris of Egypt
    Osiris is an Egyptian deity who critics of Christianity claim was a savior deity,
    born of a virgin, and was resurrected after his death. The most complete version of
    the Osiris myth comes from the Greek historian Plutarch (c.34-125 A.D.) in his work
    Isis and Osiris, and goes as follows:

    “Set, Osiris’ brother, killed Osiris by tricking Osiris to lie in a chest, which
    was then shut up and tossed in the Nile River. Isis, Osiris’ wife, learned the
    chest had drifted out to sea and come to rest on the coast of Byblos. She
    journeyed there, found Osiris’ body, and mourned her dead husband. She hid
    the body in a secret location, but Set found the body and cut the corpse into
    fourteen pieces, which he then scattered throughout Egypt. Isis, recovered the
    pieces and assembled them. She was unable to find Osiris’ phallus, so she
    fashioned one for him and hovered over his body, thus reviving her husband.
    In some versions, he returns to life; in other versions, he simply journeys to
    the underworld and becomes king of the dead.”12

    Karl Widemann, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Bonn, states, “Above


    all, the conceptions regarding the most important episode in the god’s existence,
    namely his resurrection, differed very widely, especially in the later texts.”13

    Suggested parallels:

    Three kings visited him upon his birth:


    The notion that Osiris was visited by three wise men upon his birth
    is a purely astrological association, referring to an inner belt of three
    stars, named Mintaka, Anilam, and Alniak, located within the
    constellation of Osiris.

    108
    His followers observed a communal mean in which Osiris' body
    was eaten
    The myth mentions nothing of a communal meal, much less one in
    which Osiris was represented by elements consumed by the
    participants.

    He was referred to as “King of Kings,” “the resurrection and the


    life,” and “the good shepherd.”
    None of these titles were ever applied in antiquity to Osiris, although
    he has been depicted as holding a shepherd's rod. Such an icon was also
    held by the Pharaoh's of Egypt as a symbol of their authority. Since
    Osiris was closely associated with Egyptian Pharaoh's, it is not
    unreasonable that the Egyptians attributed the same symbol to Osiris.

    The Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23 are copied of earlier Egyptian


    texts relating to Osiris
    It is said that an ancient text describes Osiris as one who leads the
    dead to green pastures and still waters, restores one's soul, and protects
    those in the valley of death. Another purported ancient Egyptian text is
    said to begin with “O Amen, O Amen, who are in heaven.” Still, the
    critics have yet to provide evidence for these so-called ancient texts.
    Besides, amen is a Hebrew word and was used as an affirmation for that
    which had already been said, rather than as a greeting or invocation.

    Did Osiris experience a bodily resurrection?


    Osiris was a vegetation god. His death symbolized the annual drought,
    while his rebirth symbolized the annual flooding of the Nile and renewal of
    crops. As Bruce Metzger observes, “such myths are the expression of ancient
    nature-symbolism; the spirit of vegetation dies every year and rises every
    year.”14

    Osiris’ resurrection was nothing more than a descent to the underworld. He


    was never resurrected to continue his previous manner of existence. Consider
    the following remarks on this point:

    According to author J. Smith, “The pieces of his body were recovered


    and rejoined, and the god was rejuvenated. However, he did not return
    to his former mode of existence but rather journeyed to the underworld,
    where he became the powerful lord of the dead. In no sense can Osiris
    be said to have ‘risen’ in the sense required by the dying and rising
    pattern….In no sense can the dramatic myth of his death and
    reanimation be harmonized to the pattern of dying and rising gods.”15

    Archaeologist Roland de Vaux in his book The Bible and the Ancient
    Near East has this to say: "What is meant of Osiris being 'raised to
    life'? Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a
    life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly

    109
    existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign
    only over the dead...This revived god is in reality a 'mummy' god."16

    From The Encyclopedia Mythica, on Osiris’ fate after he was revived by


    Isis: “He [Osiris] was not allowed to stay in the land of the living, and
    was sent to the underworld to serve as king, and to judge the souls of
    the dead.”17

    From Plutarch's de Iside et Osiride: “it was the pious desire of devotees
    to be buried in the same ground where, according to local tradition, the
    body of Osiris was still lying.”18

    However, critics disagree, saying that Osiris’ resurrection was a return to


    earth, not just a descent to the underworld. According to Farrell Till, “the
    myth requires that conclusion. … The bodily resurrection of Osiris may have
    been brief, but it was nevertheless a resurrection back to earth long enough
    for Osiris to instruct his son Horus in the art of war and to urge him to avenge
    the death of his father on Set. Whether this was for one minute, one day, five
    days, or whatever, is immaterial. ... After this, Osiris descended into the world
    of the dead to become their judge and the hope of resurrection to those who
    still lived on earth.”19

    The Facts On File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend has this
    to say regarding the nature of Osiris’ return to earth when instructing Horus:
    “After some time Osiris’ spirit returned from the dead and appeared to his son
    Horus, encouraging Horus to avenge his father’s death.”20 Note that here it is
    said Osiris’ spirit, not his body, returned to earth. That certainly does not
    mimic the resurrection of Jesus, whose return from the grave was not a mere
    ghost story.

    When Farrell Till was asked to produce his sources (consisting of Plutarch,
    Diodorus, and the Book of the Dead) to back up his claim that Osiris returned
    in bodily form, his reply was that it “would take some time,” but that he was
    “personally confident enough in the accuracy of the notes that [he] took from
    these works.” 21

    Does the sources cited by Mr. Till back up his claim? Let’s take a look at
    the sources in which he has so much confidence:

    Source #1: Plutarch


    In ancient literature, Plutarch provides us with the most complete
    account of Osiris in his work De Iside Et Osiride (Isis and Osiris).
    Plutarch does not give an account of a bodily resurrection in the case of
    Osiris. Rather, he mentions the following:

    "Furthermore, the tales regarding the Titans and the rites celebrated
    by night agree with the accounts of the dismemberment of Osiris

    110
    and his revivification and regenesis. Similar agreement is found too
    in the tales about their sepulchers."22

    Here, Plutarch merely alludes to Osiris’ resurrection, without stating in


    what form he was resurrected. Also, he only associates the resurrection
    with celebrations in Osiris’ name. He mentions the “revivification” and
    “regenesis” of Osiris as being beliefs held by Osiris’ worshipers, rather
    than being elements of the actual myth. Moreover, nowhere in his
    writing does Plutarch indicate in what manner Osiris’ was revived. He
    does not mention a bodily resurrection, either as an element of the myth
    or as a belief held by Osiris’ worshippers, which is what Mr. Till
    claimed he found in Plutarch’s writings. Plutarch’s silence concerning a
    bodily resurrection for Osiris is confirmed by Egyptologist Wallis
    Budge, a staunch critic of Christianity, in his book Osiris And The
    Egyptian Resurrection: "[Plutarch] does not say whether Osiris came in
    the form of a spirit, or in his natural body, which he had raised from the
    dead..."23 In fact, all indications are that Plutarch considered Osiris’
    return to earth to be in the form of a spirit. He says, “Osiris came to
    Horus from the other world (i.e., as a spirit) and exercised and trained
    him for the battle."24

    Source #2: Diodorus


    Diodorus, the second source cited by Mr. Till as evidence in belief
    in Osiris’ bodily resurrection, never said Osiris was resurrected in
    bodily form. Rather, he described Osiris’ return as a reincarnation in the
    form of a bull or a wolf.

    "Some explain the origin of the honor accorded this bull in this
    way, saying at the death of Osiris his soul passed into this animal
    (Apis, the bull)."25

    Plutarch sheds some light on this concept: in Egyptian mythology, Apis


    the bull is identified as “the bodily image of the soul of Osiris."26

    Diodorus further explains Osiris’ return in the following passage: "…


    when Isis, aided by her son Horus, was about to commence her struggle
    with Tryphon, Osiris came from Hades to help his son and his wife,
    having taken on the guise of a wolf; and so, upon the death of Tryphon,
    his conquerors commanded men to honor the animal upon whose
    appearance the victory followed."27

    Source #3: The Book of the Dead


    Concerning the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Mr. Till’s third source
    in favor of his bodily resurrection claim, we see the goddess Isis, as she
    hovered over the body of the dead Osiris, saying, “I have come that I
    may be your protection. I fan air at your nostrils for you, I fan the north
    wind which comes forth from Atum for your nose. I clear your

    111
    windpipe for you. I cause you to be a god with your enemies fallen
    under you sandals. May you be vindicated in the sky and may your
    flesh be powerful among the gods."28 In this passage, Isis does nothing
    to bring about Osiris’ resurrection. Rather, she merely wished that,
    through her actions, a resurrection might occur. Afterwards, Osiris was
    revived, but not in bodily form. His revival was only a descent to the
    underworld to rule as king of the dead.

    Additionally, bodily resurrection was a belief not held by ancient


    Egyptians. Dr. Ogden Goelet writes, “Egyptians neither believed in the
    transmigration of the soul on earth in the Hindu or Pythagorean
    manner, nor hoped for a resurrection in this world. Rather, they
    believed in a transfiguration into the next world. Except in dreams or
    visions, the dead did not reappear on earth."29 The same author further
    explains that Egyptian mortuary literature did contain references to the
    rising of the dead; however, this is due to the Egyptian practice of
    referring to the dead as those being in a deep sleep, rather than actually
    deceased.30

    Critics have referenced the following inscriptions as an indication that


    Osiris was resurrected in bodily form:

    "O flesh of Teta, rot not, decay not, stink not."31

    "Pepi [Osiris] goeth forth with his flesh."32

    "thy [Osiris’} bones shall not be destroyed, and thy flesh shall not
    perish."33 (ibid., p 55)

    However, ancient Egyptians considered the afterlife to be a continuation of


    mortal life, as indicated in the mortuary inscriptions where the deceased are
    said to merely be asleep. As such, their belief system did not include a
    resurrection of the mortal body, but merely a continued existence in the
    afterlife. As Wallis Budge states: “… while we have this evidence of the
    Egyptian belief in eternal life, we are nowhere told that man's corruptible
    body will rise again; indeed, the following extracts show that the idea
    prevailed that the body lay in the earth while the soul or spirit lived in
    heaven.”34 The extracts to which Budge refers are listed below:

    “Soul to heaven, body to earth.”35

    “Thy essence is in heaven, thy body to earth.”36

    “Heaven hath thy soul, earth hath thy body.”37

    112
    Prometheus of Greece
    Prometheus was the Greek Titan who gave fire to man and acted as man's
    protector and benefactor. Concerning Prometheus it is said that he was virgin-born
    on December 25th as god incarnate and mankind's savior, that he was known as the
    “Word,” that he had a friend named Petraeus, or Peter, who later denied him, that on
    the day he was crucified the sky was darkened, and that he rose from the dead.

    As far as Prometheus' incarnation as mankind's savior, it must be remembered


    that he was not a god, but rather, was one of the Titans. In Greek mythology, the
    Titans were no more friendly with the gods than was Sylvester with Tweety. The
    claim that he was acting on behalf of the gods displays a lack of understanding
    regarding the Greek pantheon of mythology.

    The notion that Prometheus was called the “Word” or “Logos” is derived from a
    line in the writings of Plutarch in which he referred to Prometheus as “reason.”
    Plutarch never believed that his “reason” was god incarnated into flesh and blood.
    Since Prometheus was not speaking the mind of the gods, he was not the “word of
    god;” therefore, Plutarch's application of such a term to Prometheus is unlike the
    application of the title “Word” to Jesus, who did indeed reveal God the Father to
    mankind.

    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)

    Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord
    doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father
    I have made known unto you. (Jn 15:15)

    Prometheus was not born as a result of a union between a god and a mortal, as his
    parents were the Titans Iapetos and his wife Klymene. The myth does not reference a
    December birthday for Prometheus, not that it would matter if it did, for neither does
    the Bible reference a December birthday for Jesus.

    The claim that Prometheus had a friend named Petraeus or Peter is based on the
    claim that the name Petraeus is interchangeable with the name Oceanus, who has a
    short conversation with Prometheus, than takes his leave. The two did not have a
    mutually beneficial relationship which suffered any form of betrayal by Oceanus'
    departure. As far as the claim for the interchangeableness of the names, no
    explanation is given by the critics as to exactly how this is believed to be the case.
    Certainly, the language does not support such mix-and-match.

    Prometheus was not crucified as the critics claim. In fact, as an immortal, he


    would not die. However, he did suffer when Zeus sentenced him to be shacked to the
    side of a crag where an eagle or vulture (depending on which account one reads) rips
    at his flesh and devours his liver, only to have his body regenerate to satisfy the
    bird's craving the very next day. The sufferings of Prometheus was only to satisfy the
    anger of Zeus, who was by no means a moral or just deity. In contrast, Jesus'

    113
    suffering was to satisfy the righteous wrath of God for man's sin, so that man would
    be made acceptable before God. The darkening of the sky which occurred as
    Prometheus was chained to the crag was caused by Io, who visited Prometheus and
    brought with her a swarm of gadflies which darkened the sky. The swarm was the
    result of a curse placed upon her by Zeus, who made the swarm to accompany her
    wherever she went, not too unlike the puff of dust which encircled Pig-Pen, of
    Peanuts fame, only on a much larger scale.

    Quetzalcoatl of the Aztecs


    Quetzalcoatl is the Aztec creator and god of the sky, typically represented as a
    feathered serpent.
    In one version of the myth, Quetzalcoatl set himself on a raft of snakes and was sent
    into exile, promising to return one day. He was said to have descended into the land
    of the dead, gathered bones, returned them to the land of the living, and sprinkled
    them with his own blood, thus restoring their flesh and giving them life. This led to
    his eventual recognition as a dying and rising deity. His descent to the underworld,
    and his subsequent return from the same, is not like Jesus' resurrection from the
    dead. Quetzalcoatl boarded the raft willingly, however, his exile was caused by
    Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl's antithesis. Jesus' execution, on the other hand, was
    ordained from the foundation of the world by the Holy Trinity, to whom Jesus
    Himself belongs. Quetzalcoatl's exile was neither self-orchestrated nor sacrificial,
    and as far as his blood which gave life to dead bones, this cannot be attributed to
    anything more than the universal regard for blood as the source of life, an
    understanding which has long been held by cultures throughout the world and is also
    manifest in cannibalistic practices and beliefs regarding vampire lore.

    Quetzalcoatl, along with the gods Tezcatlipoca and Tlaloc, was known as
    “Ipalnemohuani,” meaning “by whom we live,” reminiscent of that which was said
    of Jesus.

    ... yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we
    exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist
    through Him. (1 Cor 8:6)

    For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own
    poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Acts 17:28)

    There is some speculation that these three gods were regarded as one and the same,
    a belief which critics claim was later transformed into the Christian doctrine of the
    Trinity. There is no ancient Aztec source which verifies the speculation concerning a
    singular nature for these three gods. In contrast, the Old Testament confirms the pre-
    Christian Jewish belief in a plurality within the Godhead (the doctrine of the Trinity
    will be further addressed in Part five). Concerning Quetzalcoatl's title as
    “Ipalnemohuani,” this was not attributed to him until he was regarded as a god of
    creation, and refers to such life-giving ability which was than applied to him, rather
    than being a reference to a will by which all things are continuously sustained and
    held together. The apostle Paul recognized that referring to a creative deity as one

    114
    “by whom we live” was a common sentiment among pagan religions. In the passage
    above, he even quotes Aratus, who said of the god Jupiter, “we are his offspring.”
    Paul was aware of the similarity in terminology, yet recognized the difference in the
    way which it was applied to pagan gods as opposed to Christ.

    In his embodiment of the planet Venus, Quetzalcoatl became known as the


    “morning star,” and the "lord of the star of the dawn," echoing that which was said of
    Jesus.

    I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the
    Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star. (Rev 22:16 NIV)

    For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face
    of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
    (Lk 2:30-32)

    The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the
    land of the shadow of death a light has dawned. (Isa 9:2 NIV)

    Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you.
    See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the
    Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. (Isa 60:1-2 NIV)

    Venus' identification as the Morning Star is due to the planet reaching its maximum
    brightness shortly before sunrise. The recognition of Quetzalcoatl as the “morning
    star” is purely of astronomical significance, whereas the light given by Jesus is the
    light by which the eyes of the spiritually blind are opened to the salvation of God
    and those dead to Him are made alive by the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross.

    Quetzalcoatl, along with his twin brother Xolotl, was said to have been born of
    the virgin Coatlicue (known by titles such as "Mother Goddess of the Earth who
    gives birth to all celestial things" and "Goddess of Fire and Fertility") after she was
    impregnated by a ball of feathers that fell to her side as she was sweeping a temple.
    Quetzalcoatl and Xolotl later decapitated their mother. As with other supernatural
    births in pagan mythology, Quetzalcoatl's birth, nor his brother Xolotl's birth, did not
    hold any significance in a divinely-appointed plan for mankind.

    Critics also cite Quetzalcoatl's temptation in their efforts to liken him to Jesus,
    however, in the Aztec myth Quetzalcoatl succumbs to his temptation, gets drunk and
    commits incest. The temptations between Quetzalcoatl and Jesus cannot in any way
    be likened by virtue of the circumstances found within the two accounts, and the idea
    that a god merely undergoes a form of temptation is no reason to suppose any
    borrowing occurred, since temptation is such a universally recognized means of trial.

    Concerning these similarities to Jesus, the Latter-day Saint John Taylor wrote,
    "The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of
    the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that

    115
    Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being."38 However, these insignificant
    similarities between Quetzalcoatl and Jesus are found to be a dead horse when one
    considers that the earliest mention of Quetzalcoatl dates only to the tenth century
    A.D.

    Quirinius of Rome
    Quirinus, often considered to the Sabine god of war, was transformed by the
    Romans into the god Romulus by the end of the first century A.D. An annual
    festival, the Quirinalia, was held in his honor on February seventeenth. The twins
    Romulus (c.771-c.717 B.C.) and Remus (c.771–c.753 B.C.) are the traditional
    founders of Rome. After founding the city, Romulus formed the Roman Legions and
    the Senate. He also took as his citizens women from the neighboring Sabine people,
    a mixture which served to unite the two peoples into one entity. Romulus was
    considered one of Rome’s greatest conquerers, having even slew his own brother
    Remus.

    Romulus’ death occurred in the thirty-eighth year of his reign with an


    unexplainable disappearance. During a great storm, the sky became so dark that the
    people fled in fear. Having returned after the storm passed, the people discovered
    that Romulus was nowhere to be found. A senator conveyed to the people that
    Romulus was carried up to heaven, saying that he was going to live with the gods
    and wished his people to worship him as the god Quirinius. Romulus' body was
    never found, thus leading to a belief in his ascension to the abode of the gods. When
    narrating Romulus' disappearance, Plutarch states:

    “It was the thirty-seventh year, counted from the foundation of Rome, when
    Romulus, then reigning, did, on the fifth day of the month of July, called the
    Caprotine Nones, offer a public sacrifice at the Goat's Marsh, in presence of the
    senate and people of Rome. Suddenly the sky was darkened, a thick cloud of
    storm and rain settled on the earth; the common people fled in affright, and were
    dispersed; and in this whirlwind Romulus disappeared, his body being never
    found either living or dead. A foul suspicion presently attached to the patricians,
    and rumors were current among the people as if that they, weary of kingly
    government, and exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus
    toward them, had plotted against his life and made him away, so that they might
    assume the authority and government into their own hands. This suspicion they
    sought to turn aside by decreeing divine honors to Romulus, as to one not dead,
    but translated to a higher condition. And Proculus, a man of note, took oath that
    he saw Romulus caught up into heaven in his arms and vestments, and heard
    him, as he ascended, cry out that they should hereafter style him by the name of
    Quirinus.”39

    Romulus' supposed ascension to the gods was never confirmed, but by the word of
    politicians who had an agenda of their own to fulfill. In contrast, Jesus was seen by
    many after His resurrection by “many infallible proofs.” (Acts 1:3) There are
    numerous considerations which validate the resurrection of Jesus, and these will be
    discussed fully in Part five.

    116
    Salivahana of India
    Critics claim Salivahana was virgin-born, the son of a carpenter, and whose name
    means “salvation” or “cross-borne.” It is also said that a king attempted to kill
    Salivahana when he was five years old. Salivahana's mother, while still an infant, is
    said to have been impregnated after a snake glided across her while she slept in her
    cradle, however, this story dates after the beginning of the Christian era. These
    claims relating to Salivahana come from Kersey Graves' much-criticized book The
    World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors and an entry by nineteenth century writer F.
    Wilford titled Origin and Decline of the Christian Religion in India. Wilford dates
    the Salivahana story to 676 A.D.40, whereas Graves claims that Wilford dates
    Salivahana to pre-Christian times.41

    Salivahana was said to be a carpenter's son, a classification which holds no


    significance in and of itself in any copycat theory, and the accounts of his attempted
    murder and crucifixion, according to Wilford, post-dates Christianity. Besides, the
    five year-old Salivahana's slaying of the king and his men is vastly dissimilar to
    Herod's attempt on Jesus' life as told by the evangelist Matthew.

    Sammonocadam of Siam
    This is an alternate spelling of an alternate name (Sommona-Codom) for Buddha.

    Thor of the Gauls


    Thor was the god of thunder and the son of Odin. He is married to the fertility
    goddess Sif and had two sons, Magni and Modi. The Thor family live in Asgard in
    the great hall Bilskirnir, containing 540 rooms. His death came after doing battle
    with the sea serpent Jörmungandr, whose venom felled the warrior after he slew the
    monster.

    Critics' attempts to liken Thor to Jesus is in part due to Thor's great hammer,
    Mjolnir, which, in one statue of the god, is depicted as an inverted cross-shaped item
    (shown below), however, this statue dates to around 1000 A.D. There is also
    speculation that, due to the influence of Christianity, the newly-designed hammer
    was worn as a pendant in defiance of the cross of Christ.

    Another element of the Thor myth which critics are very fond of is Thor's
    restoration of two goats. His mode of travel was a chariot pulled by the
    aforementioned goats, whom he would devour in times of hunger. However, after
    eating the animals, he would touch their carcasses and restore them to life – at least
    until he got hungry again. Aside from the notion that something was restored to life,

    117
    the resurrection of Thor's “snack” in order replenish his supply of food bears no
    similarity to the resurrection of Jesus.

    Tien of China
    “Tien” is a Chinese word having numerous meanings, as indicated by the Chinese
    dictionary Hanyu dazidian, and can be used to refer to any one of the following:42

    Human forehead; head, cranium


    A branding on the forehead as a kind of punishment
    The heavens, the sky, the firmament
    Celestial bodies; celestial phenomena, meteorological phenomena.
    A general reference to objective inevitability beyond human will
    The natural character or quality of a person or thing; natural instinct, inborn
    nature, disposition
    A reference to the sky or space
    Season of the year
    Weather; climate
    Day, time of one day and night, or especially the time from sunrise to sunset
    God, heaven, or celestial spirits
    Heaven or the world of the gods
    The king, monarch, or sovereign
    An object upon which one depends or relies
    A measure of land
    A family name, surname

    While the word can be used to refer to a god, it is not the name of a god, and
    therefore is not associated with any particular set of biographical characteristics.

    The Hindu Trimurti


    The Trimutri (also known as the Hindu triad or the Great Trinity) is the name
    given to the unification of three Hindu deities into one supreme being. These deities
    are Brahma (the creator, or earth), Visnu (the preserver, or water), and Shiva (the
    destroyer, or fire). These deities were regarded as three facets of one being, which
    was usually portrayed as having three heads or three faces on the same head. The
    Trimurti was not established as Hindu doctrine until such was expressed in the
    Puranas, or ancient Hindu texts, the earliest written form of which dates no earlier
    than the third century A.D., although oral forms of the Puranas are believed to have
    existed around 500 B.C.43 The Padma-Purana describes the merger of these three
    deities into one being:

    “In order to form this world, the supreme spirit produced from his right side
    Brahma. In order to maintain the world, he created from his left side Vishnu. To
    destroy it he gave rise to Shiva from his middle. Some men worship Brahma,
    others Vishnu, and yet others Shiva. Since these three are one, the devout should
    draw no distinction between them.”44

    118
    The above citation is the earliest extant reference to the Hindu belief in a trinitarian
    being. It should be noted that not all branches of Hinduism accept the doctrine of the
    Trimurti. For instance, the Dvaita school of Hindu philosophy recognizes Vishnu to
    be the one supreme god, while Shiva is regarded as subordinate. However, the school
    known as Shaivism recognizes Shiva as the supreme deity who works alone to
    create, preserve, and destroy – functions which are otherwise distributed among the
    three deities of the Trimutri. There are also schools of thought which recognize a
    merger of the two deities. Such is the case with the deity Hatihara, as indicated in the
    Mahabharata. Today, only the deities Vishnu and Shiva are worshipped by Hindus,
    whereas Brahma is largely unrecognized as a deity.

    Despite the commonality of a three-in-one being, the Hindu Trimurti is very


    different from the Christian Trinity. As early as the books of Moses there is
    expressed a duality of persons within the Godhead (see the discussion on the Trinity
    in Part five) and various portions of the Psalms describe the coming Messiah as the
    Son of God. Nevertheless, it is not until the New Testament times when there is
    found in Scripture a distinct tri-fold declaration of the Godhead as the Father, Son,
    and Holy Ghost. Such a revelation into the nature of the Godhead came directly
    through the teaching of Jesus Himself, and is not the result of any borrowing from
    Hindu trinitarianism. As the noted historian and Indologist Arthur Llewellyn Basham
    explains, “Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel
    between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very
    close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really
    ‘caught on.’ All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from
    the context it is clear that Kālidāsa's hymn to the Trimurti is really addressed to
    Brahma, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial
    growth, and had little real influence.”45 Also, Hindus do not worship the Trimurti as a
    single entity; but rather, worship each person as a separate deity, whereas Christians
    worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a single being comprised of three co-
    existent persons. The same can be said of the Egyptian Triad of Heliopolis, among
    whom are Osiris, Isis and Horus. It was not until the ninth century A.D. when Hindu
    trinitarianism became more closely aligned with Christian trinitarianism, through the
    teachings of the Hindu philosopher Adi Shankara (788-820 A.D.), who was accused
    by his Hindu brethren of practicing Buddhism under the guise of Hinduism.46 Having
    addressed the distinction between Hindu and Christian trinitarian beliefs, I will now
    consider each of the three deities named within the Trimurti: Brahma, Vishnu, and
    Shiva.

    Vishnu
    Vishnu is the supreme deity of Hinduism and is often depicted as having
    blue skin, four arms, and riding on an eagle. All things are believed to have
    their essence in Vishnu, who sustains all things within the universe. Vishnu
    has ten avatars, one of whom has yet to appear in history, whose purpose is
    to vanquish evil and to bring man to a higher form of knowledge. Hindus
    worship Vishnu by either directly by name or through one of his avatars,
    among whom is named Krishna. His incarnation into each of these avatars
    is believed to be for the purpose of combating evil and restoring order to the

    119
    universe. The times between these incarnations were spent in sleep, during
    which he developed into the next incarnation. These incarnations also
    follow an evolutionary progression from lesser to greater. For instance, the
    first incarnations begin with Vishnu manifesting himself as a fish or reptile,
    then to man and deity. The ten avatars (the number varies within the Hindu
    texts, and even Buddha was later said to be one of Vishnu’s avatars) of
    Vishnu are as follows:

    Matsya, the fish. Matsya was a fish who was rescued by Manu,
    just before Matsya was about to be eaten by another fish. In
    gratitude for his salvation, Matsya warned Manu of a catastrophic
    flood which would cover the world. Matsya then instructed Manu
    to build a boat which would protect him during the flood. Manu
    was also instructed to fill the boat with seeds and animals in order
    to repopulate the earth after the flood waters receded. When the
    flood came, Manu’s boat was pulled by Matsya. Obviously, this
    story has elements in common with the flood account of the book
    of Genesis. Myths of a worldwide flood abound throughout world
    civilizations. The myth most used in comparison to Noah’s flood is
    the flood account of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and this comparison
    will be addressed in Part three.

    Kurma, the turtle. When the Hindu deities known as the Devas
    lost their glory, it was the turtle Kurma who aided them in
    restoring their glory, by helping them obtain the nectar which
    would restore what they had lost.

    Varaha, the boar. When the demon Hiranyaksha threw the world
    into a cosmic ocean, it was Varaha who dove into the waters and
    fought the demon for a thousand years. After succeeding in
    defeating the demon, Varaha brought the world, which appeared to
    him in the form of a beautiful woman, out of the depths. After
    rescuing her from the waters, Varaha and the woman unite in
    marriage.

    Narasimha, the Man-Lion. Narasimha was a creature with the


    body of a man and the head and hands of a lion. In this incarnation,
    which begins the evolution from beast to man, Vishnu
    disemboweled the demon Hiranyakashipu, after the demon
    dethroned the god Indra and set himself up as king of the cosmos.

    Vamana, the Dwarf. As the dwarf Vamana, Vishnu defeated the


    demon Bali, who held the world in his grip. Vamana requested that
    he be allowed to abide in whatever land he could cover during the
    course of three strides. Bali agreed to his request and Vamana
    transformed into a giant, taking three steps by which he walked
    across the whole world.

    120
    Parashurama. the warrior. In the form of a great warrior
    wielding an axe, Vishnu, as Parashurama, performed many acts of
    violence. He slew Sahasrarjuna and his sons after Sahasrarjuna’s
    sons killed Jamadagni, Parashurama’s father. Parashurama also
    eradicated the Haihaya-kshatriya warrior caste and instructed their
    widows to mate with Brahmin priests in order to produce a purer
    sort of warriors. Later in his life, Parashurama retreated to the
    Mahendra Mountains where he practices penance and led a life of
    asceticism.

    Rama, the prince. As Rama, Vishnu was the eldest son of King
    Dasharatha of Ayodhya. Rama was also the husband of Sita.
    Together, Rama and his wife agreed to serve a fourteen year exile
    in an effort to preserve the honor of Rama’s father, the king. Sita is
    then kidnapped by Ravana, king of Lanka, after which Rama
    wages a personal war against Ravana. Rama is victorious in the
    conflict and succeeds in reclaiming his wife. After the fourteen
    years of exile expired, Rama returns to Ayodhya to claim his
    position as rightful heir to the throne, becoming king and,
    eventually, Emperor of the World, a reign which lasts eleven
    thousand years and is characterized by peace and prosperity.

    Balarama. Balarama was the son of Vasudeva and Devaki, and


    was an elder brother to Krishna. Devaki’s brother, Kamsa,
    imprisoned Vasudeva and Devaki in order to protect them from a
    prophecy that she would be killed by her eighth son. Kamsa then
    proceeded to slay Devaki’s other children. When she became
    pregnant with her seventh son, Balarama, the unborn child was
    miraculously transferred from Devaki’s womb to the womb of
    Devaki to the womb of Rohini, who birthed and raised him. In his
    adult life, Balarama played a role in the conflict which resulted in
    the destruction of the Yahu dynasty. Balarama’s existence came to
    an end when he sat in meditation and departed from this world.

    Krishna. Since this avatar has already been addressed, nothing


    further concerning him needs to be mentioned herein.

    Kalki, the creator. Kalki is the final avatar of Vishnu, whose


    appearance is yet to come. It is said he will appear at the end of the
    present age which, according to Hindu reckoning, began in 3102
    B.C. and will last for 432,000 years. Near the end of this age,
    human depravity will be in excess and Kalki will appear riding a
    white horse and whose appearance will mark the end of evil and
    the dawn of a new era. Such a description closely mirrors the
    description of Jesus in the book of Revelation, as He is also
    depicted as appearing on a white horse at the end of the world.
    However, the figure of Kalki is a late addition to the Hindu myth,

    121
    dating to the seventh century, well after the Apostle John penned
    the book of Revelation.47

    Aside from being absolutely sovereign, Vishnu is regarded as possessing


    five other primary qualities: immateriality, omniscience (all-knowing),
    omnipotence (all-powerful), self-sustenance, and self-sufficiency. Vishnu is
    said to have had three wives and that, due to bickering between the three,
    only the consort Lakshmi remained united with him, while his other two
    wives were given to Brahma. Lakshmi also married two of Vishnu’s avatars,
    Rama and Krishna.

    Shiva
    The three-eyed Shiva is typically depicted with matted hair and his body
    smeared with ashes. His neck is tinted blue, symbolic of his act of
    swallowing the poisonous venom of the serpent Vasuki, whose venom
    posed a threat to all existence. Around his neck he wears a snake as a
    garland and he is often seen sitting on tiger skin, symbolic of his victory
    over these two creatures which were once sent to kill him. Shiva, who is
    said to reside in Mount Kailash in the Himalayas, is regarded as either a
    yogin (a practitioner of yoga) or as the head of his household, in which are
    Parvati, his wife, and Ganesha and Skanda, his two sons. As a yogin, he is
    typically seen in seated fashion and in a state of meditation. Shiva is also
    known as “Lord of the Dance,” due to his dancing during the act of creating
    the universe. It is said that when he becomes weary of the dance, that in his
    times of respite the universe is thrown into chaos.

    Shiva possesses a two-fold character in that he is dreadful and


    destructive, but also benevolent and honorable. He is the “victor over
    death,” as suggested by his alternate name Mrutyunjaya and signified by his
    defeat of the serpent Yama, the Lord of Death. Shiva vanquished Yama with
    a flash of radiance from his third eye in his effort to prevent the death of the
    sage Markandeya, a loyal devotee of Shiva and of whom it was prophesied
    that death would come at age sixteen.

    Shiva’s body consists of five forms (sometimes depicted as five faces),


    representing the five natural elements as recognized by Hindus: earth, fire,
    water, air, and ether. These forms also serve as representations of the five
    human senses and the five organs of perception and action. It is in these
    representations that Shiva embodies all that exists.48 The five forms of Shiva
    are as follows:

    Sadyojata. Sadyojata faces west and represents the creating aspect


    of Shiva and the god’s association with the earth and creation.

    Vamadeva. Vamadeva faces north and represents the healing and


    preserving aspect of Shiva and the god’s association with water.

    122
    Aghora. Aghora faces south and represents the destructive aspect
    of Shiva and the god’s association with fire.

    Tatpurusa. Tatpurusa faces east and represents the governing or


    controlling aspect of Shiva and the god’s association with air.

    Isana. Isana faces upwards and represents the transcending soul, or


    self (“purusha” in Sanskrit), of Shiva and the god’s association
    with ether or space.

    In his five forms, Shiva is said be the one in whom all things consist.
    Likewise, in the New Testament letters, Paul said of Jesus that “in him all
    things consist” (Col 1:17) and “in him we live, and move, and have our
    being.”( Acts 17:28) It is not unthinkable that a god, such as Shiva, who was
    revered, by some camps of theology, as a being of supreme authority,
    should be regarded as encompassing all that is. After all, Shaivites regard
    Shiva as the supreme being of Hinduism. As such, Shiva becomes the deity
    solely responsible for creation, as well as the governing of the universe and
    the fate of man. A being held in such high esteem as that should be expected
    to be thought of as encompassing all that is; otherwise, a belief in such a
    one would be likened to deism, or a belief that Shiva created the cosmos,
    but does not execute any divine plan by which the course of man is directed.
    The god of the deist is a very apathetic deity, to say the least, who does not
    intervene in human affairs; but rather, sits back on his holy couch and
    watches reruns of whatever television show such a being would take interest
    in. The Apostle Paul was aware that pagan gods were regarded in the same
    capacity as Shaivites regard Shiva – as a being absolutely sovereign and
    directive in the unraveling of human history. The Apostle Peter, in the book
    of Acts, records a sermon by Paul in which Paul draws attention to doctrines
    which were held by Christians and pagans alike.

    For in [Christ] we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
    also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
    (Acts 17:28)

    In his apologetic method, Paul would at times cite pagan authors. Such is
    the case in 1 Cor 15:33, where he cites the Greek poet Menander, and Titus
    1:12, where he cites Epimenides. Paul, rather than seeing these parallels as
    a means for throwing in the Apostolic towel and returning to his former
    occupation of tent making, utilizes such commonalities as a means by
    which to appeal to pagans. In the passage in question, Paul refers first, most
    likely, to the poem Phaenomena by the poet Aratus, in which it is said:

    With Jove [that is, Jupiter] we must begin; nor from him rove;
    Him always praise, for all is full of Jove!
    He fills all places where mankind resort,

    123
    The wide-spread sea, with every shelt’ring port.
    Jove’s presence fills all space, upholds this ball;
    All need his aid; his power sustains us all.
    For we his offspring are; and he in love
    Points out to man his labor from above:
    Where signs unerring show when best the soil,
    By well-timed culture, shall repay our toil.49

    Paul then refers to Cleanthus' Hymn to Jupiter, which contains the


    declaration, “Jupiter, who dost cherish and nourish the race of man; by
    whom we live, and with whom is the hope of the life of all men.”50 The
    sense in which it is said that mankind “lives” and “moves” in Christ is
    reflective of God's sovereign and providential governorship over the world.
    The reason we draw our daily breath is because it is God's will that we do
    so, and the day that any body ceases to function marks the day so appointed
    by God that, that one's breath should cease. It is by God's will that we live,
    but it is according to the self-imposed curse of sin that we die; however, the
    day in which that death occurs is appointed by God alone. In other words,
    God is not the cause of death. Rather, it is the by the withholding of His
    grace that men die, for the giving of man's breath is an act of grace.
    However, the inevitability of the death of man is a destiny brought upon by
    man's own abandon to sin, after which man brought upon himself the
    predetermined penalty for such an abandon, for God Himself said to Adam,
    “in the day you eat [of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil], you
    shall surely die,” (Gen 2:17) referring to the penalty for disobedience to the
    first recorded mandate given to man. Likewise, the unified working of the
    members of the human body is solely attributed to the divine will, for apart
    from God there would be no motor ability given to anything which
    presently moves. Attention must also be drawn to the fact that pagan
    religious systems are largely polytheistic, that is to say, that pagans place
    their faith in numerous gods, not just one, as does the Christian. In the case
    of Shiva, he shares a place of divinity with Vishnu and Brahma. Only in the
    Hindu school of thought known as Shaivism is Shiva upheld as the
    supremely divine being, whereas other Hindu schools of thought regard one
    of the other two deities as holding the monopoly on divine sovereignty. This
    is in stark contrast with Christianity, which has always regarded a single
    being as supremely sovereign.

    Shiva is called the “victor over death,” due to his victory over the serpent
    Yama, the Hindu Lord of the Dead. Similarly, the New Testament makes the
    following declarations concerning Jesus:

    … Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more
    hath dominion over Him. (Rom 6:9 NASB)

    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

    124
    to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1
    Cor 15:55-57 NASB)

    … our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life
    and immortality to light through the gospel. (2 Tim 1:10 NASB)

    I [Jesus] am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive


    for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Rev
    1:17-18 KJV)

    The victory of Shiva over Yama, the Lord of the Dead, bears little
    resemblance to the victory of Christ Jesus over the power of death. In the
    Hindu myth, Shiva physically overpowered and defeated the Lord of Death,
    in order to prevent the prophesied premature death of a loyal devotee. In the
    New Testament, Jesus defeated the law of death. Man, as a sinful race,
    brought himself into a place of condemnation before God. Because of man's
    guilt of sin, God could have no fellowship with man. Consequently, man
    placed himself in a position as a recipient of God's justice by which guilty
    men are condemned for eternity. However, in His substitutionary sacrifice
    for sin, Jesus bore the wrath of God, the just for the unjust, so that the elect
    of God would be set free of the guilt by which they would otherwise be
    condemned. It is in this sense that Jesus conquered death. He did not wrestle
    the devil to the ground and by brute force compel him to hand over the
    “keys” of death.* The elect of God still suffer physical death. The sacrifice
    of Jesus did not free man from the grave, but it did free him from the
    terrible wrath of God and what Scripture refers to as the “second death.”
    Also, Shiva's defeat of Yama did not actually prevent the death of the
    devotee; but rather, prolonged it. The person would still die, not just by the
    age foretold in the prophecy. Nor did the victory over Yama hold any
    significance for Shiva's future devotees. Finally, it must be noted that when
    a scientist discovers a cure for a terminal illness, he has not “conquered”
    death; but rather, has only discovered a means to prevent people from dying
    in a certain fashion. Such a biographical characteristic does not make one a
    god nor liken him to Jesus Christ.

    * Keys symbolize authority. He who holds the keys of death, likewise holds
    authority over death.

    Brahma
    As indicated above, Brahma is the deity responsible for creation,
    although he is not an eternal being, for he had a definite beginning. Brahma
    was born, according to one myth, in a flower which grew from Vishnu’s
    navel or, from another version, from a seed which Vishnu planted in water.
    This seed developed into an egg and from this egg Brahma, as well as the
    universe, was born. Since he was born by Vishnu, the Hindu supreme being,
    Brahma is called the son of god.

    125
    Such an identification is unlike the one Christianity gives to Jesus, since
    Jesus is not the Son of God in an ontological sense. Jesus’ humanity had a
    definite beginning when the embryonic Jesus was placed inside Mary’s
    womb, but His deity existed, without beginning, prior to His incarnation as
    man. Jews used the designation “son of” to refer not only to familial
    relation, but also to equality of being, purpose, or function. Thus, a person
    could be named the “son of” another by virtue of work performed or an
    office held, such as when Scripture names a man as being of “the sons of
    the prophets,” despite a lack of prophetic lineage in his genealogy (1 Kings
    20:35). More will be said on this in Part five under the heading “The Son of
    God is one with the Father and Spirit.”

    The Universal Monarch of the Sibyls


    The critic D. M. Murdock (a.k.a, Acharya S) cites Joseph Wheless' book Forgery
    In Christianity, which refers to oracles reading as follows:

    “With five loaves at the same time, and with two fishes, he shall satisfy five
    thousand men in the wilderness; And afterwards taking all the fragments that
    remain, he shall fill twelve baskets to the hope of many. . . .He shall still the
    winds by His word, and calm the sea as it rages, treading with feet of peace and
    faith. . . . He shall walk on the waves, he shall release men from disease. He
    shall raise the dead, and drive away many pains. . ."51

    However, shortly after quoting these oracles, Wheless states that these oracles were
    “forged by pious Christians in proof of their Christ” then goes on to claim the
    Gospels were similar forgeries. Obviously, since Murdock did not mention Wheless'
    admission of forgery, she is only interested in quoting what information she can find
    and manipulate in order to give credibility to her otherwise fallacious claim.

    Veles of the Slavs


    Veles is a serpentine god identified as the lord of the dead, and is the enemy of the
    god Perun, the lord of the living. Veles stirred the wrath of Perun by one of several
    types of theft, as the accounts of the myth vary: either Veles kidnapped Perun’s wife
    or son, or stole his cattle. The Slavs perceived the world as a great tree, with the roots
    thereof representing the underworld, where dwelt Veles, and the top representing
    heavenly abode, or the dwelling of Perun. Veles’ thievery involved him leaving the
    underworld and slithering up the great tree to Perun’s dwelling. A battle ensues
    between the two gods and Veles eventually retreats under cover, but is eventually
    slain by Perun. After Veles’ death, that which he stole from Perun was returned to
    him in the form of falling rain. Such a story symbolized the changing seasons, with
    the battle being manifested as storms, the dry periods as the result of Veles’
    treachery, and rainy periods as the defeat of Veles by Perun.52 Such naturalistic
    symbolism resulted in the continuing death and rebirth of Veles.

    Suggested parallels: As with many deities discussed in this section, Veles was just
    another deity whose death and resurrection was symbolic of the changing of seasons.

    126
    Wittoba of the Bilingonese
    Wittoba (or Vithoba) is another name for Krishna.

    Xipe Totec of the Aztecs


    Xipe Totec was the Aboriginal god of agriculture, nature, disease, and spring. It
    was believed that the god would engage in self-flagellation in order to provide food
    for the Aztecs, hence the name Xipe Totec, meaning, “our lord the flayed one.”
    Every spring, the festival of Tlacaxipehualiztli was held in his honor. Human
    sacrifice was a primary element in this festival, in which the victim would have his
    heart cut out and his skin meticulously flayed so as to create a garment which would
    be worn by priests for twenty days. Such sacrifice was viewed as symbolic of the
    annual death of crops. During this time, the priests covered by the victims’ skin
    served to represent the deity himself who awaited the coming of spring, at which
    time he would emerge and restore life. Thus, after the twenty days expired, the
    priests’ shedding of the flayed skin symbolized the renewal of vegetation. The skins
    were than placed in containers located beneath the temple. However, Xipe Totec was
    not entirely benevolent. As the god of disease, he would afflict men with various
    forms of pestilence, but the flayed skin used in the festival was thought to have
    curative properties and therefore became widely employed in efforts to heal ailments.

    Suggested parallels: The myth of Xipe Totec is merely reflective of the changing of
    seasons; therefore, it bears no similarity to the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus.

    Zalmoxis of Thrace
    The Thracian man Zalmoxis is said to have buried himself alive after telling his
    followers he would rise again three years following his death. His so-called
    resurrection led to his deification and to a religion revolving around him. In the first
    place, his death was never confirmed. No grave was exhumed and no body identified
    as Zalmoxis. Secondly, No one witnessed his supposed resurrection from the grave.
    It was later determined he simply withdrew to a secret location for the duration of
    his three year-long “burial:”

    “... he made himself a hall, where he entertained and feasted the chief among
    his countrymen, and taught them that neither he nor his guests nor any of their
    descendants should ever die, but that they should go to a place where they
    would live for ever and have all good things. While he was doing as I have said
    and teaching this doctrine, he was all the while making him an underground
    chamber. When this was finished, he vanished from the sight of the Thracians,
    and descended into the underground chamber, where he lived for three years,
    the Thracians wishing him back and mourning him for dead; then in the fourth
    year he appeared to the Thracians, and thus they came to believe what Salmoxis
    had told them.”53

    After his supposed resurrection, he displayed no supernatural characteristics and


    eventually died and was buried as is any other man. In the case of Jesus, there were
    witnesses to His death, his body underwent the customary burial ritual of being

    127
    perfumed and wrapped in linen, and his tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers who
    faced penalty of death for abandoning their post or failing in their charge to guard
    Jesus’ tomb from grave robbers attempting to fake a resurrection. After His
    resurrection, He appeared and disappeared at will in a glorified body and later
    ascended to heaven in the sight of many witnesses. No such things can be said of
    Zalmoxis.

    Zoar of the Bonzes


    Critics list Zoar among their Jesus parallel candidates. While the Bonzes do
    indeed exist (as a group of Asian monks), the god in question remains among those
    the critics obtained from Build-a-Deity. Zoar does not exist outside the critics' own
    inner-circle of Lego-land evidence.

    Zulis (or Zhule), of Egypt


    Zulis is seemingly another name for Thulis, which is an alternate name for the
    Egyptian bull god Apis. He is said to have lived to the age of twenty-eight when he
    died violently on a cross in c.1700 B.C., then rose from the dead and ascended into
    heaven. Following that, he is said to have descended from heaven “full of grace and
    truth,” as was said of Jesus in the opening portion of John's Gospel.

    Apis eventually was merged with the god Osiris, the lord of the dead in the
    underworld, thus becoming Osorapis. Apis thus became known as the “living
    deceased one,” due to his identification with the lord of the dead. Some see in this a
    symbol of resurrection, but it will be shown in the Part three that Osiris was not
    thought to have bodily risen from the dead. Rather, he only appeared in spirit form to
    his son Horus, but maintained his postmortem “life” in the land of the dead, as its
    ruler.

    When the bull reached its twenty-eights year it was put to death, since that was
    the age when Osiris was killed by Set. It is said that the bull's body was eaten by the
    Pharaoh and the priests, which some liken to the Christian observance of the Lord's
    Supper. However, the eating of the bull's flesh was to absorb its life force, or
    strength, by consuming the physical property of the animal. In contrast, believers
    who partake in the Lord's Supper consume elements which symbolically represent
    the body and blood of Christ, and the consumption of such elements is not to obtain
    the salvation given through the blood of Jesus; but rather, is because the ones
    partaking of the elements have already had that salvation applied to them. The Lord's
    Supper is a sacrament of remembrance, whereby the sacrifice of Christ is
    memorialized; it is not an act whereby the gift if salvation is transferred to the
    participants.

    During the reign of Ptolemy I Soter (c.367-c..283 B.C.) Egyptian religion was
    merged with that of Greece, in order to appeal to a broader group of people. In so
    doing, the representation of Apis was changed from that of a bull to a human form
    and his name from Osorapis to Aser-hapi, which eventually became Serapis.
    Centuries later, an alleged letter by Emperor Hadrian reads as follows (italics, mine):

    128
    “From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt,
    the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have
    found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of
    rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who
    call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no
    chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not
    an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he
    comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship
    Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but
    their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. Some are
    blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem
    to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs
    have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled
    are idle. Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact,
    all nations adore. And would that this city had a better character, for indeed it is
    worthy by reason of its richness and by reason of its size to hold the chief place
    in the whole of Egypt. I granted it every favour, I restored to it all its ancient
    rights and bestowed on it new ones besides, so that the people gave thanks to me
    while I was present among them. Then, no sooner had I departed thence than
    they said many things against my son Verus, and what they said about Antinous I
    believe you have learned. I can only wish for them that they may live on their
    own chickens, which they breed in a fashion I am ashamed to describe. I am
    sending you over some cups, changing colour and variegated, presented to me
    by the priest of a temple and now dedicated particularly to you and my sister. I
    should like you to use them at banquets on feast-days. Take good care, however,
    that our dear Africanus does not use them too freely.”54

    The letter is found in Augustan History, a collection of biographies of Roman


    Emperors and their colleagues and usurpers from 117-284 A.D. However, the
    authenticity of many documents found in this work is regarded by many to be
    figments of the author's imagination.55 In this letter, dated to 134 A.D. (several
    decades after the New Testament cannon had been written), Hadrian is speaking of
    Serapis' worshipers as presently worshiping Christ and Serapis without any
    distinction between the two deities, and that Serapis' worshipers were also referred to
    as Christians. However, in the letter, Hadrian also mentions his adopted son, an
    adoption which did not occur until 136 A.D., two years after the date he allegedly
    wrote this letter.

    129
    Justin Martyr's parallels to Jesus:
    In his First Apology, the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr drew similarities
    between Jesus and pagan gods in order to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the
    pagans in their condemnation of Christians for holding to what Justin regarded as
    like beliefs. While his apologetic methodology will be addressed in Part Three, it
    will suffice here to simply present his argument, then consider the gods he names as
    parallels to Jesus. Justin states the following:

    “And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was
    produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher,
    was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we
    propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those
    whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. ... Mercury, the interpreting word and
    teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was
    struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too,
    after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had
    committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of
    Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who,
    though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For
    what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared
    to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among
    yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf
    you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise
    to heaven from the funeral pyre? ... Jupiter himself, the governor and
    creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide ...”56

    “And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar
    manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no
    extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of
    God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a
    par with those reputed sons of Jupiter ... And if we even affirm that
    [Christ] was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you
    accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the
    paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to
    the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.”57

    The Roman god Jupiter, known as Zeus by the Greeks, sired many sons and
    daughters, among the most famous are Bacchus, Mercury, Venus, Heracles,
    Diana, Apollo, Minerva, Vulcan, and Mars.

    Bacchus (Dionysus, by the Greeks)


    Bacchus, the god of wine, was the son of Jupiter and Semele. Since
    this figure has been dealt with in depth already, I will here only remind
    the reader that he was neither virgin-born, known as a savior, suffered
    death by crucifixion, nor rose from the dead, as critics claim.

    130
    Phoebus (Apollo, by the Greeks)
    Phoebus, the son of Jupiter and Leto, was a sun god, and also the
    god of prophecy, medicine and healing, poetry, and music. One of his
    duties was to act as choirmaster for the Muses, spirits responsible for
    giving inspiration to musicians, artists, and poets. When Jupiter's wife,
    Juno, discovered he had impregnated Leto, she forbade Leto from
    giving birth on earth to her husband's bastard son, so Leto searched for
    a place apart from earth where she would give birth to little Phoebus.
    She found Delos, a floating island, and it is there where Phoebus was
    born. Juno further complicated the matter, or attempted to do so, by
    kidnapping the goddess of childbirth so that Leto would be unable to
    enter into labor, but such effort was in vain. After Phoebus' birth, Juno
    sent the serpent Python to hunt Leto, but the serpent was killed by
    Phoebus' arrow, when Phoebus was only four years of age. For this act,
    Phoebus was punished by being forced to serve a year of hard labor as
    a shepherd. Phoebus also had the ability to heal, and was known by
    titles such as as “healer,” “he who averts evil,” “the Physician,” “god of
    the bow,” and “director of the fountain.” He drove a golden chariot and
    became known for his fierceness in battle, having shot plague infested
    arrows at the Greeks during the Trojan War. He was known for his
    astonishing good looks and engaged himself in sexual relations with
    both men and women.

    Suggested parallels:

    Phoebus’ identification as a sun god: All fine and dandy,


    since Jesus is not a sun god; but rather, the Son of God. This is
    just another attempt of the critics to play their favorite phonics
    game, trying to draw a correlation between “sun” and “son” by
    virtue of a similar pronunciation (See the earlier heading
    regarding the December 25th birth date), with absolute
    disregard for the meaning of either word.

    The attempt to avert Phoebus’ birth: This comparison is, of


    course, based on Herod’s attempt to kill the infant Messiah just
    after His birth. Such a similarity is very superficial. In the
    pagan myth, the attempt is to prevent the child’s birth, while in
    the Gospel, it is to kill the infant after he had been born. In the
    myth, the perpetrator’s motive was jealousy arising from
    Jupiter’s unfaithfulness to his wife, whereas Herod sought to
    kill the Messiah out of fear that He would rise to usurp the
    throne. Additionally, it is not uncommon for a pagan god to
    perform an act out of jealousy, and pagan mythology abounds
    with such instances.

    The battle with the serpent: Phoebus’ battle with the serpent
    was a literal battle, whereas Jesus crushing the head of the

    131
    serpent (Gen 3:15) is figurative of His victory over sin and
    death. In the myth, the serpent was sent by Juno, again from a
    jealous motive, to kill the woman with whom her husband had
    a fling.

    His ability to heal and his title of “Physician” and “one who
    averts evil:” It is not surprising that one sired by Jupiter, the
    chief of the gods, would possess such an ability to heal.
    Phoebus’ identification as a deliverer is due to his fierceness in
    battle, rather than a power inherent within the nature of his
    person, as is the case with Jesus. Jesus’ victory is due to His
    sovereign control over all, and the guarantee that His will is
    one which none can challenge. Jesus conquered sin and death
    for His people, not just because of what He did, but because it
    was He, God in the flesh, who performed the work of
    salvation, and so it was said by Jesus’ Apostles that there is no
    other name under heaven whereby men are saved.

    His role as a shepherd: Phoebus’ role as a shepherd was due


    to his literal occupation as such, as penance for his slaying of
    the serpent. Jesus’ is the Great Shepherd, not in a literal sense,
    but in a metaphorical sense, over the sheep, or elect, of God.
    Also, the shepherd aspect was present in messianic
    expectations long before the coming of Jesus, as evidenced in
    the twenty-third psalm.

    Mercury (Hermes, by the Greeks)


    Mercury, the son of Jupiter and Maia, was a messenger god with a
    winged helmet and sandals. In his role as messenger, he was known as
    the interpreter of the word of god. Mercury was also a god of trade and
    commerce, and it is after his name that the words “merchant” and
    “merchandise” were fashioned. His main center of worship was
    situated between the Aventine and Palatine hills of Rome, or between
    the elite higher class and the general populace of Rome. As such, he
    was regarded as a mediator between these two social classes and was
    regarded as one who brings peace.

    Suggested parallels:

    His association with the word of god: Mercury was a


    messenger for the gods. He delivered the words of god to man.
    However, he was not the embodiment of the word of the gods.
    Jesus, on the other hand, revealed the mind of God to man, in
    that He is God Himself. He not only spoke the Word – He was
    the Word (Jn 1:1-14). In short, Mercury carried the word of
    the gods, while Jesus personified the Word of God.

    132
    His role as mediator and bringer of peace: Mercury’s role as
    a mediator was merely figurative of the situation of his temple
    between two different classes of Roman society. The god
    accomplished no actual mediation between the two classes,
    whereas Jesus performs an actual mediation between the God
    the Father and those for whom Jesus’ sacrifice secured
    salvation.

    Venus (Aphrodite, by the Greeks)


    Venus was a goddess born from the sea when Cronos threw the
    severed genitals of Uranus, his father, into the sea. A foam formed in
    the sea and out sprang the fully-grown Venus, which is why she is
    pictured in art as standing amidst a large clamshell. Venus was the
    goddess of beauty, fertility, and love. She had the keen ability to cause
    anyone to fall in love with her, as well as causing others to fall in love
    with each other. It was this ability that she was said to have used on
    Paris, causing him to fall in love with Helen of Troy, thus sparking the
    famed Trojan War. Venus became the wife of Hephaestus, but was often
    unfaithful to him. Her great beauty was the cause of much vanity, and
    so it was that she sought to curse Psyche, a mortal women of whose
    beauty she became envious. Worship of Venus was largely sensual in
    nature, with intercourse playing a large part in religious rituals
    performed in her honor. She was known by such titles as “the
    prostitute,” “she who postpones old age,” and goddess of lust.”

    Suggested parallels: None.

    Hercules (Heracles, by the Greeks)


    Hercules was the son of Jupiter and the mortal woman Alcmene,
    with whom Zeus had one of his many affairs. His seduction of her
    followed his usual deceptive pattern of disguising himself as her
    husband. Jupiter's wife, Juno, attempted to slow Hercules' birth by
    blocking his exit from his mother's womb, but she ceased such effort
    after being tricked by Galanthis. Following after the myth of Phoebus,
    Juno once again sent a serpent to aid her in her thirst for revenge,
    although this time she sent two serpents to kill baby Hercules as he lay
    in his cot. However, Hercules, strong as he was even as a child,
    succeeded in killing the serpents and enjoyed a bit of a playtime with
    their bodies. Hercules grew to be a great warrior with extraordinary
    strength and courage. Hercules engaged in an active sex life, with both
    women and men, and became husband to four wives. In his adulthood,
    he remained the object of Juno's thirst for revenge, and it was to this
    end that she caused him to go mad and kill the children born to him by
    his wife Megara. In order to make amends for his vile act, he served
    King Eurystheus for ten years, during which the king ordered Hercules
    to perform his famous “Twelve Labors,” as follows:

    133
    Kill the Nemean Lion
    Destroy the Lernaean Hydra
    Capture the Ceryneian Hind
    Capture the Erymanthian Boar
    Clean the Augean Stables
    Kill the Stymphalian Birds
    Capture the Cretan Bull
    Round up the Mares of Diomedes
    Steal the Girdle of Hippolyte
    Herd the Cattle of Geryon
    Fetch the Apples of Hesperides
    Capture the dog Cerberus

    Hercules was advised that if he succeeded he would be cleansed of


    his sin and given immortality. Having accomplished these great feats,
    he became known as a deliverer and one who makes the world safe for
    mankind, although his methods of achieving victory sometimes made
    use of trickery and deceit.

    Hercules impending death came as the result of coming in contact


    with a shirt stained with the poisoned blood of the Hydra. Knowing his
    end is nigh, Hercules builds for himself a funeral pyre. As he climbs
    onto the burning pyre, he is caught up in a flash of light and taken in
    ascent to the abode of the gods.

    Suggested parallels:

    Attack on the infant Hercules: As with Phoebus, the attempt


    on little Hercules’ life was due to Juno’s jealousy over
    Jupiter’s infidelity, and is no more than just another example
    of the corrupt ways of the pagan gods.

    His slaying the serpents: Again, Hercules’ victory was over


    a literal serpent (two, in this case), and was a matter of self-
    preservation – unlike the figurative victory of Jesus over the
    devil, accomplished for the preservation of God’s people.
    Hercules’ act was a matter of might and strength; Jesus’
    victory over sin and death is due to the infinite worth of His
    sacrifice on the cross (see Part five under the heading
    concerned with Jesus’ role as mediator) and His absolute
    authority of His will.

    His role as deliverer: As with Hercules’ slaying of the


    serpents, his acts of deliverance was due to an exertion of
    physical might, or brute force, rather than an inherent divine
    authority, as possessed by Jesus as the second Person of the
    Trinity.

    134
    His ascension to the dwelling of his divine father: Hercules’
    ascension to the abode of the gods was an act of mercy on the
    part of the gods, in sparing Hercules from being utterly
    consumed by the flames of his funeral pyre. In contrast, Jesus
    ascended to the Father following the completion of the work
    which He came to do, namely, accomplishing the salvation of
    God’s people. Additionally, Hercules’ ascent to the abode of
    the gods was an elevation to a position among beings superior
    to him and to an abode which was not his rightful habitation,
    whereas Jesus’ ascension to the Father was claiming a position
    rightfully His, as He is one with the Godhead.

    Diana (Artemis, by the Greeks)


    Diana was the twin sister of Phoebus (see above) and daughter of
    Jupiter and Leto. She was known as a great huntress and the goddess of
    the moon. Diana, along with her brother Phoebus, slew the children of
    the mortal women Niobe, who claimed to have given birth to more
    children than Leto, thus bringing superiority to herself and disgrace to
    Leto. In an attempt to restore the honor of their mother, the twins killed
    Niobe's children with their arrows. As the hunter, Diana became an
    animal advocate, punishing those who killed them without good reason.
    Her skills as a huntress gave her cause for much vanity and pride, and it
    was such pride that she caused Actaeon to be eaten by dogs because he
    claimed to be a more skilled hunter than she. Likewise, she attempted
    to slay her own brother for similar claims. In another version of the
    myth, Diana kills Phoebus in an act of vengeance against Aphrodite,
    who favored Phoebus and who was responsible for the death of
    Hippolytus, whom Diana loved. Diana was known as one of three
    deities within a trinity which included Egeria the water nymph, and
    Virbius, the woodland god.

    Suggested parallels: The trinity comprised of Diana, Egeria, and


    Virbius: The union these figures shared was polytheistic in nature – it
    was not a union of three persons co-existing as one being, as is the case
    with the Christian Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who share
    in one another’s nature, being, purpose, and work.

    Proserpina (Persephone, by the Greeks)


    Proserpina was the daughter of Jupiter and Ceres. One day while
    collecting flowers she was abducted by her uncle Pluto, ruler of the
    Underworld, to be his bride and reside with him in the Underworld as
    his queen. Jupiter sent Mercury, the messenger of the gods (see above)
    to free his daughter from Pluto's grip. In order to secure his hold on her,
    Pluto caused her to eat six pomegranate seeds, the food of the dead,
    thus barring her from returning to the land of the living. As a result, she
    would be required to spend six months a year, one for each seed, with

    135
    Pluto in the land of the dead. Thus, she alternates between the lands of
    the living and the dead, spending equal time annually in each.

    Suggested parallels: Proserpina’s resurrection from the dead: As a


    figure who annually alternates between the lands of the living (in the
    spring) and the dead (in the winter), Proserpina is merely figurative of
    the changing of seasons, and her “resurrection” bears no similarity to
    the literal and once-for-all resurrection of Jesus, raised from the dead in
    His final victory over death and as a guarantee of the future
    resurrection of God’s people.

    Minerva (Athena, by the Greeks)


    Minerva, the goddess of wisdom and war, was the daughter of
    Metis, a Titan who personified wisdom. Jupiter impregnated Metis then
    later learned that the child born by her would be greater than he. In
    order to preserve his superiority, he swallowed the pregnant Metis
    whole, hoping to avert the birth of the child. While inside Jupiter, Metis
    gave birth to Minerva and nurtured her inside his body. Later, it is said
    that Jupiter experienced a great pain in his head. Promethius (or
    Hermes, Hephaestus, or Palaemon – the story varies) split open
    Jupiter's head with an axe and Minerva sprung forth, fully grown and in
    full amour. As a warrior goddess, Minerva came to the aid of many
    other deities. She was known as the patron deity of warriors, poets,
    philosophers, doctors (as the goddess of medicine), merchants,
    musicians, and artists. Having never married or given herself to a man,
    she was known as Athena Parthenos, or "Virgin Athena,” a name from
    which her temple, the Parthenon, derives its name.

    Suggested Parallels: Her identity as the virgin: This is of no


    significance, since Minerva, as a virgin, is never said to have given
    birth to a child. She was simply a virgin – nothing more, and the status
    of virginity, in and of itself, is of no consequence.

    Vulcan (Hephaestus, by the Greeks)


    Vulcan, the god of fire, was the son of Jupiter and Juno. He
    eventually was regarded as the deity who provided armor, weapons,
    and jewelry for the many gods and heroes within the mythic pantheon.
    Vulcan was born an ugly child and for his lack of comeliness his
    mother threw him from Mt. Olympus. After a day and night of
    freefalling from Olympus, he fell into the sea, breaking a leg upon
    impact, leaving him permanently lame. He was then found by the sea
    nymph Thetis, who took him in and raised him as her own. One day
    while on the beach, he came upon a gathering of hot coals from a fire
    which had been started by fishermen, and so began his fascination with
    fire. Three days later, from the cooled metal, he began making various
    items such as jewelry and weapons. He also made a silver chariot
    which would serve as his method of transportation, thanks to some

    136
    seahorses which be bridled to the chariot, as well as some golden slave
    girls for his pleasure. In contemplating the Vulcan myth, I cannot help
    but picture a ragged-looking Tom Hanks on a deserted island jumping
    up and down yelling, "I have made fire!" Of course, this analogy would
    only make sense for those readers who have seen the movie Cast Away;
    otherwise, one may be left scratching his or her head trying to figure
    out how Tom Hanks suddenly fit into the picture. At any rate, Thetis
    later left her grotto to attend a dinner party on Mt. Olympus. In
    dressing for the occasion, she chose to adorn himself with a necklace of
    Vulcan’s own fashion, which he made as a gift for her. Upon attending
    the party, Juno, Vulcan’s birth mother, asked where she may obtain
    such a grand piece of jewelry for herself. She then learned that the son
    she abandoned had grown into a talented metalworker. Juno demanded
    Vulcan return to Olympus, but he refused to comply with her wishes.
    Rather, he made a beautiful chair for Juno, which was presented to her
    as a gift. Upon sitting in on chair, she became trapped upon it for three
    days. Jupiter, Vulcan’s father and Juno’s husband, agreed to provide
    Vulcan with a wife if he set Juno free from her bond. Vulcan agreed
    and Jupiter in turn gave him Venus, the goddess of beauty and love, as
    his wife.

    Such is the myth of Vulcan. Worship of the deity was celebrated


    with the festival Vulcanilia, held annually on August 23rd. A ritual of the
    festival was that animals were thrown into large bonfires as an attempt
    to persuade the god to not bring down fiery calamities upon the people.

    Suggested parallels: The only common element between the Vulcan


    myth and the Gospel account of Jesus is the occurrence of certain
    events after a three day period of time; however, the recurring “three
    day” theme of Scripture pre-dates the Vulcan myth. The Old Testament
    contains many references, dating back to the writings of Moses, of
    certain events occurring after three days. For a more in-depth treatment
    of the “three day” theme of Scripture, I will here simply refer the reader
    back to Part one, under the heading “He was dead for three days.”

    Mars (Ares, by the Greeks)


    Mars was the god of war, born to Jupiter and Juno. His birth was
    different from other sons of these deities in that his conception occurred
    without the intervention of Jupiter’s seed. Juno conceived through a
    flower blessed with fertile properties by the goddess Flora. Mars
    became known as a protector and even became held in an honor greater
    than that of Jupiter himself. His Greek counterpart, as a god of
    vegetation and fertility, was originally a guardian of cattle, crops, and
    land. Later, in Roman culture, Mars became identified as man’s militant
    defender. His sign, shown on the following page, eventually became
    synonymously identified as the sign for masculinity. He married
    Bellona, but was also the lover of Venus, Vulcan’s wife. The month of

    137
    the year given to his honor was Martius, known today as March, the
    month which marked the annual re-growth of crops. Mars was regarded
    by the Romans as the father of Romulus, the founder of Rome, and it
    was further believed that all Roman citizens were descended from
    Mars.

    Suggested parallels:

    Supernatural birth: Mars’ birth, although supernatural, was


    not a virgin birth, since he was born to Juno, the wife of
    Jupiter. The manner of his conception is more like that of Attis
    than Jesus, as Attis’ mother conceived him after coming in
    contact with an almond. His birth was not foretold long before
    its happening, and, although he did perform mighty acts of
    deliverance, he was never seen as a long-expected deliverer, as
    was Jesus.

    Both Jesus and Mars defended those under their care. In the
    case of Mars, he defended the Romans, while Jesus is the
    Defender and Protector of God’s elect. However, as with
    Vulcan, the concept of God as a Defender is one which dates
    back to the earliest of Biblical writings. In addition, it is not
    uncommon for a deity to use his power and skill for the
    benefit of mankind.

    Juventas (Hebe, by the Greeks)


    There is not much to say about Juventas. She was the daughter of
    Jupiter and Juno, and the goddess of youth. She was the cupbearer for
    the gods, serving nectar at their table. Later in life she was married to
    Hercules.

    Suggested parallels: None.

    Castor and Pollux


    Castor and Pollux were the twin sons of Jupiter and Leda, and
    together they are known as the Dioskouroi or Dioscuri, the "sons of
    Zeus," and also as Gemini, the twin constellation. Although both are
    named among the sons of Jupiter, only Pollux was fathered by the god,
    whereas Castor was the product of Leda’s union with a mortal man.
    Castor and Pollux found themselves at the center of a family feud. The
    dispute arose over their choice of mates. The twins desired to marry

    138
    Phoebe and Hilaeira, the daughters of their uncle Leucippus. However,
    both women were already engaged to the sons of Aphareus. This did
    not prevent the twins from pursuing their heart’s desire, and they
    carried both women off to Sparta, where sons were born to them. As a
    result of the ensuing feud, Castor received a fatal wound from Idas, one
    of the men to whom the women were betrothed. Upon Castor’s death,
    Jupiter allowed Pollux to share his immortality with his deceased
    mortal brother, by permitting the twins to alternate between the abode
    of the gods and the abode of the dead. This resulted in the twins being
    merged into the constellation Gemini.

    Suggested Parallels: Castor’s return from the dead: As with Proserpina,


    he and his brother’s revolving door lifestyle back and forth from the
    land of the dead is merely a common figurative expression of the
    annual changing of seasons.

    Aesculapius
    Aesculapius was a grandson of Jupiter, being born to his son
    Phoebus and wife Coronis. He was cut from the womb of his dying
    mother as she lay on a funeral pyre to pay the penalty for infidelity to
    her husband. He was a god of medicine and was believed to have
    healed many diseased and infirmities, such as paralysis and blindness.
    Concerning Aesculapius, Justin states the following:

    “... though he was a great physician, was struck by a


    thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven. And in that we say
    that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born
    blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to
    have been done by Aesculapius.”

    Aesculapius' death came at the hand of Jupiter himself when he


    accepted financial compensation for raising the dead. In another
    version of his death, Hades, the lord of the Underworld, requested that
    Aesculapius be slain for reducing the population of his domain. After
    Aesculapius was slain, he was immortalized by Jupiter as the
    constellation Ophiuchus.

    Suggested parallels: His role as healer: As a god of medicine, it should


    be expected that Aesculapius possessed the ability to heal. However, his
    ability was not without limit, for even he was subject to the laws of
    death. There is no mention in the myth that Aesculapius ever raised
    himself from the dead, as did Jesus. Also, the scope of the healing
    performed by both Aesculapius and Jesus is vastly different.
    Aesculapius healed from physical diseases and handicaps, as did Jesus,
    but Jesus’ role as the Great Physician reflects the more broad aspect of
    His healing ability in His power to free from sin and death.

    139
    Perseus
    As a prefatory note, I have to say that Perseus is my favorite of all
    the mythological characters, thanks to the portrayal by actor Harry
    Hamlin and the work of special effects genius Ray Harryhausen in the
    cinematic masterpiece Clash of the Titans. The film captured my
    attention as a child and continues to capture my attention as an adult.
    Tribute being given, let's proceed to the myth:

    Perseus was the son of Jupiter and Danaë. His birth is different from
    many of the gods found within the Greek pantheon, who are often the
    product of sexual union, forced or otherwise, between a god and
    goddess or mortal woman. Concerning Perseus’ birth, Justin states the
    following:

    “And if we even affirm that [Jesus] was born of a virgin,


    accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus.”

    According to the myth, King Acrisius, Danaë’s father, was warned by


    the oracle at Delphi that he would be killed by his grandson. In an
    attempt to prevent the fulfillment of this prophecy, he imprisoned
    Danaë, while still a virgin, in a chamber within his palace. While
    imprisoned, Danaë was visited by Jupiter who came to her in the form
    of a shower of gold, and shortly after she conceived Perseus. Acrisius
    knew full well the fate which would befall him if he slew a son of the
    god, and so he chose to seal both mother and son in a wooden chest and
    set the chest off to sea. The chest washed up on the island of Seriphos
    and the child was then raised to manhood by the fishermen of Dictys.

    Danaë later attracted the love of Polydectes, who then fashioned a


    plot to get Perseus out of the picture altogether. Polydectes held a
    banquet in which each guest was to bring him a horse. Having no horse
    to bring, Perseus promised an alternate gift. As a result, Polydectes
    demanded that Perseus bring him the head of Medusa the gorgon, a
    being half woman, half serpent, whose gaze would turn one to stone. In
    his quest for her head, Perseus was given gifts from the gods: a sword,
    a shield, and a helmet of invisibility. Perseus found the abode of the
    gorgons and succeeded in severing Medusa’s head, while viewing her
    reflection in his shield. Medusa’s spilled blood gave birth to the flying
    steed Pegasus. After killing the gorgon, Perseus was pursued by
    Medusa’s sisters, but he escaped under invisibility, thanks to his god-
    given helmet.

    En route back to Seriphos, Perseus encountered the Ethiopian Queen


    Cassiopeia, wife of King Cepheus. Cassiopeia had incurred the wrath
    of the sea god Poseidon for boasting herself to be more beautiful than
    the sea Nereids. As punishment for her vanity, Poseidon sent the sea-
    monster Ceto, or Cetea, who slew much of the population. It was

    140
    announced by the oracle of Ammon that the only way to stay the beast
    was for the king and queen to offer their daughter, Andromeda, to the
    beast as a sacrifice. However, as she was chained to the rocky shore
    and faced immanent death, Perseus saved the day by flying in on his
    winged sandals (later myths replace the sandals with the flying horse
    Pegasus) and killing Ceto, thus earning the hand of Andromeda in
    marriage. He and Andromeda later became parents to seven sons and
    two daughters. Perseus also became known as the founder of Mycenae
    and the Perseid dynasty. The prophecy that Perseus would kill Acrisius
    was fulfilled when Perseus accidentally struck the king in the head with
    a discus as he participated in games held in Larissa.

    Suggested parallels:

    Virgin birth: According to the myth, Perseus was indeed


    born of a virgin, but the circumstances of his birth were unlike
    those of Christ’s birth. Perseus’ birth, although supernatural,
    bore no spiritual significance. Although Perseus did deliver
    Andromeda from certain death at the hands of Ceto, he was
    not born to be a savior. Also, Perseus, unlike Jesus, took no
    part in bringing about his birth, nor did he exist before his
    conception.

    Birth prophesied beforehand: Perseus’ birth was prophesied


    before his arrival, and it was said that he would kill king
    Acrisius. While prophecy did come true, it came about by
    happenstance, rather than by design. In contrast, the
    prophesies concerning Christ, which concern themselves with
    much more than the events surrounding his birth, were
    foretold by numerous prophets over a long span of time, and
    made specific references to events which would occur in His
    lifetime. Also, while the prophecy concerning Perseus got the
    facts correct concerning Acrisius’s demise, the fulfillment of
    the prophesy held no meaning for anyone other than Perseus
    and Acrisius.

    In his attempt to draw parallels between the worship of pagans and


    Christians, and apart from his mention of the sons and daughters of Jupiter/Zeus,
    Justin also makes reference to Bellerophon, Ariadne, and the common practice
    of emperor worship during the time of the Roman Empire. So, we begin with ...

    Bellerophon,
    Bellerophon was the son of King Glaucus of Corinth. After taking
    the life of another (in some versions of the myth the “other” is
    Bellerophon’s brother, while in other versions it is a mysterious
    enemy), Bellerophon appeared before King Proetus, king of Tiryns,
    who absolved Bellerophon of his crime. Bellerophon then gained the

    141
    attraction of the king’s wife, but he rejected her advancements.
    Angered by his rejection, she accused him of forcing himself upon her,
    an accusation which again brought Bellerophon before the king to
    answer to the charge. The king was angry at Bellerophon for the
    presumed violation of his wife and, rather than incurring the wrath of
    the gods for killing a guest, sent Bellerophon to King Iobates, Proetus’
    father-in-law, with a secret message which read, “Pray remove the
    bearer from this world: he attempted to violate my wife, your
    daughter.” Iobates shared Proetus’ fear of divine retribution for lack of
    hospitality and likewise did not order Bellerophon’s death; but rather,
    sent him on a mission to slay the fire-breathing Chimera, a monstrous
    beast which would surely bring about Bellerophon’s demise. After
    taming Pegasus, Bellerophon flew off on the horse to meet the
    Chimera. Upon encountering the beast, he succeeded in killing it by
    lodging a lead-tipped spear in the mouth of the Chimera. The breath of
    the beast melted the lead on the spear, blocking the Chimera’s air
    passage, thus causing it to die of suffocation. Upon his return to King
    Iobates, Bellerophon was given the hand of Philonoe in marriage.

    After his victory over the Chimera, Bellerophon mounted Pegasus


    and flew to Mt. Olympus under the belief that he earned for himself a
    position among the gods. For this arrogance, a fly was sent to sting
    Pegasus, dislodging Bellerophon and causing him to fall back to earth.
    He lived out the remainder of his life as a man both blind and lame.

    Suggested parallels: His ascension to the gods: It is true that


    Bellerophon began an ascent to the abode of the gods, but he was not
    allowed to finish his journey. Prior to his arrival, he was dismounted
    from his steed, causing him to fall to earth in disgrace. Additionally,
    had he made it to his destination, he would have been elevated (and
    that according to his own pride and arrogance) to the place of the gods,
    in which, as a mortal, he had no right to dwell.

    Ariadne,
    Ariadne was the daughter of King Minos of Crete. Following the
    death of his son in Athens, King Minos attacked the Athenians and
    required them to sacrifice seven young men and seven maidens to the
    Minotaur every nine years. When it came time for Theseus to be
    sacrificed, the would-be victim gained the love of Ariadne, who
    provided him with a sword and a ball of fleece so that he may slay the
    Minotaur and successfully escape the beast’s lair. After Theseus
    escaped his fate, Ariadne and Theseus ran away together. Ariadne was
    also the wife of the god Bacchus (Dionysus, by the Greeks), and there
    is debate as to whether her marriage to him occurred before or after her
    affair with Theseus. Theseus later abandoned her and she was
    discovered (or rediscovered, as the case may be) by Bacchus.
    Following her fling with Theseus, she remained faithful to Bacchus

    142
    until her death at the hands of Perseus at Argos (or death by hanging,
    according to another version of the myth). Consumed with grief over
    his wife’s death, Bacchus causes her wedding diadem, adorned with
    nine gems, to be set in the heavens as the nine stars which make up the
    constellation Corona. For this reason, Justin states, “…and those who,
    like her, have been declared to be set among the stars?” Bacchus then
    descended into the Underworld to bring her back from the land of the
    dead. Following her emergence from the Underworld, both she and
    Bacchus dwelt in the abode of the gods.

    Suggested parallels:

    A star in the heavens: The star of Bethlehem was a


    phenomenon which guided the magi, or wise men, to the place
    of Jesus’ birth. As such, the star did not serve as a memorial
    for the child; but rather, as a beacon guiding seekers of truth.
    Also, the star which guided the magi was foretold long before
    its arrival, whereas the stars of Ariadne were positioned on a
    whim to memorialize her passing.

    Her return from the dead: Ariadne’s resurrection was


    merely the result of Bacchus’ overwhelming grief over his
    loss. He was so consumed with sorrow, that he snatched her
    from the land of the dead. Her emergence to the land of the
    living served no purpose other than the consolation of her
    lover. Unlike Jesus, Ariadne had no power within herself to
    conquer death on her own.

    The deified Emperors of Rome


    In his argument for parallels to Jesus, Justin makes reference to the
    common practice of emperor worship, stating, “And what of the
    emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of
    deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he
    has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?”

    In ancient Rome, certain emperors, following their death, were


    declared to be gods. Such practice endured until Constantine made
    Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth
    century A.D. It was not common for such deification to occur during
    the life of the emperor. Exceptions to that standard include Nero, who
    declared that he experienced a miraculous birth, and went so far as to
    erect the Colossus of Sol Invictus, a statue of the sun god, although
    bearing Nero’s own features. The emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and
    Claudius permitted a single temple in their honor to be built during
    their lifetime. Caligula, displaying more vanity than his two
    predecessors, ordered the construction of several temples and statues in
    his name, but such were destroyed following his death. The emperor

    143
    Domitian declared himself to be divine, but such claim was not well
    received by the populace. Vespasian, just prior to his death, stated his
    belief that he was becoming divine. Julius Caesar, in his speech at the
    funeral for his aunt, declared himself to be descended from the gods.
    He was later worshiped as a god and savior after his victories in the
    civil war. Following his death, a cult survived which worshiped him as
    a deity, but the cult did not endure for long, despite the declaration by
    Mark Antony at Caesar’s funeral that Caesar was a god. However, in 44
    B.C., during the ludi Victoriae Caesaris, games held in Caesar’s honor,
    a comet appeared in the daytime sky, which Octavian, Caesar’s
    nephew, declared to be a manifestation of Caesar himself.

    Such was the practice of emperor worship in ancient Rome. Deified


    status was either self imposed by the emperor himself or conferred
    upon him, usually after his passing, due to his accomplishments and
    victories, or by virtue of a relation to a deified predecessor. It is this
    type of worship to which Justin makes allusion

    Suggested parallels:

    The elevation of a man to divine status by devoted followers:


    Here it will merely serve to state that the emperors who
    claimed divine status for themselves, or had such conferred
    upon them after death, did nothing which served as proof of
    his assumed deity. Caesar never walked on water, Tiberius
    never healed a leper, Claudius never calmed a raging storm,
    and none of the emperors ever raised themselves or anyone
    else from the dead. Jesus, on the other hand, performed works
    which supported His claims to deity.

    Justin’s argument, which will be addressed in more detail in Part three, was
    not that pagan myths and emperor worship constituted ax exact parallel of the
    Gospel of Christ; but rather, that they bore some superficial similarities to
    Christian doctrine. His purpose in drawing attention to such similarities (which
    at times were a stretch of Justin’s imagination in an earnest effort to make his
    point) was to point out the hypocrisy of the pagans in condemning Christians for
    believing in certain beliefs which bore some surface similarity to Christian
    doctrine. For instance, pagans condemned Christians, who regard Jesus to have
    been born of a virgin, yet the pagans, in similar fashion, believed that Perseus
    was born without the intervention of Jupiter’s seed. The focus of Justin’s
    dialogue is not comparisons between pagan myths and Christian beliefs; but
    rather, on the hypocritical accusations made by the pagans against the
    Christians. He brings his argument to a close in chapter 23 of his First Apology,
    in which he distinguishes pagan myths from Christian doctrine by stating that
    the latter is “alone true,” and that the pagan myths were the product of the
    “demons” misinterpreting Jewish prophesies concerning the coming Messiah,
    and influencing the pagans to fashion their own mythologies based on these

    144
    misinterpretations. Below is his conclusion, taken from chapter 23 (emphasis
    mine, when added):

    “And that this may now become evident to you — (firstly) that
    whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by
    Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are
    older than all the writers who have existed; 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, being His Word
    and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His
    will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the
    human race: and (thirdly) that 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 of infamous and impious actions …”58

    Conclusion
    After reviewing numerous deities throughout this portion of this book, and having
    shown none to be truly comparable to Jesus, it seems very fitting to reiterate the words of
    Peter when he said to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal
    life,” (Jn 6:68) and again in the book of Acts, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for
    there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
    (Acts 4:12 NASB)

    Jesus vs. the cookie cutter


    In 1934 Lord Raglan wrote a book entitled The Hero: A Study in Tradition, Myth, and
    Dreams, in which he proposed twenty-four characteristics1 which he claimed would be
    applied to many heroes found in mythology. This list has been applied to many figures,
    both historical and mythological, including, but not limited to, the following:

    Male personages
    Krishna, Moses, Romulus, King Arthur, Perseus, Jesus, Watu Gunung of Java,
    Heracles, Mohammad, Beowulf, Buddha, Zeus, Nyikang (a cult-hero of the Shiluk
    tribe of the Upper Nile), Samson, Sunjata (the Lion-King of Ancient Mali), Achilles,
    Odysseus, Harry Potter, and Czar Nicholas II.

    Female personages
    Penelope, Helen of Troy, Guinivere, Joan of Arc, Hero in Shakespeare's Much Ado
    about Nothing, Princess Diana, Princess Leia (Star Wars), Tori Amos, Nefertiti,
    Nefertiti, Cleopatra, Irene of Athens, Susan B. Anthony, Helen Keller, Harriet
    Tubman, Sacagawea, Semiramis (Queen of Assyria), Antigone, and Jane Addams.

    145
    Critics of Christianity delight in making use of his list, with only a few characteristics
    being exempted, in their attempt to put forth “evidence” that Jesus was merely another
    one of these cookie-cutter deities. Therefore, it serves to examine each of these points
    suggested by Raglan in order to determine just how closely Jesus fits into his mold.

    Hero’s mother is a royal virgin, ...


    Mary was definitely a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception, and she remained
    so until after His birth. As far as her being a royal virgin, there is some speculation
    that she was descended from the royal lineage of David, as was Joseph, but such is
    not stated in the Gospel accounts. Even if she was of Davidic descent, her “royalty”
    could not be likened to the royalty referred to by Raglan, since her relationship to a
    sitting king would have been removed by hundreds of years. Moreover, royal
    ancestry was passed on through a son, not a daughter; therefore, even if Mary's
    father had been a sitting king of Israel, Mary would not inherit his throne upon his
    passing. Also, as has been shown in Part one, many deities who critics claim are
    virgin-born cannot rightfully be said to be born in such a fashion, since many of
    them were either non-virgins at the time of conception or whose “virginal”
    conception came about after sexual union with a god.

    ... his father is a king, ...


    Jesus had no biological father; however, even if Joseph, a descendant of King
    David, had been related by blood to Jesus, it would still not be said that Jesus' father
    was a king. Joseph's link to a sitting king was far removed by the same span of time
    just stated; therefore, it cannot be said that Joseph was a king – a title which was
    held by Herod the Great at the time of Jesus' birth. Joseph's right to the throne was
    no greater than those of any other descendant of David, since the reign of King
    Jehoiachin. Following Jehoiachin's reign, God pronounced a curse on the lineage of
    David which prevented any of his descendants from claiming the throne which once
    rightfully belonged to them (Jer 22:30, 23:5-6). The curse was that David's seed
    would not sit on his throne; therefore, Jesus' right to the throne of David was due to
    the fact that He was not of the biological seed of David, through Joseph. However,
    since Jesus was related to Joseph legally, by the official recognition of Joseph as
    Jesus' father, but not biologically, this made Jesus the first rightful heir, since
    Jehoiachin, to the throne of David.

    ... and [His father] is often a near relative of his mother, ...
    Jesus' “father” was “God the Father, but the fatherhood of God in relation to
    Jesus was not the same fatherhood which can be applied to mythic heroes. As will
    be shown in Part five, all three Persons of the Trinity took part in Jesus' birth. The
    Father prepared the body, the Son took on a human nature, and the Holy Spirit
    formed the fetus of Jesus within the womb of Mary. Since the Sonship of Jesus will
    be discussed later, it only needs to be stated here that the Sonship of Jesus to the
    Father does not denote a biological or ontological relationship; but rather, denotes a
    sameness of being. Jesus is the Son of God, not because He was “born” of God.
    Jesus is the Son of God because He is God. Also, there is some speculation that
    both Joseph and Mary were of Davidic descent, but this would classify as a tribal
    relation, not familial relation.

    146
    ... but, the circumstances of his conception are unusual, ...
    The circumstances of Jesus conception were more than unusual – they were
    distinctly unique. The supernatural conceptions found in pagan mythology do not
    compare to that of Jesus. This will also be discussed in depth in Part five. It only
    needs to be stated here, in brief, that pagan deities often sired a son through
    ravaging or deceiving a woman in order to satisfy the god's burning lust. Also, the
    offspring had no divine purpose and was not born to be the savior of mankind or to
    satisfy his father's righteous anger for man's sin.

    ... and, he is also reputed to be the son of a god.


    Jesus was not reputed by anyone to be God's Son. His followers declared Him to
    be so, whereas His opponents condemned Him for claiming such a relationship to
    deity. The ruling Jewish religious authority attempted to stone Jesus for blasphemy
    when He claimed such oneness with deity. Moreover, it was absolutely contrary to
    the Jewish beliefs to think of God as having a son. The Jews placed too high a
    regard on God's being to even think of Him becoming flesh and taking on such a
    lowly form as human nature. Moreover, Jesus' Sonship is unique from pagan sons
    of a god. As stated above, Jesus' Sonship to God the Father is due to the fact that
    Jesus possesses the same nature as the Father, not because He was physically
    begotten of God (the New Testament does refer to Jesus as the “only begotten of the
    Father,” and this expression will be addressed in Part five as well).

    At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather


    to kill him ...
    The attempt on Jesus' life was by King Herod, who sought to squash this
    newborn infant purported to be the new king. Aside from the fact that there was an
    attempt made on Jesus' life, this association falls short of becoming valid. It is
    reasonable to assume that if a king, especially one as cruel as Herod the Great,
    learned there arose a possible threat to his throne, that he would seek to put an end
    to this threat, and, unless one has cyborg killing machines at his disposal that he can
    send back in time to kill the infant's mother prior to his conception, what better way
    to stop this potential uprising than to nip it in the bud while the child is still an
    infant. Therefore, this characteristic can be classified under that which is to be
    expected, given the circumstances.

    ... but, he is spirited away, ...


    Jesus was “spirited,” or taken, away to Egypt. This came at the behest of an
    angel who warned Joseph of Herod's impending threat and who instructed he and
    Mary to flee with Jesus to Egypt, in order to escape the threat of Herod. However,
    this was foretold by the prophet Hosea hundreds of years before the Gospels were
    written:

    When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
    (Hosea 11:1)

    147
    ... and reared by foster parents in a far country.
    The only country Jesus lived in, apart from Palestine, was Egypt. His sojourn in
    Egypt was for a very short time, until the death of Herod the Great, who died in 4
    B.C., less than a year after Jesus was born. Following that, Joseph and Mary
    intended to return to Bethlehem, but returned to their hometown of Nazareth, which
    lies seventy miles from Bethlehem, or about a six day journey in ancient times, and
    it was in Nazareth where Jesus' rearing took place. As far as foster parents are
    concerned, Jesus had a foster father, but a natural mother. The adoptive relationship
    between Jesus and Joseph was not a thing of common knowledge, except possibly
    in Nazareth, where the premarital conception of Jesus would have been known by
    the residents of the town.

    We are told nothing of his childhood, ...


    Aside from one instance at age twelve, the only account of Jesus' childhood is
    found in the apocryphal books, but these stories do not reflect the character of Jesus
    as portrayed in the Gospels, neither are these books recognized by the church as an
    accurate account of Jesus' childhood. The Gospels' lack of mention of events in
    Jesus' childhood is in line with the style of ancient biographies, the purpose of
    which was not to give a comprehensive account of the events of one's life; but
    rather, to account for the events relating to the person's significance. For this reason,
    only two of the four Gospels relate Jesus' birth, whereas the remaining two begin
    with Jesus' baptism, which marked the beginning of His public enactment of that for
    which He was sent to accomplish. Even in the preaching of the Apostles, the subject
    of their message was Jesus' death and resurrection, rather than His birth. This
    emphasis is not due to an unawareness of Jesus' virgin birth, nor to a denial of its
    occurrence or importance; but rather, because the manner of His conception is not a
    element required in sermons intended for the spreading of the Gospel. The thrust of
    the Apostles' preaching was evangelism, not instruction in systematic theology.

    ... but, on reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.


    Jesus began His public ministry at around age thirty, which is in accordance to
    Jewish custom that a man needed to be at least thirty to be regarded as a master, or
    teacher, or act in religious service. Following Jesus' three year ministry and death
    on the cross, He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, thus inaugurating His
    kingdom. The kingdom to which Jesus referred was not an earthly kingdom, but a
    reign in which He triumphs over sin and death.

    After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast, …
    Jesus became victorious over sin and the devil, who is depicted figuratively as a
    dragon or serpent and the “prince of the power of the air,” but Jesus was not a
    dragon slayer or monster killer.

    ... he marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor …


    This characteristic bears no similarity to the life of Jesus.

    148
    ... and becomes king.
    Jesus is the King of Kings, and He presently reigns at His Father's side. His
    kingship is not a reference to royalty as would be understood of an earthly king; but
    rather, denotes His supremacy over all things in heaven and in earth.

    For a time he reigns uneventfully ...


    Jesus has already conquered sin and death. Since all of His enemies have been
    made His footstool, there is no more conquest remaining for Him that He has not
    already secured by virtue of His death and resurrection.

    ... and prescribes laws, ...


    As God and the Judge of all men, Jesus requires His people to be holy, or
    separated unto Him, and not only does He have the right to require such a standard
    of living, He deserves such oblation. His laws are never arbitrary and are always a
    reflection of the righteous manner in which He judges all things.

    ... but, later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, ...
    Jesus was “despised and rejected of men,” as told by the prophets and the Gospel
    writers. However, those who called for Jesus' crucifixion were not the same ones
    who followed Him during His ministry. The only disciple of whom this could be
    said was Judas Iscariot, but even he was regarded as a sheep-in-wolves clothing,
    and not a true follower of Jesus. The disciple Peter denied Jesus during His trial, but
    later became the greatest Apostle to the Jews.

    ... and is driven from the throne and city, …


    Jesus is not the King of Kings on a part-time basis. His reign is forever. He will
    never be stripped of the honor due to Him. During His time on earth, He did not
    possess a literal throne and the only crown He ever wore was the crown of thorns
    made in mockery of His claim to deity and royalty, so his execution cannot be said
    to have been a deposition.

    ... after which he meets with a mysterious death, …


    Jesus' crucifixion no doubt perplexed His disciples, who were so distraught by
    His arrest and trial that they abandoned and denied Him. However, His death cannot
    be classified as mysterious. In fact, after the disciples' understanding was opened to
    Jesus' true mission, it became evident to them that such was the fulfillment of
    prophesies told long before His coming. Jesus' death was perfectly in line with Old
    Testament Messianic prophecy, as shown in the chart on the following page.

    Messianic prophecy Foretold in the Cross-reference


    Old Testament with the New
    Testament
    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

    149
    Messianic prophecy Foretold in the Cross-reference
    Old Testament with the New
    Testament
    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
    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

    ... often at the top of a hill, ...


    Crucifixion was customarily done outside the city. Since Jerusalem is
    surrounded by hills, this can be merely chalked up as a matter of geography.
    Additionally, His execution outside the city is likened to the slaughter of
    sacrificial lambs, who were killed outside the Temple gates. As the Lamb of
    God who takes away the sin of the world, it was fitting that Jesus' death took
    place outside Temple walls.

    ... his children, if any, do not succeed him.


    Jesus sired no children.

    His body is not buried, …


    Jesus was buried and remained in the tomb for three days.

    ... but nevertheless he has one or more holy sepulchers.


    There are a few points in Jerusalem regarded today as the location of the
    original garden tomb, but this is simply due to the fact that the span of time has
    made it impossible to conclusively name a specific place as the definitive
    location. It is recognized that only one of these can be the actual location of the
    resurrection.

    In conclusion, Raglan's “cookie cutter” hero figure is a mold into which Jesus does
    not fit. It can be said of each element in his formula that it either does not apply to Jesus
    as all or does not apply in the sense that it would apply to heroes in pagan mythology.
    Jesus is not just another “crucified Savior,” as Kersey Graves (author of The World's
    Sixteen Crucified Saviors) would like for us to believe. There are many considerations
    that make Jesus unique from every figure found in pagan mythology, and these
    distinctions will be addressed in full throughout Part five of this book.

    150
    At this point, I could close this work, having correctly refuted the claim that the life of
    Jesus was a remodeling of pagan mythologies and having shown such a claim to posses
    no foundation in truth. However, The Zeitgeist Movie does not limit its attacks on the
    Gospels themselves. Other related attacks against the truth of the Christianity remain to
    be addressed – attacks which extend beyond the Gospel narratives to the writings of the
    church fathers and as far back as the book of Genesis. Therefore, I have thought it
    necessary to here address these claims, and give to them a proper response. This section
    will address several preliminary considerations in relation to mythology in general, while
    the next section will deal with the claims themselves.

    I. Lucifer and the sin of Adam


    In the following passages, the Bible records the revolt and fall of Lucifer (Satan)
    from the Paradise.

    Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me [Ezekiel], saying, Son of
    man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus
    saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in
    beauty. Thou [Lucifer] hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious
    stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the
    onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold:
    the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the
    day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I
    have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast
    walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in
    thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
    By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with
    violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of
    the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the
    midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty,
    thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee
    to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou
    hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the
    iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of
    thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the
    sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people
    shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be
    any more. (Ez 28:11-19)

    How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art
    thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast
    said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above
    the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the
    sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be
    like the most High. (Isa 14:12-14)

    152
    Here, we see that:
    Lucifer was a created being.
    He was a cherub (the highest order of the angels).
    He existed in perfection, but later became vain and corrupt.
    He gloried in his own beauty and sought to reign as the Most High God.
    Because of Lucifer's iniquity, he was cast from Paradise to Earth.

    The Bible also gives an account of Lucifer’s first recorded activity following his
    exile from Paradise.

    And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the
    garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and
    evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
    surely die. Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field
    which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath
    God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said
    unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of
    the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye
    shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said
    unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day
    ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,
    knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good
    for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to
    make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto
    her husband with her; and he did eat. (Gen 2:16-17, 3:1-6)

    Here, it is recorded that:


    God commanded Adam and Eve to not touch or eat the fruit of the Tree of
    the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
    He told them the penalty for disobedience was certain death.
    The serpent (Lucifer) caused Eve to doubt the Word of God.
    He told her she would be as God if she ate from the tree.
    Eve fell for his trickery and, out of a desire for the wisdom of God, she ate
    from the tree
    Adam, likewise, ate from the forbidden tree.

    According to the Genesis account, the first sin of man was disobedience to
    God, distrust of His word, and a desire to elevate the human condition to
    Godlike status. Adam and Eve desired, as did Lucifer, to be like God, and it was
    for this that both were cast out of their original habitation and state of existence.

    153
    II. Freethought: the philosophy of atheism
    The philosophy of freethought dictates that one’s beliefs should not be based on
    blind faith; but rather, on facts and reason. It teaches that ideas should be accepted
    purely on what one perceives, through the natural senses or scientific methods. Such
    ideas, if determined to be real, are to be accepted regardless of who or what says
    otherwise, for anyone or anything found to deny or contradict that idea is thought to
    be prejudiced or fallacious. Once a freethinker accepts an idea as reality, any
    contradiction to that idea is considered a hindrance and a limitation on one’s own
    intellect. In short, freethought dictates that everyone has the right and ability to
    construct his or her own truth based on what is good, true, and right in one’s own
    eyes.

    Is truth relative?
    Freethought declares that truth is relative and there are no absolutes. If one is to
    believe such a thing to be true, then he must of necessity also believe the following:

    There is at least one absolute: the absolute that there are absolutely no
    absolutes. Such is a clear contradiction in terms.

    If there are no absolutes, then the value which anything or anyone has is
    subject to one’s own perception. Thus, the sanctity of life is only a reality if one
    believes life to be sacred. By this logic, those who deny the sanctity of life
    should have every right to commit whatever terrible acts they wish against
    humanity. Such actions would merely be “acts” against humanity, rather than
    “crimes” against humanity, since there would be nothing criminal in harming a
    life which is not really sacred to begin with. Murder and genocide would be
    justifiable without an absolute by which acts are judged to be such.

    If there are no absolutes, then the meaning of a thing is subject to one’s own
    perception. Thus, every aspect of society would possess a meaning which varies
    from person to person. This would extend to all aspects of culture, including
    language (for words would have no set meaning or connotation), science (since
    science would be based on opinion, not observation), politics (anarchy would be
    the only true form of government, since democracy, communism, etc. would be
    systems based on absolutes which do not really exist), religion (God exists only
    if you want Him to exist), and society (racism, discrimination, and harassment
    would be acceptable forms of conduct, since the value of anyone is only
    dependent on whether one perceives value in a particular person, class, race, or
    gender).

    If there are no absolutes, there are no laws by which men should be expected
    to abide, no goodness according to which men should act, no charity which
    would be of any value, no tyrant who would be inhumane, and no morality by
    which one should live. All law would be futile and all lawmakers would be
    dictators, imposing upon others their own perceived reality. There would be no
    reason for obedience except fear of consequence or punishment.

    154
    The exclusivity of truth
    Freethinkers decry any religion which claims to be the only true religion.
    However, to deny that there is such a thing as a one true religion or one true God is
    to deny the very nature of truth itself. All paths do not lead to God. All gods are not
    God. In his book Jesus Among Other Gods, Ravi Zacharias explains, “All religions
    are not the same. All religions do not point to God. All religions do not say that all
    religions are the same. At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising
    commitment to a particular way of defining who God or is not and accordingly, of
    defining life’s purpose…. Every religion at its core is exclusive. … All-inclusive
    philosophies can only come at the cost of truth.”1 For one thing to be ultimately true,
    it must be so in contrast to anything which states otherwise or stands as an opposite
    or contrary idea. That is the very essence of truth. For one to be “open-minded” is to
    be closed-minded to truth. For example, the truth about apples is that they grow on
    trees. If someone claims apples are grown by any other means, then that claim is
    untrue, since it claims apples are not grown in the true way in which apples are
    grown. Whether or not one considers apples good to the taste is irrelevant to the true
    nature of apples. The same principle applies to God. If indeed Jesus is the only way
    to God and the only name by which men are saved, then how can it be that someone
    can be granted salvation in the name of Allah or Krishna or any other god? If Jesus is
    the only way to God, then He remains such regardless of who or how many people
    do not agree with that truth, and it is still according to this truth that all men will be
    judged, regardless of whether or not one believes Jesus is the Savior of man. For a
    thing to be true, it must be singularly true, and any notion or concept which
    contradicts that truth must of necessity be untrue. This is the nature of Christian
    dogma – “sola fide, sola gratia, sola Christus, sola scriptura:” the truth is that
    salvation is through faith alone, by grace alone, because of Christ alone, and
    according to the Scriptures alone. Any belief which claims otherwise stands contrary
    to that which is true.

    The objectivity of truth


    The Oxford Dictionary defines the adjective “true” as that which is “in
    accordance to face or reality.” Likewise, it is commonly said, “truth is that which
    corresponds to reality.”2 That which is true is identical on that which is real. In a
    court of law, when a person swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth,” he is committing himself to “tell it like it is,” to declare what is real. In
    simple terms, if the grass is really green, then the grass is truly green. But, if the
    grass of not green, then the grass is truly some other color. If a colorblind individual
    says the green grass is not green, his perception of the color of the grass does not
    really or truly change the grass’ color. The color of the grass is dependent on what
    the color really or truly is, not on an individual’s perception or opinion of color. Joe
    Anybody can say the grass is pink until he’s blue in the face, but no matter how blue
    Mr. Anybody gets, the grass will still be green in the final analysis. So it is with
    every aspect of life. If one thing is true, then there must be an absolute by which that
    truth is determined, or judged to be true, rather than the truth being rooted in one’s
    own perception or belief. Man’s perception of what is real, true, and meaningful can
    change from person to person, but what is really true remains true despite the varied
    opinions and perceptions. If you ask fifty people what is the meaning of life, you

    155
    may get fifty different meanings for life. Yet, life truly has a definite meaning, rather
    than many meanings, some of which contradict one another. Such objectivity must
    apply to all truth, for truth, by definition, cannot be anything but objective.

    The source of truth


    The bottom line is that everyone embraces absolute truth in the face of danger. As
    Dr. R. C. Sproul notes, that which is the most danger to anyone is the justice of God,
    for it is no light matter to face a God who, by nature of His own inherent
    righteousness, must punish those who are unrighteous.3 This became most evident to
    a congregation in the eighteenth century as a preacher by the name of Jonathan
    Edwards delivered his famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”
    Below is an excerpt from his sermon:

    “How awful are those words, Isa 63:3, which are the words of the great God. ‘I
    will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood
    shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.’ It is
    perhaps impossible to conceive of words that carry in them greater
    manifestations of these three things, viz. contempt, and hatred, and fierceness of
    indignation. If you cry to God to pity you, he will be so far from pitying you in
    your doleful case, or showing you the least regard or favour, that instead of that,
    he will only tread you under foot. And though he will know that you cannot bear
    the weight of omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not regard that, but he
    will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and
    make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his
    raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you in the utmost contempt:
    no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the
    mire of the streets.”4
    Edwards brought to light the awful wrath of God, and those who heard his words
    were instilled with the same fear which struck the prophet Isaiah when God gave him
    a vision of His glory.

    In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high
    and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each
    one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his
    feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy,
    holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of
    the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with
    smoke. Then said I, 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 6:1-5)

    The word “undone” here means to come unraveled, to be reduced to utter


    helplessness. When one comes to a true realization of the holiness and righteousness
    of God, he is inevitably faced with his own unseemliness and helplessness over his
    own fate, and with his utterly sinful and unworthy state of being. The truth about
    God is that He exists, regardless of what one believes concerning His existence.

    156
    Even if no one believed in God, He would still exist, for His existence is not subject
    to belief. He is not conjured or summoned as a genie in a bottle at the behest of the
    will of man. God has being (for He is self-existent), and it is this Being which
    determines what is true in the cosmos. Therefore, if something is true, it is true
    because God made it so. Again, Sproul states, “truth is reality from the perspective of
    God.” Truth, more-so than being rooted in God, is God Himself. Jesus said He alone
    is the Truth. Jesus did not merely speak the truth, He is the truth. He is truth
    personified, truth in the flesh.

    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto
    the Father, but by me. (Jn 14:6)

    Skeptics of Christianity declare Jesus to be merely a great teacher, but what greatness
    does one see in Jesus if he does not believe Jesus’ claim to be the truth? Christian
    apologetics has historically stated that one must regard Jesus to be a liar, a lunatic, or
    the Lord. If He is not the truth, then he is a liar or a lunatic, in which case there
    would be nothing great at all about Him. For those who believe Jesus’ claims, then
    He is regarded to be not only the source of truth, but truth itself, and it is this truth,
    the only begotten Son of God, who redeems man and makes His people free.

    Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my


    word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth
    shall make you free. (Jn 8:31-32 NASB)

    True freethought
    Additionally, freethought is not synonymous with intelligence. Even the most
    uneducated person may be a freethinker. Rather than being a measure of one’s
    intelligence, freethought merely is a way to define how one formulates conclusions
    and why one holds to his or her beliefs. The freethinker claims his “freedom” lay in
    his self-liberation from tradition and his own passions, when formulating his
    conclusions. The truth is that no one is completely free from his passions. Every
    thought and action, whether positive or negative, is a product of one’s desire. As
    Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Theologia, every action is the result of a desire
    to act in such a way.5 Perhaps the action itself is not desirable, but it is more
    favorable when compared to the consequence which would result by inaction. True
    freedom of thought lay not in liberating oneself from the accepted norm or existing
    preconceptions. Rather, true freedom lies in the self-assurance that one achieves
    knowing his beliefs are grounded in rationalism and logic. Someone who believes
    the Bible is God’s Word because his pastor says it is God’s Word, is not free in his
    thought processes, since he is accepting an idea without further investigation.
    However, one who believes the Bible is God’s Word because of the integrity of the
    work has arrived at such a conclusion through a truly free thought process. Likewise,
    if one denies God’s existence because he was told there is no God, then he is not a
    freethinker, since his belief concerning God was implanted rather than formed as a
    result of personal investigation. An atheist can only be called a freethinker if his
    denial of God’s existence is drawn from conclusions based on personal investigation.

    157
    How does truth apply to God?

    Everyone has faith concerning God


    Applied to theology, freethought denies the existence of God or anything
    supernatural, since we cannot see God or visibly look into the spiritual realm.
    The very first freethinker was Lucifer, who began to think outside the bounds of
    what was required and expected of him. He became vain in his imaginings and
    lusted after a position greater than that of God Himself. Following Lucifer,
    Adam and Eve were enticed to engage in the same type of reasoning. While they
    certainly believed in God (for they beheld Him with their own eyes and walked
    by His side), they doubted His word. Doubt in God’s truth is the seed which
    leads to doubt in God’s existence. Thus, freethought is the soil which cultivates
    atheism. In the words of one writer on infidels.org, “atheism is not a belief. It is
    the ‘lack of belief’ in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith.” On the contrary,
    even atheists, although they have no religion, do indeed have faith. Faith and
    religion are not one and the same. Religion is a system of beliefs and practices
    relating to a higher power. It refers to a theological structure, not merely a belief
    in God. For example, the deist believes that God exists and that He created the
    universe, but does not believe that God maintains the universe or is actively
    involved in the lives of His creatures. Thus, the deist has faith in God, but does
    not hold to a system of worship or conduct relating to any personal relationship
    to God. The deist has faith, but does not hold to a religious structure. Likewise,
    the atheist holds to a belief regarding God, and does so in faith that God simply
    does not exist. He believes God does not exist despite his ability to prove God
    does not exist; therefore, in faith, he holds to his denial of God. Atheism is not a
    lack of faith; rather, it is a lack of faith in God. Both the Christian and the atheist
    have faith – the former places his faith in one greater than he, whereas the latter
    places his faith in his own finite perceptions.

    The necessity of God


    Freethinkers claim there is no God because there is no evidence that God
    exists. In the words of those who maintain the Freethougtht Zone freethinkers
    “do not see any valid reason for holding such a belief. In order to rationally
    believe any claim, one must first have credible evidence. There is, however, no
    credible evidence for the existence of a god.”6 Yet, outside my window, I see the
    sky, a tree, some grass, and a bird flying about. None of these things have the
    ability to bring themselves into being. Every seed, every egg, every thing must
    of necessity come from something else, since no one and no thing has the
    inherent ability to create life. People speak of the universe coming into being by
    chance, but chance is not a thing, not a person – it has no will or purpose.
    Chance is simply a way to define an occurrence in mathematical terms, or odds.
    The “chance” or “possibility” of a particular occurrence does not cause that
    event to occur. Chance is an idea, it is not an object. It does not and cannot move
    any one thing to act. On the other hand, it is right and proper to say that a thing
    happened by design, for design indicates will and purpose. The clouds in the
    sky, the grass in the field, the fish in the sea, all were set in place in accordance
    to a design and a will of a being greater than they, and this being must have the

    158
    ability not only to cause another thing to move and act, but it must have inherent
    self-existence. Everything, having a beginning, must have been brought into
    being by something or someone which has no beginning, by that which was
    never caused by another. The Scriptures say that God created the universe “ex
    nihilo;” that is, “out of nothing.” Evolutionists claim that the universe was
    created as a result of a cosmic event. The main difference between the two
    beliefs is that the latter does not provide a cause which set all else in motion.
    Nothingness cannot cause itself to act, for it has no will, no motion, no energy,
    and no capacity for activity of any sort. A stack of building blocks properly
    stacked and balanced cannot topple over unless the blocks are affected by some
    external factor, such as a breeze or slight turbulence in the surface on which they
    stand. The blocks have no means or capacity to topple on their own and in their
    own ability, for they have no ability – they are not able to move on their own. In
    order for the building blocks to topple on their own, they must have self-
    existence, giving themselves the ability to act one way or another. The same
    principle applies to any form of matter, object, or being. That which is nothing –
    that which has no ability – cannot cause something to come about. Bertrand
    Russell, in his famous lecture Why I Am Not A Christian (delivered on March 6,
    1927, National Secular Society, Battersea Town Hall, London, England), argued
    that “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause …There is no
    reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on
    the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed.”7 In
    denying the necessity of a self-existent Being, Russell has negated the law of
    causality – that every material effect must have an adequate or antecedent cause.
    He allows for the possibility that a thing can occur on its own without that thing
    being able to produce any effect, however such a hypothesis is devoid of reason
    and logic altogether. Anything that exists must exist either because of or by
    something else, and that “something” must exist in and of itself in order to cause
    another thing to come in to being. If the world itself is uncaused and has always
    existed, as Russell suggested, then the world would possess self-existence, in
    which case there would be no decay or death in the world of nature, since a self
    existent thing is able to continuously maintain its own existence simply by virtue
    of its inherent ability to exist. As Dr. R. C. Sproul makes note, every effect must
    have a cause, something which possesses self-existence.8 A thing which does not
    exist in and of itself needs to have its origin in that which does exist in and of
    itself. Every effect must have a cause, something which is self-existent.
    Furthermore, in order for something to be self-existent, having no cause by
    which itself was caused, this thing must have inherent being, for if something
    cannot be, then it cannot cause something else to be. If that thing has not always
    been, then there must have been a time when it came to be and was given being
    by another who has always possessed self-existence, or self-being. Only God
    may rightly be spoken of in such a fashion. God’s existence is necessary to all
    other existence, as He is the Source or First Cause by which all other causes
    exist. He is the Being in which all other beings have their existence. Such a
    Being cannot merely exist as a possibility, but must exist as a necessity.
    Likewise, something that is necessary cannot be just a possibility; otherwise,
    that thing was never necessary to begin with. God cannot exist both as a

    159
    possibility and a necessity.

    Anselm’s Ontological Argument


    There are four ways to argue in favor of God’s existence: 1) the
    Cosmological argument – that there must be a cause for the cosmos, for that
    which we see; 2) the Teleological argument – that there is order and design in
    what we see; therefore, that order necessities a Designer; 3) the Psychological
    argument – that all people has an innate consciousness of God, that every culture
    has religion, and that there is a universal understanding of what is right and
    wrong, is evidence of a higher power involved in man’s constitution; and 4) the
    Ontological argument – the argument from being. The eleventh century
    philosopher Anselm is most known for his work Prostlogian, in which he
    postulates his ontological argument for God’s existence. Ontology is the study of
    being or existence. Applying this study to God, Anselm stated God is that which
    no greater can be conceive – that is, that God is the greatest conceivable being.
    If God exists, He must exist not only in one’s mind, but in reality. If God exists,
    He exists whether or not a thought regarding God has ever entered in the mind
    of even a single person. Even if no one has ever thought of God, God is still real,
    because God still has being. Since God has being, any thought of God must of
    necessity must involve conceiving of Him as a being, not as an abstract force. If
    one is conceiving of God as anything other than a being, then that one is not
    thinking of God at all, since he is conceiving of God as being that which He is
    not. If God does not exist as a being, then He does not exist at all; but rather,
    would merely constitute an idea, and ideas have neither being nor existence.
    “Non-existent being” is a contradiction in terms, since existence and being go
    hand-in-hand. A non-existent God cannot be any more of a possibility as a non-
    existent cat. A cat either is, or is not, and such is the case with God. If a cat
    exists, it exists because it has being, not because someone simply believes in the
    cat’s existence. As Anselm pointed out, God cannot both be and not be, for non-
    being is the very opposite of being.9 As one side of a magnet cannot be both
    positive and negative, as black cannot be both black and white, so can any one
    thing not be both itself as well as its opposite.

    No evidence that God exists, you say? No hard, visible, tangible, logical,
    reasonable proof that God exists? Look out the window. Look in the mirror.
    Look at the cat sitting next to you on the couch, the dog lying at your feet, or the
    children playing outside. There’s your evidence. Think about it. Look beyond
    your prideful, vain imaginings and just think. That’s where true freedom of
    thought begins – with an eye raised to the heavens and an acceptance that there
    is more going on than what you can perceive with your senses.

    Knowledge vs. wisdom


    No matter how free one’s thought processes are, and no matter how much
    knowledge of which one is in possession, he or she may ultimately lack wisdom.
    Wisdom is the proper application of knowledge. The wisest among men may possess
    little knowledge, while the most knowledgeable among men may possess little
    wisdom. Knowing that God exists is a knowledge which can come from observing

    160
    the world around us and coming to a rational conclusion that there is a God behind it
    all. However, one who simply believes in God’s existence possesses knowledge, but
    does not necessarily possess wisdom. As James states, “Thou believest that there is
    one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” (Jas 2:19)

    Wisdom goes beyond one’s conception of God, and extends to one’s response to
    God. There is a God, and everyone has a responsibility in relation to Him. Whether
    one chooses to accept that responsibility or not, does not negate the truth that the
    responsibility exists, and everyone will be judged according to how one responds in
    relation to that responsibility. True knowledge consists of a man’s responsibility to
    God and lies in his acceptance of God as a Higher Being by whom he is judged and
    held accountable. Wisdom is a belief in the truth set forth in God’s Word, seeing
    one’s unrighteous condition in relation to a righteous God, and responding to that
    condition in faith that only God can effect a change in nature.

    But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding?
    And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to
    depart from evil is understanding. (Job 28:12, 28)

    The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have
    all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. (Ps 111:10)

    The knowability of God


    God is transcendent beyond all understanding and comprehension. Yet, God is not
    a God who remains completely concealed behind a veil. He makes Himself known to
    His people, and this He does not because he should make Himself known, but
    because He delights in so doing. Through Christ, the veil of the Godhead was
    partially lifted and mankind was able to behold the glory of Christ, God in the flesh.
    It is this glory, this glimpse into the heart of God through the appearance of Christ,
    which brings joy to those most sorrowful, hope to those most hopeless, help to those
    most helpless, freedom to those in bondage, and strength to those most weak. The
    knowledge of God is the source of man’s glory and in it is contained wealth beyond
    any material riches.

    Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the
    mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let
    him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am
    the LORD which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the
    earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. (Jer 9:23-24)

    And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (Jn 8:32)

    God has made Himself known through His Word, through the person of Jesus the
    Christ, through the laws and majesty of nature, and through the human conscience.
    He is a person to be understood and those who come into this understanding are
    brought to their knees, some in humility and reverence, others in fear and dread, but
    all in a state of helplessness and dependence on this One in whom all things live,

    161
    move, and have their being. Those who seek God will find Him, and those who find
    Him are rewarded with the depth of the riches contained in who He is and how sure
    are His promises.

    Trust in Jehovah with all thy heart, And lean not upon thine own understanding:
    In all thy ways acknowledge him, And he will direct thy paths.” (Prov 3:5-6)

    For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh (for the
    weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the
    casting down of strongholds), casting down imaginations, and every high thing
    that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into
    captivity to the obedience of Christ. (2 Cor 10:3-5 NASB)

    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
    (Heb 11:1)

    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. (Ps 14:1)

    III. Luciferianism: the philosophy of self-deification


    Whereas freethinkers deny the existence of God, Luciferians consider themselves god.
    “I am god. Period,” is the claim of the Luciferian. Luciferianism is a philosophy, a way of
    thinking. According The Luciferian Manifest, the official creed of the Church of Lucifer,
    “Luciferianism is a living philosophy that values and honors the dynamic principles
    essential to the characteristics of Lucifer…. As Lucifer is the embodiment of knowledge,
    he represents that which brings light to the mind of humanity to advance the intellectual
    evolution of our species.”1 Luciferians are not Satanists, nor do all Luciferians worship
    Lucifer or even recognize him as a god. In fact, they consider themselves superior to
    Satanists, since “Satanism and its carnality does not satisfy the hunger for true
    knowledge.”2 They do not offer animal sacrifices, drink blood, or sit in a pentagram and
    recite a chant. One does not need to belong to the Church of Lucifer in order to be a
    Luciferian. Rather, one simply needs to be of the same mind as Lucifer, denying the
    authority, supremacy, and sovereignty of God and applying such characteristics to his or
    her self. Concerning Satan’s temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden, the Manifest says,
    “he [Lucifer] tempted Eve, to eat of the fruit of knowledge, thus awakening in her a
    realization, a revelation that placed her outside of and above the animal kingdom which
    was the Garden of Eden. She thereby entered a higher reality, which lead to higher
    knowledge.”3 This “higher knowledge” is considered to consist of whatever one chooses
    to be the truth by “picking the fruit of knowledge from here and there, and developing
    their own working system of thought and magick designed for their own Selves.”4 The
    knowledge gained through such a buffet-style of knowledge gathering is considered to be
    the knowledge of Lucifer, who alone, they believe, can illuminate the mind to its highest
    potential, for he is considered to be the embodiment of the highest form of knowledge.

    It is this downward spiral which has set the stage for the formulation and development
    of the many mythological systems found in pagan religion. First, men doubt the truth of
    God’s word. Second, they “freely” seek their own truth and deny even the existence of

    162
    God. Finally, they deify themselves and other men and women, formulating their own
    truths and doctrines. They place faith in themselves and the paths which they have
    fashioned. Yet, one day even these will bow the knee to Jesus, the Son of the one, true
    God, and this they will do not because of the very mention of His name, but because of
    the sheer authority of His person.

    “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 2:10-11)

    Whether they confess His deity in worship or in fear and trembling is dependent on
    whether they continue to trust in their own path or place their trust in the One who alone
    is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

    IV. Nimrod and the beginning of pagan religion

    Nimrod in the Bible


    Many of the myths formed throughout the post-dilluvian history of civilization
    have their root in the legends regarding Nimrod. Following the Flood, the family of
    Noah settled in the plain of Shinar, widely considered to be ancient Sumer. Over
    many years (keep in mind that, at this time, the number of years in a single lifespan
    numbered in the hundreds) Noah’s family grew into large populations, forming their
    own towns. Nimrod was born approximately 250 years after the Flood, and was the
    son of Cush, the grandson of Ham, and the great-grandson of Noah. He is mentioned
    only a few times in the Bible, the first being the tenth chapter of the book of Genesis.

    “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a
    mighty hunter before Jehovah: wherefore it is said, Like Nimrod a mighty
    hunter before Jehovah. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech,
    and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went forth into
    Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah, and Resen between
    Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city). And Mizraim begat Ludim, and
    Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (whence
    went forth the Philistines), and Caphtorim. (Gen 10:8-13)

    Nimrod the King


    Nimrod was the first ruler of the second dynasty of Chaldea.1 There is speculation
    whether Nimrod was the name given to him at birth or was a title given to him in
    later times, based on his deeds, for the name Nimrod means “rebel” in Hebrew. The
    phrase used in Genesis, “before the face of Jehovah,” is thought to indicate such
    rebellion, being more correctly translated “in the face of Jehovah,” and denoting his
    tyranny over men. Josephus wrote that Nimrod caused the people to rebel against
    God.

    “Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God.
    He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength

    163
    of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his
    means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which
    procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into
    tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring
    them into a constant dependence on his power… Now the multitude were very
    ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of
    cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains,
    nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the
    multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could
    expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that
    thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It
    was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it
    might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he
    did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the
    destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by
    producing in them diverse languages, and causing that, through the multitude of
    those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place
    wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of
    that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by
    the word Babel, confusion…”2

    According to the Book of Jasher (an ancient text referred to twice in Scripture, in
    Josh 10:13 and 2 Sam 1:18), Nimrod became king at age forty after winning a battle
    between the sons of Ham and the sons of Japeth.3 Following his rise to power, he
    erected twelve wooden idols, and ordered one of each to be worshiped during a given
    month. Nimrod is commonly believed to have been the architect behind the
    construction of the Tower of Babel. Josephus also relates that the tower of Babel,
    sometimes named Entemenanki,4 was built in defiance against God, and high enough
    to not be covered in the event God chose to send another flood.5 Following the
    confusion of the languages at Babel, the tower became a place of worship, on top of
    which was constructed a temple, used for the worship of false gods or for hosting
    orgies in the name of a god.6 At this time, ancestor worship began to take hold
    among the ancient Sumerians. Noah became known as Ziusudra in Sumer,
    Utanapishtim (see the later section regarding the Epic of Gilgamesh) and Atra-Hasis
    in Akkad, Abzu in Sumer, and Xisouthros in Greece, his wife became known as
    Tiamat,7 his son Ham became Ea, and his grandson Cush became Anu.8

    The death of Nimrod


    There are several accounts regarding Nimrod’s death. One account says he was
    beheaded by Esau, the grandson of the Hebrew patriarch Abraham, while another
    said he was killed by Shem, a son of Noah. According to the latter account, Shem, a
    man who remained true to the worship of Jehovah, caught Nimrod and executed him
    by dismemberment, sending his parts throughout the land as a warning against
    worshiping false gods. Even Nimrod himself became known as the god Marduk and
    the god of the sun.

    164
    The birth of Ninus and the deification of Nimrod
    Following Nimrod’s death, Semiramus, Nimrod’s lover (in some accounts she is
    his mother, while in other accounts she is the former wife of an officer in Nimrod’s
    army) furthered the religion established by her deceased husband. Nimrod himself
    became known as the god Marduk, the god of the sun. Later, she became pregnant
    and gave birth to Ninus, whom she declared to be the reincarnation of Nimrod. She
    also claimed that his conception was the result of being impregnated by the sun.
    Following his birth, Ninus became worshiped as the sun god Nabu. Semiramus
    married Ninus once he grew to manhood, which perhaps originated the “Nimrod
    married his mother” motif. Angered that Shem had killed his father, Nimrod, Ninus
    set out for revenge. A fierce battle ensued, during which Shem gouged out the eye of
    Ninus.9 Semiramus later had Ninus killed, not because of his wickedness, but
    because he was no longer useful to her.

    The migration of Nimrod’s story into myth and culture


    Nimrod was the founder of pagan religion, and, as such, the motifs found in his
    accounts, whether truth or legend, has found their way into the myths of various
    cultures, as in the case of the Egyptian deities Osiris and Horus. According to the
    Egyptian myth, Seth killed Osiris, cut him into fourteen pieces, and scattered them
    throughout Egypt. Osiris’ wife then gave birth to Horus, whom she declared to be
    Osiris reborn. Later, Horus, seeking revenge for Osiris’ death, fought against Seth in
    a battle during which Horus’ eye was gouged out.

    In addition to inspiring many myths, the political system set up by Nimrod had
    equal influence. Nimrod set up a means of rule by which laws were strictly enforced
    upon the people, although the ruler himself was exempt from such laws. Nimrod was
    a law unto himself, and a god to his people. This same formula influenced the culture
    of ancient Egypt, as well as Accad, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, and, ultimately, Greece
    and Rome, in which Pharaohs, kings, emperors, and other leaders were regarded as
    deity.

    V. The Monomyth Formula


    Many of the stories in world mythology, regardless of their cultural origin, share a
    similar structure, which Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung termed “archetypes.” In his efforts
    to understand and interpret the dreams of the mentally ill, he came to the conclusion that
    there are common principles and ideas which are present in the psychology of men from
    all cultures, and it is these commonalities, or “archetypes,” which serve to guide and
    influence the various myths, legends, and religions of the world. In other words,
    according to Jung, there exists inside every man, regardless of social, religious, or
    educational influences, an innate concept of what it means to be a “hero” or to embark on
    a “quest,” and it is these unconscious formulas which have given rise to the many heroes
    and stories found in world mythology. Likewise, German anthropologist Adolph Bastian
    suggested that such myths contain the same or similar “elementary ideas.” In modern
    times, this idea has gained wide notoriety with the publication of Joseph Campbell’s book
    The Hero with a Thousand Faces, published in 1949. Campbell, widely recognized as
    one of the world’s foremost scholars on world mythology, further developed this concept

    165
    of a fundamental cross-cultural structure in his formulation of what he called the
    “monomyth.” Campbell recognized common elements in many world myths, elements
    such as 1) a call to adventure, 2) a journey through a path of trials, 3) the achievement of
    a goal, 4) the hero being granted a great gift, 5) a return to the ordinary world, and 6) the
    application of the gift. A myth may contain all, a few, or just one of these elements. In the
    preface to his book, he states, “A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into
    a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive
    victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to
    bestow boons on his fellow man.” Campbell’s monomyth structure, suggests the
    following formula which he believes is common to every culture and has found its ways
    into the various world mythology.

    Campbell’s monomyth formula is as follows:

    1. Departure (or Separation)


    The Call to Adventure
    The hero leaves his normal world after being called, usually
    by a herald, and is directed to embark on a journey into the
    unknown.
    Refusal of the Call
    After being called, the hero either refuses the call in
    disobedience or lack of confidence in his ability to make the
    journey.
    Supernatural Aid
    Eventually, the hero agrees to embark on the journey. This is
    usually due to the influence or intervention of an item,
    possessing supernatural properties, which the hero is given to
    aid him in his journey. He is often guided or advised by a
    mentor, usually elderly.
    The Crossing of the First Threshold
    The hero enters the world of the unfamiliar, usually through a
    portal and usually after facing a being who acts as a
    “gatekeeper” or guardian of that world.
    Rebirth
    His emergence into the unknown world is seen as a rebirth or
    transformation, having “died” to one world only to begin an
    existence in the world of the unknown.

    2. Initiation
    The Road of Trials
    The hero then faces a test or series of trials by which be
    realizes his potential and ability to complete his journey.
    Marriage
    Along his journey, the hero may meet one who possesses
    royalty or divinity, typically symbolic of the source of life.
    Through his union with her, the hero achieves mastery over
    life itself.

    166
    Woman as Temptress
    The hero may also meet a temptress, who is able to preoccupy
    the hero and set his feet off his destined path. It then becomes
    the hero’s challenge to rise above this distraction.
    Atonement with the Father
    The hero is typically guided by a mentor or father figure, with
    whom he falls out of favor and must seek reconciliation.
    Apotheosis
    The hero comes to realize his ultimate purpose, sometimes
    through vanquishing an enemy or gaining special abilities.
    The Ultimate Boon
    The hero is granted a gift or blessing, which he is then
    instructed or inclined to share with others.

    3. Return
    Refusal of the Return
    The hero may be reluctant to return to the world from which
    he came. At times this reluctance is owed to a love for the new
    world or a person in that world.
    The Magic Flight
    The hero returns home, sometimes on a magical journey and
    sometimes while being pursued by an opposing force.
    Rescue from Without
    While on his journey home, the hero may need to be rescued
    by someone from the world from which he came.
    Alternatively, he may desire not to return, and may then be
    given a new motivation to finish the return home.
    The Crossing of the Return Threshold
    While on the journey home, circumstances may cause the hero
    to lose his ego or drive, which is then regained upon or shortly
    after his return home.
    Master of Two Worlds
    Having existed in the world of the known and the unknown,
    the hero is now able to comprehend the bigger picture and
    sometimes realizes the unknown world is a mere extension of
    the known world. Having finished his journey and returned to
    the known world, he imparts to others the knowledge gained
    on his journey.
    Freedom to Live
    The hero bestows his gift to his fellow man.

    167
    A modern-day example of the monomyth formula:

    Popular modern-day applications of Campbell’s monomyth formula include


    Disney’s The Lion King and George Lucas’ original Star Wars trilogy (released
    theatrically from 1977-1983). In a 1988 PBS broadcast entitled The Power of
    Myth, Lucas admitted Campbell’s book served as a key influence when
    composing his story, as illustrated below.

    Campbell Lucas
    I: Departure
    The call to adventure Obi-wan tries to enlist
    Luke’s aid in the Rebellion
    Refusal of the call Luke insists he must help
    his uncle with the harvest
    Supernatural aid Luke becomes aware he is
    strong in the Force
    Crossing the first threshold Escape from Tatooine
    The belly of the whale The Death Star’s trash
    compactor
    II: Initiation
    The road of trials Lightsaber practice
    The meeting with royalty or a goddess Luke rescues Princess Leia
    Temptation away from the true path Luke is tempted to give in
    to his anger
    Atonement with the Father Darth Vader and Luke
    reconcile
    Apotheosis Luke achieves status of
    Jedi Knight
    The ultimate boon Luke ushers in a new Jedi
    order
    III: Return
    Refusal of the return Luke‘s hesitance to leave
    his dying father
    The magic flight The Millennium Falcon’s
    flight through the asteroid
    field
    Rescue from without Ewoks save the day
    Crossing the return threshold The Millennium Falcon
    destroys pursuing TIE
    fighters
    Master of the two worlds Victory ceremony
    Freedom to live Rebellion is victorious
    over the Empire

    Campbell’s monomyth formula illustrates how many of the various religions and
    myths of mankind are the product of concepts inherent in the human psyche.

    168
    I. Concerning Zoroastrianism
    Critics have claimed that the figures and concepts inherent in Christianity were borrowed
    from the Zoroastrian religion. Zoroastrianism.

    Origin of the religion


    Zoroastrianism is a pre-Christian religion founded by the prophet Zarathushtra,
    commonly known as Zoroaster (the Greek alteration of his name), who lived,
    according to popular consensus among historians, sometime around c.650-583 B.C.
    in Persia (present-day Iran). One day, at age thirty, while performing a purification
    rite on the bank of a river, Zarathustra claimed to have a vision in which Vohu
    Manah (i.e., the “Good Mind”) appeared to him as a “shining being.” Zarathushtra
    was taken to the god Ahura Mazda who charged him with the task of guiding men to
    him, the “one true god.” Through a series of succeeding visions, Zarathushtra
    claimed to receive words of wisdom from the supreme deity Ahura Mazda and the
    lesser deities which make up the Amesha Spentas. These words of wisdom make up
    the core beliefs of ancient Zoroastrianism.

    Monotheistic or polytheistic?
    Zoroastrianism is typically recognized, along with Judaism, as being unique
    among the ancient religions due to its so-called monotheistic character. Zoroastrians
    worship one supreme god, named Ahura Mazda; however, they also revere six other
    lesser deities, thus making Zoroastrianism a truly polytheistic, not monotheistic,
    belief system.

    The scriptures of Zoroastrianism


    The sacred text of Zoroastrianism is the Avesta, or "Book of the Law," containing
    a series of five hymns, called the Gathas, providing generalized instruction on
    worship, social justice, and personal morality. The oldest section of the Avesta dates
    to a few centuries after Christ, being composed between 346-360 A.D.1 Oral tradition
    on which the Avesta is based has been dated, in part, prior to the time of Christ. The
    five hymns which make up the Gathas are likely the closest resemblance therein to
    such ancient oral tradition, and primarily contain praise for Ahura Mazda, the highest
    of the Zoroastrian deities, as well as instructions for proper living.

    Zoroastrianism is a religion strongly concerned with good works and morality.


    The maxim of Zoroastrianism is “Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds,” as
    expressed in their scriptures.

    “I profess myself a Mazda-worshiper, a Zoroastrian, having vowed it and


    professed it. I pledge myself to the well-thought thought, I pledge myself to the
    well-spoken word, I pledge myself to the well-done action. “2

    Suggested influence on the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ


    Zoroastrianism was the official religion of the Persian Empire and it is on this
    ground that some accuse Christianity of being the result of a merger between
    Judaism and Zoroastrianism. This merger is thought to have occurred during the

    170
    period of time prior to Christ when the Hebrews were under captivity by the Persian
    Empire. D. M. Murdock, a hostile critic of Christianity, suggested the following
    similarities between Zarathushtra and Jesus Christ. While a few of her claims are
    true, most are, not surprisingly, either embellished or falsified in order to provide a
    fabricated relationship between the two religions, making Christianity a derivative of
    Zoroastrianism.

    Zarathushtra was born of a virgin and "immaculate conception by a ray of divine


    reason."
    Zarathushtra’s virgin birth is presumed from a passage in the Avesta
    which states that his mother was filled with “kingly glory.” First, his mother
    was not a virgin, being the wife of Pourushaspa.3 Even if she was filled with
    glory of some sort, Zarathushtra was still conceived through normal human
    means. Second, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary,
    not Jesus, and the doctrine states that she was born without sin, thereby
    enabling her to give birth to the Son of God. Not only is such a doctrine not
    taught in Scripture, but is wholly against it. The doctrine of the Immaculate
    Conception is a later fabrication of the Catholic Church, emerging as church
    dogma under Pope Pius IX in 1854. Protestants and orthodox Christianity
    reject the doctrine on the grounds that it violates the doctrine of original sin,
    which states that every person is born in a state of sin (Rom 5:12). Third,
    the source for the idea of Zarathushtra’s virgin birth is the Avesta, which
    dates to several centuries following Christ. If one religion borrowed the idea
    of virgin birth from another, the borrowing was on the part of
    Zoroastrianism, not Christianity – to say otherwise is place events out of
    their historical order.

    He was baptized in a river.


    The only identification of Zarathushtra with a river is that it was on the
    bank of a river where he claimed to have received his divine enlightenment.
    He was practicing a pagan purification rite at the time, but baptism is not a
    rite of purification. Rather, baptism is a seal of the covenant God made with
    man. Purification, or justification, comes through faith and by the grace of
    God, not by baptism.

    In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.


    Zarathushtra did have an effect on certain wise men, but not as the claim
    suggests. King Vishtapsa believed Zarathushtra’s claims of divine
    revelation. According to tradition, the king’s magi, or “wise men,”
    conspired against Zarathushtra after he made them the subject of ridicule.
    As a result of their conspiracy, Zarathushtra was imprisoned, only to later be
    released when he supposedly healed the king’s horse.4

    He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.


    Following Jesus’ baptism, and before He began His public ministry,
    Jesus was tempted of Satan after withdrawing to the wilderness for a period
    of forty days, during which time He engaged in a fasting and prayer. In the

    171
    case of Zarathushtra, although he was tempted by a demon, the
    circumstances are different in several ways – in the location, the time and
    duration, the tempter, and the manner of temptation. Zarathushtra’s
    temptation came after ten years, did not last forty days, and no wilderness
    setting is described for the event. He was not tempted by Angra Mainyu, the
    primary force of evil and the polar opposite of the god Ahura Mazda, but by
    a lesser demon.5 In Jesus’ temptation, Satan tempted Him to satisfy His
    hunger by turning bread into stones, by inviting His to cast Himself from a
    pinnacle of the Temple in order to invoke angels to come to His rescue, and
    by offering Jesus an earthly kingdom if He were to bow before Satan. In the
    case of Zarathushtra, the temptation constituted the demon attempting to
    compel him to renounce his faith.

    He began his ministry at age thirty.


    Zarathushtra was said to be age thirty when he claimed to have received
    his first vision, although the source for this information, Pahlavi literature,
    dates after the time of Christ. Additionally, as stated under an earlier
    heading, the age at which Jesus began His public ministry was due to a
    Jewish regulation, established during the days of Moses (long before
    Zarathushtra), which states a man needed to be thirty years of age in order
    to serve as a “master.” In so doing, Jesus was acting in obedience to the
    Mosaic Law, not mimicking a prior religious icon.

    Zarathushtra baptized with water, fire, and "holy wind."


    Zarathushtra did not baptize his converts, with water, fire, wind, or any
    other element. Fire is a sacred element in Zoroastrianism, but Zoroastrians
    certainly do not baptize one another with fire, else their congregation would
    quickly dwindle in number. Zoroastrians have been known to pray before a
    flame, but baptism is not a practice of the religion. Besides, Jesus is never
    said to have performed baptisms.

    He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.


    The Avesta does not record Zarathushtra casting a demon from a body
    possessed by it. He did (supposedly) rid people of pestilence and drive out
    sorcerers, but this was not done by any form of exorcism. The account of
    Zarathushtra giving sight to a blind man dates to the tenth century A.D.6 and
    more closely resembles an herbal remedy than it does a miracle, for the
    blind man received sight after Zarathushtra dropped juice from a plant into
    his eye.

    He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection,
    judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.
    Since this claim involves theological, rather than biographical,
    considerations, these so-called similarities will be addressed in the section
    below dealing with doctrinal comparisons.

    172
    He had a sacred cup or grail.
    Zarathushtra did not possess a sacred cup, and despite claims made by D.
    M. Murdock, Arthurian legend, and Indiana Jones, neither did Jesus possess
    a Holy Grail. The cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper was just
    an ordinary cup, no different from the cup used by others in the same room.
    The legend of the Holy Grail, or the cup of Christ, is a medieval legend, not
    Gospel record.

    He was slain.
    The circumstances of Zarathushtra’s death are uncertain, and some of the
    versions do not involve a slaughter. The most accepted version of his
    demise is that he was killed at age seventy-seven while in a temple.7
    Nevertheless, the claim here is that Zarathushtra was “slain,” not that he
    was crucified, or wore a crown of thorns, or was scourged – simply that he
    was killed. Such an end to one’s life is absolutely no reason to presume
    influence by the slaying of a past religious leader. Rather, it is merely an
    attempt to allude to a comparison which does not even exist in the first
    place – and it is likely done because the conspiracy theorist is aware of the
    lack of such comparison and is therefore grabbing at whatever information
    may be manipulated in favor of his or her argument. The death of the
    Messiah was foretold long before Zarathushtra was killed (assuming that he
    did in fact pass in such a fashion), being foretold by prophets and poets
    writing before the Hebrew captivity at the hands of the Persians. Also,
    regardless of the manner of Zarathushtra’s death, his passing served no
    redemptive purpose. Whether Zarathushtra was killed, died of old age, or
    choked on a pretzel, his death bore no significance for those after him, and
    certainly was not foretold by anyone or foreknown by Zarathushtra himself
    before the event, as was the case with Jesus.

    His religion had a Eucharist.


    This aspect will be dealt with in the section below, regarding religious
    observations.

    He was the "Word made flesh."


    Zarathushtra was never referred to as such, and neither were the three
    prophet-saviors recognized by Zoroastrianism.

    Zarathushtra’s followers expect a "second coming" in the virgin-born savior,


    who is to come in 2341 A.D. and begin his ministry at age thirty, ushering in a
    golden age.
    This aspect will be dealt with in the section below, regarding messianic
    considerations.

    Suggested theological influence on Christianity


    The basis for arguing that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism and, subsequently,
    Christianity, is the premise that the Hebrews, while under captivity in Persia, became
    tainted with Zoroastrian beliefs which were not part of Judaism prior to the captivity.

    173
    These beliefs include a formal angelology with an established hierarchy, the doctrine
    of immortality and bodily resurrection, a virgin-born Savior having supernatural
    abilities, a concept of a final judgment, and the idea of a supreme evil being such as
    Satan. Before taking a look at these concepts which are supposed to be exclusively
    post-exilic in nature, it first serves to examine the nature of the Babylonian exile and
    its effect on the Hebrews.

    The national effect of the exile on the Hebrew population


    The Hebrew captivity did not occur overnight. According to Jeremiah, the
    Babylonian captivity of the Hebrews took place over three deportations (Jer
    52:28-30). The first deportation occurred in 597 B.C. (2 Kings 24:10-16), the
    second in 586 B.C. (2 Kings 25:1-21), and the third in 581 B.C. (Jer 52:30). The
    captivity ended in 539 B.C. when Cyrus the Great permitted the Hebrews to
    return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple, which was razed during the second
    deportation. Thus, the total period of time during which the Hebrews were under
    captivity in Persia was fifty-eight years.

    The estimated population of the kingdom of Judah at the time of the exile
    was at least 120,000,8 but the number of people taken captive through all three
    deportations is believed to have been 48,000, about one-third of the total
    population. Upon Cyrus’ decree, approximately 1,800 men, or 6,000 people in
    all, returned to Jerusalem (Ezra ch 8) under Ezra’s leadership.

    The social effect of the exile on the Hebrew people


    The Babylonian captivity of the Hebrews was not such that the captives were
    held under lock and key in rat-infested dungeons or made to serve their Persian
    captors at the behest of a whip. Rather, they lived a more pleasurable lifestyle
    than did those who were not taken into captivity. The captives were allowed to
    engage in family life, work the ground, and even accrue wealth (Jer 29:5-7).
    With some exceptions under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule, the Hebrews were even
    allowed to continue certain aspects of their religion. Although they were unable
    to observe the annual Hebrew feasts, they were permitted to engage in
    undisturbed practice of such things as circumcision, fasting and prayer, and the
    keeping of the Sabbath day (Hosea 9:3-5). Because of such favorable
    conditions, some of the captive Hebrews grew comfortable in their newfound
    state and gradually lost their devotion to their former homeland. For this reason,
    the Hebrews who returned to Jerusalem following the exile were but a portion
    of the original lot. In fact, some even remained behind in Persia, having given
    themselves to inter-cultural marriages, a thing which was forbidden in Mosaic
    Law. Consequently, some of the Hebrews forsook their beliefs and embraced the
    religion of the pagans, thus causing a rift among the Hebrew captives, between
    those who remained faithful to their religion and those who abandoned it in
    favor of another. Of those who remained true to Judaism, their devotion to
    Judaism grew even stronger, in response to the apostasy of their brethren.

    The true pain of the captivity was the national humiliation felt by the Hebrew
    people, being subject, although not oppressively so, to their Persian captors. It is

    174
    this humiliation which the Hebrew prophets lamented, being removed from the
    land promised to the Hebrews as part of the covenant God made with Abraham.
    The Hebrews also suffered harsh ridicule by their captors for their pious
    religion. The ruined state of their nation was perceived by the Persians as
    weakness on the part of Jehovah for His inability to preserve His people as a
    nation, rather than recognizing, as did the prophets, their captive state as a
    consequence of national sin. These prophets became the object of ridicule even
    by their own people – those who had embraced Babylonian religion and culture.

    The spirit of the post-exile Hebrews


    Upon the decree of Cyrus, those who remained devoted to the faith of their
    father Abraham returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, re-establish their
    former system of ceremonies and observances, and maintain the devotion to
    Judaism, a devotion which they upheld during their time in captivity. Those who
    lost such devotion remained behind or left for lands elsewhere. Rather than
    engaging in festive celebrations, those who returned from captivity spent their
    days in penance and prayer (Zech 7:3 and 8:19). Since the return of the exiles
    occurred only fifty-eight years after the captivity began, many of those who
    were alive at the beginning of the exile, and observant of the strict and rigid
    Mosaic Law and monotheistic religion, were among those to return to Jerusalem
    to reinstate their former religious system. Had the return of the exiles been a
    generation or two later than it was, the remnant of the pre-exilic Hebrews would
    be drastically reduced, if not altogether non-present, among the population,
    thereby giving way for the possibility of a drastic revision of Judaism from its
    original character, being revived by those who knew nothing of what it was to
    experience firsthand the sacrificial system of the Temple. However, since the
    post-exilic Hebrews had among them an elderly generation who knew firsthand
    and by experience what was the original structure and style of Judaism, that
    original character and performance of their religion was able to be revived in
    post-exilic Palestine. Those who, young and old, remained true to Judaism
    during the exile saw to it that, that system of religion was revived without the
    blemish of pagan influence or perversion, the younger generation taking its cue
    and direction from the elder generation, under the leadership of Ezra and
    Nehemiah.

    Dating the book of Daniel


    The book of Daniel contains references to beliefs which are said to have
    emerged among the Hebrews as a result of a merger between Judaism and
    Zoroastrianism, references such as the naming of certain angels (Michael and
    Gabriel) and a day of judgment. Therefore, it is important to determine when
    the book was written, for the further removed it is from the captivity, then
    greater is the possibility of the book containing reflections of pagan influence.
    As stated above, the Babylonian captivity was from 597-539 B.C. There are two
    general dates for the book of Daniel. The first suggested date is c.165 B.C. and
    those who hold to this date generally view the book as fiction. The second
    suggested date is during the first half of the exile, or between 597-565 B.C.
    Those who hold this view regard the book to be historical in nature. The

    175
    majority of scholars agree that the book was written during the exile, since the
    later date is unreasonable, as linguistic evidence strongly suggests. It is widely
    recognized that the books which make up the canon of the Old Testament
    Scriptures were all written prior to 400 B.C., and for this reason the 400 year
    period between the closing of the Old Testament canon and the time of Christ is
    referred to as the “silent years.”

    The real influence


    There are two main reasons for assuming that Zoroastrianism influenced
    Judaism. The first assumption is the belief that the last written books of the Old
    Testament hold a date later than that which is traditionally agreed upon by
    majority consensus among scholarship. As stated above, these books were all
    composed prior to 400 B.C., only within a century and a half of the Babylonian
    exile which ended in 539 B.C. Other books, such as Job (written c.1300 B.C.)
    and the books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy, c.1400 B.C.), are
    incorrectly dated in order to conform to the assumption based on a late dating of
    certain books. Evidence for an early writing of Job will be discussed shortly
    hereafter. The second assumption is that the Old Testament books written prior
    to the exile do not contain references to certain beliefs expressed in exilic and
    post-exilic prophecy, such as bodily resurrection, a supremely evil being, a final
    judgment, a meta-human savior, etc. This assumption will be proven false in the
    following section.

    When the books of the Old Testament are dated with accuracy, and the
    theology of later pre-Christian Judaism is shown to be consistent with early pre-
    Christian Judaism, it becomes obvious that if there was indeed any borrowing of
    concepts, it was Zoroastrianism which borrowed from Judaism, not vice-versa.
    It must also be remembered that Zoroastrianism is a religion which emerged,
    according to popular consensus, just within a hundred years prior to the
    beginning of the exile. The idea that an ancient religion such as Judaism would
    be influenced by a new religion (or, more properly named a cult) is simply
    untenable. It may be asked: what about the mythical character of the books of
    the Apocrypha? It is true the Apocryphal books, dating closer to the Christian
    era, contain elements (such as a more elaborate angelic hierarchy) not found in
    the books recognized among the Old Testament canon, and it is for this reason
    they are not considered among the books of Scripture.

    176
    Main beliefs of Zoroastrianism, in comparison with Christianity

    1. The supreme God


    The Zoroastrian belief
    Zoroastrianism recognizes a supreme triad of deities, the greatest of which is
    Ahura Mazda. The Avesta, the scripture of Zoroastrianism, describes him as
    eternal, all-seeing, all-knowing, mighty and great, just and righteous,
    transcendent, unchanging, the creator of all things, and the source of goodness
    and happiness. He is commonly represented by fire, and for this reason fire is a
    sacred element to Zoroastrians. The other two supreme beings in this triad is
    Mitra, or Mithra, and Varuna, but it is Ahura Mazda who reigns supreme over
    the other two and to whom Zoroastrians offer their worship.
    Evaluation
    Christianity also recognizes a Divine Trinity*, the Father, the Son, and the
    Spirit. Each person of the Trinity is equal in nature, essence, and being. Neither
    person is separate from the other, but the three form a single unified Godhead.
    The Godhead is eternal, holy, sovereign, immutable, transcendent, omnipresent,
    omnipotent, omniscient, just, pure, and good. The plurality within the Christian
    Godhead is recognized in the Old Testament and was believed by the Hebrew
    people long before their Babylonian exile. The Old Testament recognizes a
    figure named the Angel of the Lord. This Angel is distinct from other angels in
    Scripture, for He is recognized as a physical manifestation God Himself. What
    more, this Angel is seen conversing with God (for a fuller treatment of the Angel
    of the Lord, see Part five). Also, the name Elohim (used numerous times in pre-
    exilic Hebrew Scripture) denotes a plurality of being, rather than a single Person
    within the Godhead. It is this name used in the creation account when it is said
    that God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1). Also, in the
    creation account, and elsewhere in Scripture, God is said to speak amongst
    Himself in the plural tense, as when, in the Genesis creation account, “God said,
    ‘Let us make man in our image.’” The idea of a plurality in the Godhead did not
    arise from the Zoroastrian religion; but rather, existed as an element in Judaism
    long before the captivity.
    The god of Zoroastrianism is not a god who is zealous to preserve a people
    unto himself, as is the God of the Bible. Ahura Mazda leaves the work of
    redemption to man himself, rather than providing a way to redeem people who
    are unable to provide their own redemption. While it is said he created man, he
    seems more content to leave man to his own devices , then sit back and hope for
    the best, rather than sovereignly governing man in accordance with his own will.
    On the contrary, the God of Israel provided for them a legal code, given through
    Moses, by which they were instructed in the proper way of life and conduct. He
    is a God Who is both loved and feared by His devotees. In contrast, Ahura
    Mazda is more of a buddy god, rather than a holy god at whose word people
    tremble.
    * The person and nature of God will be addressed further in Part five of this
    work.

    177
    2. Polytheistic beliefs
    The Zoroastrian belief
    In addition to the triad of deities made up of Ahura Mazda, Mithra, and
    Varuna, Zoroastrianism also recognizes six lesser deities known as the Amesha
    Spentas (“Bountiful Immortals”), each being the embodiment of one of Ahura
    Mazda’s attributes, as listed below:

    Vohu Mano – The spirit of the good purpose


    Asha – The spirit of righteousness
    Khshatra – The spirit of sovereignty or dominion
    Armaiti – The spirit of devotion and love
    Haurvatat – The spirit of perfection and wholeness
    Ameretat – The spirit of immortality.

    Although the Amesha Spentas are believed to be representative of certain


    aspects of god’s being, they are not considered as being equal to the supreme
    god Ahura Mazda. Nevertheless, they do participate in activities strictly assigned
    to god, such as taking part in creating the cosmos. In addition, these ones are
    worshiped as god, as stated in the Zoroastrian scriptures: “We worship the good,
    strong, beneficent Fravashis [ancestral spirits] of the Amesha Spentas...who are
    all seven of one thought, who are all seven of one speech, who are all seven of
    one deed..."9 These deities were not part of Zarathushtra’s original vision, but
    were added later as a result of prince Vishtaspa’s conversion to the religion.
    These six spirits serve as an aid to Ahura Mazda in his divine efforts in
    protecting good and containing evil, tasks which he has in fact turned over to
    man.

    Evaluation
    In contrast, Judaism has its angels, but these ones are not revered as deity. In
    fact, in the Old Testament, when a man is said to bow before an angel, the angel
    responds with words of rebuke. In addition, when the Hebrew people forsook
    their religion to worship a god other than Yahweh, they suffered harsh
    consequences, such as pestilence, famine, captivity, and death, among other
    forms of judgment. The Old Testament expressly describes the God of Israel as
    “one God,” and that, apart from Him, there is “no other.” (for more on the
    oneness of God, see Part five)
    In Judaic and Christian doctrine, angels are created spiritual beings who
    serve God, not as ones possessing the attributes of God, but as God’s
    messengers to man (the word “angel” is derived from “angelos,” meaning
    “messenger”). In Scripture, only two angels are mentioned by name: Michael
    and Gabriel. A further identification of angels was provided in the apocryphal
    book Enoch I in which angels are identified by the names Raphael, Uriel,
    Raguel, Zerachiel and Remiel, but this book is outside the books recognized as
    Scripture since the earliest days of the church. The New Testament ambiguously
    lists types of spiritual beings in Ephesians 1:21 (named as “rule, authority,
    power, and dominion”) and Colossians 1:16 (named as “thrones, dominions,

    178
    principalities, and powers”), but does not provide a definite angelic hierarchy as
    does apocryphal literature. It was not until centuries after Christ that a formal
    angelic hierarchy developed, which appeared in Pseudo-Dionysius’ Celestial
    Hierarchy (fourth or fifth century A.D.) and Thomas Aquinas’ Summa
    Theologica (c.1250 A.D.). In these writings, the authors took it upon themselves
    to expand upon Paul’s letters to Ephesus and Colosse.

    3. Spirits of malevolence
    The Zoroastrian belief
    Zoroastrianism teaches there is a force known as the Druj (that is, the 'Lie'),
    which is at war with Ahura Mazda. The principal being in service to the Druj is
    Angra Mainyu (meaning “destructive spirit”), the archenemy of Ahura Mazda.
    As Ahura Mazda is the supreme good, so is Angra Mainyu the supreme evil.
    Angra Mainyu is the source of all evil, as Ahura Mazda is the source of all good.
    It is from this evil spirit that such things as sickness, disaster, disease, death, and
    hardship comes to man.

    As Zoroastrianism developed and elaborated on its doctrine, Angra Mainyu


    was given seven Amesha-stentas, each corresponding to one of his attributes, as
    the Amesha Spentas correspond to Ahura Mazda’s attributes and stand as their
    opposite. The Amesha-stentas are named as follows (in contrast to the seven
    good spirits):

    Amesha Spentas Amesha-stentas


    Asha Drui
    (The spirit of righteousness) (The spirit of falsehood)
    Vbhu monah Akem
    (The spirit of good purpose) (The spirit of evil mind)
    Kshathra Dush-kshathra
    (The spirit of sovereignty or dominion) (The spirit of cowardice)
    Armaiti Taromaiti
    (The spirit of devotion and love) (The spirit of false pretense)
    Haurvatat Avetat
    (The spirit of perfection and wholeness) (The spirit of misery)
    Ameretat Merethyn
    (The spirit of immortality) (The spirit of annihilation)

    Zoroastrianism also recognizes six beings, known as the Daevas, on a lower


    rung of the demonic ladder, beneath the Amesha-stentas. The Zoroastrian
    Daevas are described as neutral spirits, although they do promote chaos and
    engage in deceitful activities. The Daevas are named as follows:

    Akoman (the evil mind)


    Indra-vayu (death)
    Saurva (disease)
    Nanhaithya (a daeva related to the Vedic god Nasatya)

    179
    Tauru (identification of this daeva is ambiguous)
    Zairi (the daeva of the sacred narcotic drink Haoma, used in some
    Zoroastrian rituals)

    Evaluation
    Angra Mainyu, the archenemy of Ahura Mazda, is not one which can be
    likened to Satan, since Angra Mainyu is described as being as eternal, uncreated,
    and powerful as Ahura Mazda. In fact, he and Ahura Mazda are referred to as
    the “Twin Spirits.”10 In contrast, the Christian concept of Satan is that he is a
    being created by God, cast from God’s presence for his disobedience, seeks to
    corrupt God’s creation, and will one day be cast into everlasting damnation.
    Such is unlike the description of Angra Mainyu. Ahura Mazda is not a being
    who reigns supremely, else Angra Mainyu would not be described as being
    equal with deity. In Scripture, it is stated that the demons’ belief in God causes
    them to tremble (Jas 2:19), whereas the Zoroastrian devil is one who is capable
    of vying with god himself.
    Critics charge Judaism and Christianity with borrowing the idea of a supreme
    evil being, such as Satan or Lucifer, from Zoroastrian beliefs. The fact is that
    Judaism held to a belief in Satan, or the devil, long before the Babylonian
    captivity. One of the oldest books of the Old Testament is the book of Job, in
    which it is said:

    Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves
    before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said
    unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and
    said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in
    it. And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job,
    that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one
    that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD, and
    said, Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about
    him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast
    blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
    But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse
    thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is]
    in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went
    forth from the presence of the LORD. (Job 1:6-12)

    Scholarship holds the date of writing of the book of Job to be prior to the
    Hebrews’ bondage to Egypt and subsequent deliverance under Moses’
    leadership. Thus, Job was written during the days of the Patriarchs (Abraham,
    Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph). Such is the view of the Talmud, a view which is
    expressed in the social, political, and religious structure described in Job. The
    patriarchal family-clan organization described in Job mirrors the pre-Exodus
    period described in the latter portions of the book of Genesis. Also, in Job, the
    sacrificial offerings are presented to the Lord by the head of a family, as it was
    before the Egyptian bondage, rather than by an officiating priest, as it has been

    180
    since the days of Moses. Finally, the lifestyle and lifespan of those mentioned in
    Job more closely resembles a composition during the age of the Patriarchs,
    rather than a later era.

    In addition to Job, the book of Psalms, also written prior to the exile,
    mentions Satan by name in Psalm 109:6 “Set thou a wicked man over him: and
    let Satan stand at his right hand.”

    The status of Angra Mainyu does not resemble that of Satan, for Satan, while
    he does oppose God and seeks to destroy His creation, is not one who is
    opposite to God in being, for he is neither all-powerful nor eternal in nature. In
    at least one passage of the Avesta (Yasna 57.17) Angra Mainyu is said to have
    created the world along with Ahura Mazda, despite Ahura Mazda being
    described elsewhere as the “sole creator.” This is in stark contrast to the prophet
    Ezekiel’s declaration concerning Satan: "You were blameless in your ways from
    the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." (Ez 28:15,
    NASB)

    The census of David:


    The Old Testament contains a pair of verses which give a parallel account of
    an event during the life of King David when he conducted a census of the people
    of his kingdom, yet the two verses also contain a striking contrast in that God
    and Satan are described as instructing David to order the task.

    And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved
    David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2 Sam 24:1
    NASB)

    And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (I
    Ch 21:1 NASB)

    This parallel account is believed by some to serve as proof that Judaism


    borrowed the idea of Satan from the Zoroastrian concept of Angra Mainyu,
    especially since the books of the Chronicles are believed to have been written, as
    scholarship agrees, around 450-400 B.C., after the Babylonian exile. This is in
    contrast to the writing of the books of Samuel, which majority rule dates
    somewhere between 913-722 B.C. As previously stated, pre-exilic Hebrew
    poetry contains mention of the person of Satan in the book of Job and in the
    Psalms. How then can the above discrepancy be explained if it was not due to a
    revision of concepts?

    First of all, it must be noted that the capitalization of “he” in the KJV
    translation of Second Samuel is an error on the part of the translators of that
    version, an error which is corrected in later English translations.

    Second, the numbering of the people was a thing forbidden in the Mosaic
    Law (Ex 30:12, below); therefore, God could not be the one who ordered

    181
    David to conduct the census, since God cannot sin nor break His own Law.
    As a result of the census, God brought a pestilence against Israel which
    killed 70,000 men.

    When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to those
    that are numbered of them, then shall they give every man a ransom for
    his soul unto Jehovah, when thou numberest them; that there be no
    plague among them, when thou numberest them. (Ex 30:12)

    Third, David’s counselor, Joab, was aware that the numbering of the
    people was an act reserved for God, not man, and so he challenged David’s
    order.

    And Joab said unto the king, Now Jehovah thy God add unto the
    people, how many soever they may be, a hundredfold; and may the
    eyes of my lord the king see it: but why doth my lord the king delight
    in this thing? (2 Sam 24:3)

    Fourth, David himself became aware that his act was an act of iniquity
    and a cause for punishment. Had the order come from God, David would not
    have been in the wrong in numbering the people, for “for God cannot be
    tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man.” (Jas 1:13)

    And David’s heart smote him after that he had numbered the people.
    And David said unto Jehovah, I have sinned greatly in that which I
    have done: but now, O Jehovah, put away, I beseech thee, the iniquity
    of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. (2 Sam 24:10)

    As Matthew Henry explains, “We are sure that God is not the author of sin—
    he tempts no man; and therefore, when it is said that he moved David to do
    it, it must be explained by what is intimated here, that, for wise and holy
    ends, he permitted the devil to do it.”11

    4. The duality of good and evil


    The Zoroastrian belief
    Zoroastrianism believes in a duality of good (“asha,” i.e., truth and order).and
    evil (“druj,” i.e. chaos), which will come to an end in a future time when Ahura
    Mazda will triumph over evil. This duality of good and evil is seen in various
    fashions: in the opposing forces within the cosmos, the inner conflict on man to
    choose either good or evil, and the battle between the two supreme beings,
    Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. The duality is believed to have originated
    when the two “Twin Spirits,” Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, chose opposing
    directions. The former chose good thoughts, words, and deeds, whereas his twin,
    Angra Mainyu, chose the evil counterpart of these.
    “Now at the dawn of life the Twin Spirits, which were dormant at first, did
    unfold themselves In their thoughts, in their words, and in their deeds they

    182
    are of two kinds -- on the one hand Better and on the other hand Worse. And
    between these two, the Wise discriminate rightly; not so the Unwise.”12
    Following in Angra Mainyu’s path, the daevas chose to align themselves with
    him and has since been the bane of mankind.13
    Evaluation
    According to Judaism and Christianity, God is infinitely good. Evil is
    nowhere expressed in Scripture as possessing the same infinite quality as
    goodness. Satan is not God’s “twin,” striving against Him as His equal. In order
    for something to be good, there must be an opposite standard against which it is
    judged. God is good, not only because if what He is; but also, because of what
    He is not. God is infinitely good, but Satan is not infinitely evil, else God’s
    sovereignty would be of no effect. Were there a second “sovereign” force in the
    universe, apart from God, then no one would be sovereign at all, for to be such
    requires the right and possession of authority and power over all others.

    5. The nature of man

    The Zoroastrian belief


    According to Zoroastrianism, man was created “like god.” According to their
    doctrine, divinity is inherent in man’s constitution, and as such, man has the
    ability not to sin; but rather, to perform “good thoughts, good words, and good
    deeds” all day, every day. Zoroastrians believe that man is born sinless and that
    he becomes guilty of sin by making wrong choices in life, choices for which he
    is nonetheless responsible. When man does make wrong choices, they say, he
    does not become sinful either in thought, word, or deed, although he has
    committed a wrongdoing. This inherent divinity within man prevents him from
    becoming evil himself – only his thoughts, words, or deeds become evil, while
    the man himself remains sinless and divine. As the creation of Ahura Mazda,
    man is also responsible to maintain creation and preserve it from evil as much as
    possible. This act of preservation on the part of man is made a reality due to the
    inherent divinity within man. Because he is “like god,” he is capable of
    overthrowing evil and “assisting god.” It is thorough man’s good choices that
    evil will eventually be eradicated, when every man on earth has chosen good
    rather than evil, and “heaven on earth” will be a reality.
    Evaluation
    In the Zoroastrian creation account, Ahura Mazda creates the first man and
    woman, Mashye and Mashyane, created from earthen matter and made to be like
    the gods. The Hebrew account of creation, while it does describe the first man as
    created from earthen matter (the first woman was created from a rib taken from
    Adam), neither Adam nor Eve was created to be like God. They were created in
    God’s image (Gen chs 1-2), but they were not created to be divine beings. Such
    a concept of likeness with deity was a lie of the serpent which deceived Eve
    (Gen 3:4-5). According to Zoroastrian doctrine, man possesses inherent divinity.
    According to Biblical doctrine, man is born in sin, has no inherent divinity, and
    is in no way likened to God.

    183
    The Zoroastrian view of man is so drastically different from both the Judaic
    and Christian view of man that any supposed Babylonian influence on either
    system of doctrine is absolutely preposterous.

    First, man is not “like God.” Man was created in a state of innocence,
    but not in a state of perfection. He was able not to sin, but he was also able
    to sin. After committing sin, man became sin in and of himself, for his very
    nature was changed from that of innocence to that of corruption. Following
    that transformation of nature, the state of being in sin comes not the result
    of what a man does; but rather, what he is. Zoroastrianism teaches that man
    is neither fallen (from his original state of sinlessness), depraved, nor sinful.
    The truth is that man’s thoughts, words, and deeds of man are a reflection of
    his heart, and it is that which makes man guilty of sin. If it were only man’s
    thoughts, words, and deeds which were sinful, while the man himself
    remained sinless, then Ahura Mazda would be unjust in passing negative
    judgment on anyone, for the man himself would remain sinless and divine,
    although he had committed sin. Thus, Ahura Mazda himself would become
    guilty of sin, for he would be condemning the innocent to a punishment for
    a sin he did not commit in and of himself. In other words, he would be
    condemning man for the appearance of sin, although the man actually still
    remained sinless. Such a belief implies an impossible division within the
    makeup of man, a division which separates his being from his thoughts,
    words, and deeds. In a court of law, if the defense attorney made his case on
    the grounds that his client’s actions were guilty of the alleged crime, but his
    client himself is innocent of the charge, his logic, as well as his capability to
    practice law, would no doubt come into question. So it is here, that the
    actions, words, or thoughts of man cannot be separated from the man
    himself, a feat which Zoroastrianism attempts to accomplish.

    Second, the Zoroastrian view of man makes God man's partner in the
    perfection of mankind, for it is by the choices of man that evil will be
    eradicated. Some so-called “Christian” bumper stickers claim that “God is
    my co-pilot.” Such an expression reflects the sad state of the contemporary
    church, which tends to attribute more sovereignty to man than it does to
    God, as if God has resigned His sovereignty to man and is sitting on His
    great white throne with His fingers crossed, hoping for the best. The
    Biblical view of God’s sovereignty is that which perceives Him in the
    following regard:

    As wholly authoritative, He possesses the legal right to do what He


    pleases.
    As wholly powerful, He possesses the means to do as He pleases.
    As wholly transcendent, He holds the surety that these means will not
    be challenged.
    As wholly righteous, He provides the guarantee that His purpose is
    good.

    184
    Such a god-like view of man as seen in the Zoroastrian religion does not at
    all bear a resemblance to the intrinsically corrupt view of man as portrayed
    in the Bible, nor does it bear a resemblance to the infinitely sovereign God
    of the Bible who directs all things according to His purpose and who will be
    the one and only Victor over evil.

    Third, Zoroastrians believe they earn favor with God by fulfilling the
    maxim “Good thoughts, good words, good deeds.” As such, it is a religion
    of works, not of grace. It follows then that any benevolent response by
    Ahura Mazda to a faithful and true devotee is simply the god’s obligation to
    reward that for which he would be unjust in pronouncing negative
    judgment. According to Judaic and Christian doctrine, man is absolutely
    incapable of gaining the favor of God, and for this reason Christ agreed to
    submit to the Father’s will and offer Himself as a sacrifice by which such
    favor would be assuredly granted to those for whom the sacrifice was made.
    Nowhere in the Avesta will there be found passages such as those below:

    As it is written, There is none righteous, not even one. (Rom 3:10,


    NASB)

    For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:23,
    NASB)

    6. The path of redemption


    The Zoroastrian belief
    The way of salvation for the Zoroastrian is to adhere to the central maxim of
    the religion: “Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds.” In so doing the
    devotee remains sinless (which he should already be, by virtue of his supposed
    divinity), pure, and free from evil. Aside from the three-fold maxim, Ahura
    Mazda provides little further instruction for a code of conduct. Zarathushtra
    never received a book of the law, written in stone or otherwise. However, by
    studying the teaching of Zarathushtra, man may receive generalized guidance on
    how he should live. The more severe the sin, the more severe is the punishment,
    up to and including death. Evil thoughts, evil words, and evil deeds may be
    involve the obvious sins, such as theft, murder, adultery, deceit, and the like; but
    also, equally forbidden is pollution, abstaining from prayer and religious
    ceremonies, not wearing the sacred Zoroastrian garments (the kusti and the
    kadre) as prescribed, improper business practices, marrying in a manner other
    than that described in the scriptures, improper burial practices, and touching
    dead matter.
    Evaluation
    In contrast, the way of redemption for the Christian is anything but by the
    keeping of good works. The apostle James describes works as a fruit of one’s
    faith. Jesus said He is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” and that “no man comes
    to the Father except through [Him].” (Jn 14:6) Elsewhere, it is said that “there is
    no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.”

    185
    (Acts 4:12) The only good work by which any man is redeemed is the work of
    Christ, in His giving of Himself as a sacrifice for sin. Through His offering of
    Himself, man is forgiven and justified in the sight of God. This is the teaching of
    the New Testament writers and it was the preaching of the Old Testament
    prophets. The Hebrew code of Law also forbade certain marriage practices,
    ethical business practices, and an abstinence from coming into contact with
    certain things deemed unclean, either physically or spiritually. However, such a
    code of Law was established in the days of Moses, approximately eight hundred
    years before the advent of Zoroastrianism.
    If the Zoroastrian mode of salvation was an influence on the post-exilic
    Hebrews and the composers of the Gospels and letters of the New Testament,
    then we would have a completely different version of the life of Christ and
    apostolic teaching than is expressed in the Christian Bible. Gone would be the
    inability of man to redeem himself, for his inner divinity would certainly shine
    through as a beacon guiding a ship lost at sea. Gone would be the cross and the
    resurrection, for such would be unnecessary for man’s redemption. Gone would
    be the exhortations to be like Christ, for man’s inner divinity would supply him
    with such lofty status. The fact is, the Zoroastrian way of salvation is no
    salvation at all, for it leaves man to his own devices, and the end thereof is the
    way of death. As Josh McDowell explains, "Zoroastrianism believes that a
    person earns favor with God by his good works. There is no answer to the sin
    problem of mankind, for the difference between a good man and a bad man is
    considered to be only relative. According to the Bible, there is no one who is
    good enough on his own to make it to heaven. This is why Jesus Christ had to
    die on the cross, to solve the problem of sin."14
    7. Religious observances
    The Zoroastrian belief
    Zoroastrians have several means of pleasing the gods. Yasnas are purifying
    rituals, performed in a temple and officiated by a priest, by which channels of
    communication are said to be opened between the participants and a deity or
    spiritual being recognized by Zoroastrians.
    Devotees are to offer five prayers at set times daily. The chanting of
    Manthras (by which the devotees and the world around them are purified),
    verses from the Avesta, and participating in religious festivals are also a means
    of gaining favor with the gods. Through the Manthras, devotees are believed to
    be performing the three-fold maxim of the religion. Children of devotees are
    inducted into the religion through Naujote, an initiatory ceremony. None of the
    above mentioned ceremonies resemble any observance held by Christians.
    Zoroastrians do observe the Jashan ceremony, which some have hailed as a
    close resemblance to the remembrance of the Lord's Supper. The Jashan (a word
    meaning “important occasion”) is performed for two purposes: 1) in conjunction
    with certain religious festivals or to honor birthdays or memorialize historical
    events, or 2) as a mourning ceremony to memorialize tragic events or the death
    of loved ones.15 The Lord's Supper, while being a ceremony of remembrance of

    186
    the sacrifice of Christ, is a solemn communal meal serving to recognize the
    covenant God made with His people that by His blood shall they forever be free
    of the guilt of sin and be named as sons of God. The Jashan ceremony bears no
    such significance. Additionally, the elements used in the Jashan ceremony are
    fruits, nuts, and malido (wheat pudding), each placed in metallic trays and laid
    out on a white cloth on the floor, upon which are placed a minimum of twenty-
    four flower petals, laid on the cloth in a set order. In the center of the cloth is
    placed a Divo (oil-lamp) and an Afarganyu (Fire-vase) with a burning flame, fed
    and tended to by the priest during the ritual. A beaker of water, a pot of milk, and
    a glass of wine are also used in the ceremony. None of the elements used serve
    as a representation of the body and blood of a savior. Rather, the elements of the
    ritual serve as symbols of the seven Bounteous Immortals, the guardians of the
    seven creations of Ahura Mazda. The representation is as follows:

    Bounteous Immortals Represented by Created element


    Khshathra Vairya metallic implements Sky
    (used to feed the flame)
    Hauravatat water Water
    Spenta Armaiti place of ceremony Earth
    Ameretat flowers and fruits Planets
    Vohu Manoh the milk in the pot Cattle
    Spenta Mainyu the performers Man
    Asha fire Fire

    After the elements are laid out, a series of prayers are recited, along with a
    reading of Yasna 35. During the ceremony, the priest invokes a deity and gives
    honor to the dead through a complex and rigid series of movements of, and
    interaction with, the elements. As Dr. Jivanji Modi explains, “this process
    symbolizes that a soul has to come down to this physical world, move about in
    this world and then pass away to the next spiritual world with the triad of good
    thoughts, words, and deeds.”16 The ceremony closes with the recital of the Doa
    Tan Doroshti, a benediction for the health, happiness, and prosperity of the
    participants of the ceremony, as well as for the well-being of the community and
    mankind.

    Evaluation
    In a typical church service, the observance of the Lords Supper begins with
    the pastor explaining the meaning of the observance, along with a reading of the
    following passage:

    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. 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

    187
    Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and
    drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood
    of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread,
    and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and
    drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this
    cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor
    11:23-30 NASB)

    Then, either the bread (or wafer) or wine (or grape juice) is distributed, which,
    following a prayer, is consumed by the congregation. The second element is then
    distributed in the same manner. Following the consumption of the two elements,
    another prayer is given, typically in thanks for the sacrifice made by Christ in
    the offering of His own body and blood.

    Clearly, the Lord's Supper and the Jashan ceremonies bear no resemblance in
    the character of the ceremony, the conduct of the participants, the elements
    involved, and, most importantly, the meaning behind the ceremony. A typical
    communal meal is not the same as the communal meal observed by Christians
    when they partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The differences
    between the Christian sacrament and pagan communal meals will be discussed
    in Part four, but here it will suffice to say that pagan communal meals do not
    involve a symbolic representation of the body and blood of a person in the
    elements which are consumed by the participants, as does the remembrance of
    the Lord’s Supper. The significance of the Lord's Supper sacrament is that it is in
    remembrance Christ's offering of His body and blood as atonement for sin, thus
    reconciling God and man. If that aspect is removed from the sacrament, then the
    sacrament itself becomes meaningless and any such comparison to the Jashan
    becomes null and void. Also, the Eucharist is a practice which was a later
    addition to certain schools of thought within Christianity, and does not have
    actual basis in Scripture. In the Eucharist, the elements are said to undergo
    Transubstantiation, in which they are transformed into the literal body and blood
    of Christ while yet retaining the characteristics by which the elements are
    perceived by the senses. Such a revision of the Lord’s Supper was not contrived
    until centuries after Jesus met with His disciples in the upper room on the night
    of His betrayal.

    Additionally, Zoroastrianism also observes a ritual involving the


    hallucinogenic haoma plant, from which juice is extracted and consumed by the
    participants as a means of attaining immortality. The plant itself is so named
    after Haoma, a chief priest who Zarathushtra believed to be the son of Ahura
    Mazda and perpetually present among man in the incarnation of the haoma
    plant. Such a rite bears no significance to the Lord’s Supper, for it involves no
    remembrance of an atonement, nor does participation in the Lord’s Supper
    ceremony bestow salvation – rather, it is because one has been redeemed that he
    or she may participate in the observance.

    188
    Finally, the rituals of Zoroastrianism involve occult practices such as
    channeling (communication with spirit beings) and necromancy
    (communication with the dead), and such practices are strictly forbidden in
    Scripture. In the Old Testament, the punishment for engaging in such practices
    was severe.

    There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his
    daughter pass through the fire, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or
    one who casts out a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up
    the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord; and
    because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out
    before you. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12, NASB).

    8. The commission of prophets and the savior of man


    The Zoroastrian belief
    Zarathushtra is the first prophet through whom Ahura Mazda revealed truth
    to man, and it is through his teaching that man can be instructed in the way of
    righteousness. Zoroastrian devotees believe Zarathushtra’s birth marked the
    beginning the current cycle of creation, a cycle which would last for three
    thousand years. Following Zarathushtra, a prophet would appear to man every
    one thousand years. The first to appear would be Hushedar; the second,
    Hushedarmah; and the third, Saoshyant, or “savior,” who will appear in 2341
    A.D. to usher in the Judgment Day and the destruction of evil. These three
    prophets would all come into the world in the same fashion: by being born of a
    virgin after she conceived as a result of bathing in a river in which was
    contained the preserved seed of Zarathushtra. The third prophet, the Saoshyant,
    will appear at the end of time to be the final judge of man and eradicate evil
    once for all. The Saoshyant’s conception and early life is described in Dēnkard
    7:

    “Thirty years before the decisive final battle, a maiden named Eredat-fedhri
    [i.e. "Victorious Helper"] and whose nickname is "Body-maker" will enter a
    lake [believed to be present-day Lake Helmand, in Seistan, Iran]. Sitting in
    the water, the girl, who has not associated with men will receive victorious
    knowledge. Her son, when born, will not know nourishment from his
    mother, his body will be sun-like, and the royal glory of Khwarenah will be
    with him. Then, for the next fifty-seven years he will subsist on only
    vegetables [for 17 years], then only water [for 30 years] and for then [for
    the final 10 years] only on spiritual food.”17
    Evaluation
    The Dēnkard, from which the above passage was quoted, was not written
    until the ninth or tenth century. Prior to that time, the Zoroastrian scriptures only
    briefly mentioned the coming of a savior, in Yasht 19.

    “That will cleave unto the victorious Saoshyant and his helpers, when he
    shall restore the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never

    189
    die, never decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and
    master of its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will
    come, and the world will be restored at its wish; … Astvat-ereta [‘he who
    embodies truth’] shall rise up from Lake Kasava [Kasaoya], a friend of
    Ahura Mazda, a son of Vispataurvairi [‘she who conquers all’], knowing the
    victorious knowledge.”

    The role of the Saoshyant in Zoroastrian eschatology did not fully develop
    until after the composition of the Dēnkard. Prior to that time, it was believed
    that either Zarathushtra himself or a future son would return to the world at the
    end of time to eradicate evil. The expansion of the savior idea from one to three
    persons did not develop until after the ninth century A.D. Also, it was not until
    this time that the notion of a virgin birth was added to the belief, a notion which
    was likely borrowed from the Christian account of the birth of Christ. Any
    attempt to claim that Christianity borrowed the idea of a virgin birth from
    Zoroastrianism is to date the Zoroastrianism belief in virgin birth prior to its
    actual emergence within the religion. Dating aside, the Zoroastrian savior differs
    greatly from the person of Jesus Christ.

    First, the Saoshyant, although said to be born of a virgin, was not


    conceived through virginal conception, but by the preserved human seed of
    Zarathushtra. In the case of Jesus, the fetus was formed in the womb of
    Mary without male seed. As mentioned previously, the Saoshyant's mother
    is to become impregnated after bathing in the river containing
    Zarathushtra's preserved seed. Thus, the true method of the Saoshyant's
    conception is by artificial insemination, not virginal conception. Today,
    when a woman utilizes a sperm bank and is injected with the frozen sperm
    of a donor, her child is certainly, and rightfully, not recognized as being the
    product of a virgin birth. Whether the seed is preserved supernaturally in a
    river or scientifically through a sperm bank, it is still human seed by which
    the subject is artificially inseminated; therefore, no virgin birth can be
    attributed to either scenario.

    Second, the Saoshyant does not save people from evil by making them
    guilt-free, nor does his saving work resemble that of Christ. The Saoshyant
    does not take upon himself the wrongdoings of man. He is said to be a
    judge, but, as will be seen shortly, his judgment is not just, for, in the end,
    everyone, both the “good” and the wicked, is blessed with eternal
    happiness, regardless of what deeds were performed in life.

    Third, the details of the life of Christ fulfilled prophecy which was
    announced prior to the emergence of the Zoroastrian religion in the sixth or
    seventh century. In addition to the earlier books of Scripture, such as the
    Psalms, the prophet Isaiah (740-680 B.C.) foretold the Messiah would be
    virgin-born, although such was not recognized as a Messianic prophecy
    until after the birth of Christ. Micah (eighth century B.C.) foretold that
    Bethlehem would be the birthplace of the Messiah. Jeremiah (627-586

    190
    B.C.), a contemporary of Zarathushtra, foretold Herod’s slaughter of the
    children. Hosea (790-686 BC) foretold Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt, which
    occurred prior to Herod’s slaughter.

    Fourth, the Saoshyant was only as divine as any other man, as regarded
    by Zoroastrian beliefs concerning the previously mentioned inherent
    divinity assumed to be within all men. According to the religion, Saoshyant
    will be a son of Zarathushtra, not directly descended from Ahura Mazda,
    but born from the preserved seed of Zarathushtra. He will be fully human,
    as Jesus was fully human (although not conceived by means of human
    seed), but will be no more divine than Bob the car salesman, or Jane the
    housewife, or any other person throughout history, since divinity is believed
    to be a part of man’s inherent constitution. Prior to the emergence of
    Zoroastrianism, Isaiah prophesied concerning the nature of the coming
    Messiah. In so doing, he identified the Messiah as God Himself by
    attributing to Him names which can only be attributed to God, such as
    “Mighty God, everlasting Father (a term denoting eternality – see Part
    four),” and “Immanuel” (meaning, “God with us”).

    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 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. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no
    end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and
    to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for
    ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isa 9:9-7)

    The passage above also identifies the Messiah as one who will sit on the
    throne of David, a position which no man could claim following the reign
    of King Jehoiachin, the last descendant of King David to ever sit on the
    throne. God’s covenant to David was that He would maintain the throne of
    David forever, but after Jehoiachin’s reign a curse was pronounced on
    David’s lineage that no “man of his seed” will ever again sit on David’s
    throne. The pronouncement of this curse on the royal lineage was due to the
    sin of Jehoiachin’s father, Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim was a vile king and his
    reign was marked with pagan idol worship and human sacrifice. Because of
    Jehoiakim’s sin, the royal lineage of David came to an end with the reign of
    Jehoiachin.

    The passages below state that God’s covenant with David is for an
    everlasting kingdom:

    Although my [David’s] house be not so with God; yet he hath


    made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and

    191
    sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he
    make it not to grow. (2 Sam. 23:5)

    The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from
    it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. (Ps. 132:11)

    I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David


    my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy
    throne to all generations. (Ps. 89:3-4)

    My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of
    my lips. (Ps. 89:34)

    The pronouncement of the curse on David’s lineage:

    Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall
    not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting
    upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. …
    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 22:30, 23:5-6)

    The curse resulting from Jehoiakim’s sin prevented any man in David’s
    lineage from reigning as king, yet David’s kingdom was to be an everlasting
    kingdom. The fulfillment of the covenant made with David was through the
    birth of Jesus Christ. As God, born of a woman, Jesus was removed from
    being of David’s physical seed, and therefore separated from the curse
    placed upon David’s lineage. However, as the legal son of Joseph, a
    descendant of David, Jesus became the legal heir to David’s throne. It is
    through this that Jesus met the qualifications for Davidic kingship that such
    a king shall not be of the seed of man (which Jesus was not by virtue of
    virginal conception), but shall still be of the seed of David (which Jesus
    legally became through Joseph’s parentage). At His birth, Jesus not only
    received the right to be man’s Redeemer; but also, the legal right to depose
    Roman rule and establish His physical throne in Jerusalem, and in that sense
    He truly was “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” as mockingly written
    on a superscription placed above His head as He hung on the cross.
    Presently, the throne of David is in heaven, where Christ sits at the right
    hand of the Father, until the day when His throne will be physically
    established among man and He will reign as the Most High King.

    In relation to this, the Hebrews would not have fabricated a Messiah


    Who was God in the flesh, for such a concept was abhorrent to the Hebrews

    192
    and contrary to the high elevation they placed on God, as opposed to the
    lowly estate held by man. More on this point will be stated in Part six.

    Fifth, since the Zoroastrian savior is a man conceived by human seed,


    although supernaturally so, his existence did not precede his conception, as
    was the case with Jesus. A fuller treatment of Jesus’ pre-existence will be
    presented in Part five. None of the three prophet-saviors recognized by
    Zoroastrianism, existing as men living among men, are beings who possess
    more worth than any other man. As Peter Clark explains, "...The saoshyants
    are not considered to be divine beings, and nor are they of the spiritual]
    realm. Despite the fact that they are born miraculously, they are still
    creatures of the material creation. The co-operation of humanity has always
    been a fundamental tenet of the Zoroastrian teaching concerning the
    frashokereti [the final purging of man by which all men emerge justified
    and free from evil]."19

    Sixth, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth did not fit the messianic
    expectations of the Hebrews, and therefore does not fit the description of
    any Messiah originating in Hebrew invention. The Messiah was believed to
    come as one who would be a national Savior who would depose the ruling
    oppressors and restore the nation of Israel, ruling as their King in Jerusalem.
    Jesus, on the other hand, was a man with no home of His own. He did not
    carry a sword. He sat with publicans and sinners, those with whom it would
    be unthinkable for Messiah to keep company. Had the Gospel writers
    fabricated a Messiah of their own, the Gospels which we now have would
    be drastically different and would certainly not include a crucifixion
    account. If indeed a crucifixion account did appear in such a version of the
    Gospel, it would be Jesus ordering Pilate to be crucified, rather than Jesus
    Himself hanging on the cross.

    Mention must be made concerning a passage from the Apocrypha relating the
    coming of a deliverer. The book of Second Esdras (ch 13), written after the
    Babylonian exile, states that “in the last days” (v 17) a deliverer, identified as the
    son of God (v 37), shall come “from the sea,” (v 3) an appearance reminiscent of
    the coming of the Saoshyant, of whom it is said he will be conceived while his
    mother is bathing in a river, in which has been preserved the seed of
    Zarathushtra.

    After seven days I dreamed a dream in the night. And lo, a wind arose from
    the sea and stirred up all its waves. As I kept looking the wind made
    something like the figure of a man come up out of the heart of the sea. And
    I saw that this man flew with the clouds of heaven; and wherever he turned
    his face to look, everything under his gaze trembled, and whenever his
    voice issued from his mouth, all who heard his voice melted as wax melts
    when it feels the fire. (vs 1-4 RSV)

    193
    Following the dream, the writer of the book asks the Lord to reveal the reason
    that this deliverer came from the sea (v 51 RSV).

    [The Lord] said to me, Just as no one can explore or know what is in the
    depths of the sea, so no one on earth can see my Son or those who are with
    him, except in the time of his day. (v 52 RSV)

    This passage, although written after the exile, is not among those books
    recognized as Scripture, and is therefore irrelevant when considering allegations
    of Zoroastrian influence on the New Testament writers. Nowhere in Scripture is
    there a prophecy that a Deliverer will come from the sea and even if the writers
    of Apocryphal book were influenced by the Babylonian myth, no such influence
    is evident in the books of the New Testament.

    9. The afterlife
    The Zoroastrian belief
    In Zoroastrian belief, at death a person's spirit leaves the body, but resides
    near it for three days thereafter. Following the third day, the spirit, led by Daena,
    the guardian spirit, leaves the physical realm and enters the spiritual realm,
    ascending past the stars, the moon, and the sun, each representing the good
    thoughts (the stars), words (the moon), and deeds (the sun) performed in life.
    When the spirit arrives at the Chinawad bridge (the “Bridge of the Requiter”),
    before Mithra and his two companions, Sraosha and Rashnu, it is judged
    according to its works, then its destiny is determined, whether it be led by Vohu
    Manah, the “Good Mind,” to the House of Song, or heaven, or topple off the
    bridge into the House of Lies, or hell (which awaits in the deep chasm beneath
    the bridge), a cold, dark place of torment at the hands of evil spirits. As the soul
    is judged, it must cross the bridge, a journey which is difficult for the sinner, but
    pleasant for the good soul. If it is determined the good deeds balanced the evil
    deeds, then the spirit is sent to an intermediate state, a Purgatory-like domain.
    The spirit is there consigned, either to joy and happiness, or to torment, to await
    the final judgment.
    "0 Mazda Ahura, whosoever, man or woman, gives me those things which
    you know are the best of existence: reward for truth and power through
    good thought, and whom I stimulate to glorify those such as you, with all
    those I will cross over the Account-keeper's Bridge." (Yasna 46.10)
    The following passage describes the work of the Saoshyant in the Last Day.
    “We sacrifice unto the awful kingly Glory, made by Mazda .... That will
    cleave unto the victorious Saoshyant and his helpers, when he shall restore
    the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never die, never
    decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and master of
    its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will come, and
    the world will be restored at its wish; When the creation will grow
    deathless, - the prosperous creation of the Good Spirit, - and the Druj shall

    194
    perish, though she may rush on every side to kill the holy beings; she and
    her hundredfold brood shall perish, as it is the will of the Lord.”20

    Evaluation
    Early Zoroastrianism does not contain a definite “end times” doctrine. The
    passage mentioned above affirms the belief in everlasting life and the
    abolishment of evil, but such is to be expected in a religion which holds, along
    with Christianity, to the immortality of the soul, and should therefore come as no
    striking correlation. It has been alleged that Judaism did not hold to a doctrine of
    immortality prior to the exile, but that the development of such a doctrine is the
    result of a merger between the Judaic and Babylonian religions.

    Genesis, written long before the Babylonian exile, states that man was made
    in God’s image (Gen 1:27), which in itself implies some sort of undying
    existence. When God placed Adam in Eden, He commanded that Adam not eat
    of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, for "in the day that thou eatest
    thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen 2:17) Had Adam not sinned, he would not
    have died, since death came as a consequence of his sin. The life that he would
    have lived would have been a life in the flesh, not just a continuance of his spirit
    after the death of the body.

    The spirit of man, unlike his body, is not regarded by Jews to ever suffer
    death. Even in ancient pre-exile times, the Jews believed that at death the spirit
    leaves the body to enter Sheol, the abode of the dead, a place void of joy and
    from where deliverance is only possible by the hand of God. The hope of the
    Patriarchs and poets on ancient Israel was that God would deliver their souls
    from this awful place.

    Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom. (Job 33:24
    NASB)

    Oh that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol, That thou wouldest keep me secret,
    until thy wrath be past, That thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and
    remember me! (Job 14:13)

    But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall
    receive me. (Ps 49:15 NASB)

    The following passage is concerning David’s anguish after the death of his
    infant son.
    But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I
    shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. (2 Sam 12:23 NASB)

    In addition to the hope that the soul would be delivered from Sheol
    following the death of the body, ancient Judaism also held to a belief in the
    eventual resurrection of the body itself. The book of Proverbs states, “In the
    way of righteousness is life, and in its pathway there is no death"(12:28 NASB).

    195
    The word translated “death” here is “maveth,” a word which has specific
    reference to bodily death. Additionally, one of the Psalms of David contrasts the
    material pleasures of this world with beholding the form of God, a thing which
    no man can do while still in mortal flesh.

    From men by thy hand, O Jehovah, From men of the world, whose portion
    is in this life, And whose belly thou fillest with thy treasure: They are
    satisfied with children, And leave the rest of their substance to their babes.
    As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when
    I awake, with beholding thy form. (Ps 17:14-15)

    I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end He will stand upon the
    earth. Even after my skin is destroyed, yet from my flesh I shall see God (Job
    19:25-26 NASB)

    The New Testament account of the resurrection of Christ is hardly the result
    of any borrowing of ideas from Zoroastrianism. The fact is that the Hebrews,
    prior to any supposed Babylonian influence, adhered to a belief in the
    immortality of the soul as well as bodily resurrection. Additionally, modern man
    has no solid early Zoroastrian expression which gives him insight as to exactly
    what the early devotees of that religion did or did not believe concerning the
    afterlife. Much of the Zoroastrian eschatological doctrine that is known today
    came as a later development during the Middle Ages. As R. C. Zaetner states,
    "…we have no evidence as to what eschatological ideas the Zoroastrians had in
    the last four centuries before Christ. The eschatologies of the Pahlavi books,
    though agreeing in their broad outlines, differ very considerably in detail and
    emphasis; they do not correspond at all closely to the eschatological writings of
    the intertestimentary period nor to those of St. Paul and the apocalypse of St.
    John."21

    Critics’ allegations which refer to the concept of purgatory are completely


    unfounded, since such a concept does not appear in either Zoroastrian or
    Christian doctrine until centuries after Christ. Scripture itself does not teach a
    doctrine of Purgatory. Such a doctrine was an element the Catholic Church took
    upon itself to add to their theological framework.

    10. The final judgment


    The Zoroastrian belief
    At the Last Day, three thousand years from the time of Zarathushtra, the
    bodies of the dead will be resurrected and reunited with their spirits for a second
    and final judgment. At this time there will be a great and final conflict in which
    the forces of good will fight and kill the forces of evil, thus restoring peace to
    the cosmos. Once the battle is over, the metal in the mountains of the earth will
    melt and flow through the earth as a river of fire. Mankind, both the good and
    the wicked, will be required to pass through the river. For those who have been
    previously judged as living the good life, the passage through the burning river

    196
    will be as warm milk, but for those who have not lived a good life, the passage
    will be agony, yet for only three days. Following the three days passage through
    the fire, all mankind, those who lived a good life as well as those who lived a
    wicked life, having been purged from all wrongdoing, will live together in peace
    and joy on earth, having endured the frashokereti (from Avestan, meaning "to
    make wonderful"), being newly refined and refreshed by fire. Ahura Mazda's
    evil twin, Angra Mainyu, will have either been defeated or rendered powerless,
    so that all of man's thoughts, words, and deeds will forever remain good.
    Evaluation
    Elements common to both Christian and Zoroastrian eschatology include: 1)
    reward or punishment after death, 2) a second judgment or purging, 3) bodily
    resurrection in the last days, 4) a final battle between good and evil, with the
    forces of good being the victors, 5) and a catastrophic renovation of the earth. It
    can be said with certainty that such concepts were present within Christianity
    during the apostolic age, for such is found in the New Testament. However, as
    stated above, the same cannot be said of Zoroastrianism, since much of its
    known end-times doctrine was added after the beginning of the Christian era.
    The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology offers the following statement
    concerning the real copycat culprit: “The Persians no doubt received from the
    Semites the notion of a last judgment and related ideas: [such as] world
    salvation prepared by a Messiah.”22

    The vivid contrasting element between the Zoroastrian and Christian


    eschatological models is the concept of justice present therein. The Christian
    concept of divine justice will be further examined in Part five, but will be stated
    here in summation. According to Christian doctrine, those who do not believe in
    Christ as their Savior will face everlasting torment, while those whose sins are
    covered by the sacrifice of Christ will enjoy the everlasting peace and presence
    of God. According to Zoroastrian doctrine, the good and the wicked will both be
    blessed with everlasting peace and joy, after a final purging of all – in short,
    everyone wins. Ahura Mazda, in rewarding the wicked with the same benefits as
    the good, becomes deprived of justice and rewards even those who have most
    violated the three-fold maxim of “good thoughts, good words, good deeds.”
    Zoroastrians would say that since he is good, he does not punish the wicked, but
    in so doing, he goes so far as to take part in their wickedness.

    II. Concerning the Luxor inscription


    An Egyptian temple in the city of Luxor contains a number of inscriptions which,
    according to critics, are said to portray Horus’ birth as occurring in a manner very similar
    to Jesus’ birth. The inscriptions and accompanying panels on the walls of the temple have
    been dated to be over 3,500 years old. They are said to depict Amun announcing to a
    virgin woman that she will conceive Horus, after which she is impregnated by the spirit
    Kneph, the “holy ghost,” and gives birth to Horus, who is then adored by three kings.
    Critics of Christianity claim this is an “exact” depiction of the birth of Jesus and is proof

    197
    that the Gospels are mere fabrications of motifs already in existence for centuries prior to
    Christ.

    Egyptologists have determined that the series of inscriptions in question refers to


    Amenhotep III, a pharaoh during Egypt’s eighteenth Dynasty. The woman in the
    inscriptions is not Isis; but rather, Tiye, Amenhotep’s wife (by virtue of being a queen of
    Egypt, she became an arch-type of the goddess Isis). The infant is not Horus, but Ra, a
    deity with whom Horus became merged in later times.1

    The sequence of events as depicted in the inscriptions is as follows:

    Annunciation Conception Birth Adoration

    Historian Richard Carrier, a professed atheist, has made the following


    observations in commenting objectively on the temple inscriptions.2

    In panel four of the series the god Amun is seen getting into bed with
    Amenhotep’s wife on the night of her wedding before she and her husband
    consummate the marriage. The god appears to her in the guise of Amenhotep
    and “enters her,” according to the inscription. As she mates with the god,
    Thoth stands by and watches them as Amun has his way with the queen.
    According to the inscription, Amun “does everything he wished with her.”
    The ensuing language of the inscription is wildly erotic as it depicts the sexual
    union between the two. After they finish mating, Amun tells the queen that he
    has impregnated her and she will give birth to his son. She then confesses her
    love for Amun, after which the child is named Amenophis (or "Amun is loved
    [or satisfied]"). The panel ends with Kneph entering the womb of the queen to
    form the fetus out of clay.

    In panel eight, the birth is announced and Kneph imparts the soul of Amun
    to the fetus by touching the queen with the ankh.

    In panel nine, the infant is born

    Panel ten and onward depicts the infant being adored by persons of
    importance.

    198
    A closer look at the alleged parallels:

    Does the annunciation mirror Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary?

    In the inscription, the annunciation is made by Amun after he


    impregnates the queen, whereas Mary was told beforehand that she would
    conceive through virginal conception.

    Amun does not tell the queen her son will be a savior. He simply says
    she will bear him a son.

    Mr. Carrier notes, “… the cycle depicted at Luxor does not match up
    in the same sequence with the Christian narrative. The annunciation
    follows the conception in the Egyptian cycle, though Brunner explains
    that, for technical reasons in Egyptian morality and law, the girl could not
    know she was having sex with a god, rather than her real husband, until it
    was too late, and so it was necessary to have the annunciation follow the
    conception in order to maintain propriety, i.e. the Queen did nothing
    immoral. Thus, the difference here reflects the difference in culture.”

    Does the conception in the Luxor inscriptions mirror the conception of Jesus?

    The queen is not impregnated until after she loses here virginity to the
    god Amun. Mary does not lose her virginity until after Jesus was born
    (Mt 1:25).

    The pregnancy is announced after, not before, Amun mates with the
    queen.

    She is impregnated through insemination, not through the working of


    the spirit Kneph.

    Kneph’s work in the queen is not to place the fetus within her womb,
    but to impart the existing fetus with the soul of the god.

    When Kneph touches the queen with the ankh, it is not for the purpose
    of impregnating her, for she was already pregnant at the time.

    Kneph enters the queen to form the fetus and unite him with the soul
    of Amun, but this occurs after Amun announced she was pregnant, not
    before.

    In the Luxor inscription, the annunciation comes after the queen is


    impregnated; however, in the Gospels, the annunciation precedes the
    conception.

    199
    Does the adoration mirror the magi’s adoration of Jesus?

    In the Luxor inscriptions, the ones seen in adoration of the infant are
    not clearly identified. Historians have determined they represent either
    statesmen or lesser deities.4 In any case, they were not equivalent to the
    order of the magi. Magi were not statesmen, but were counselors,
    scientists, and astronomers. Egypt had no equivalent to the magi.
    Egyptians did have sorcerers, however, the figures in the inscription are
    not depicted as sorcerers.

    III. Concerning suspect confessions of prominent ancient


    Christian writers

    The witness of the apostle Paul


    Some critics use the verse below as a confession by the apostle Paul that the
    Gospel of Christ is derived from pre-existing myths and beliefs. The reason for the
    claim is that at the time of Paul’s writing, the Gospel had not yet been spread
    throughout the whole world, yet Paul speaks of it as being preached to every creature
    under heaven.

    If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from
    the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every
    creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister. (Col. 1:23)

    As critic Craig M. Lyons comments, “Paul was preaching a God manifest in the
    flesh, who had been believed on in the world before the commencement of his
    ministry. Dear one, this could not have been Jesus of Nazareth, who had certainly
    not been preached at that time, nor generally believed on in the world till ages
    after. ... it is not comforting to a Christian to learn the truth about 'the Gospel' which
    Paul taught.”1 The fact is that Mr. Lyons did not do his homework on this passage.

    First, Paul is employing a Jewish idiom by his use of universal language to refer
    to that which is not as universal as may be indicated on the surface. In making
    reference to “every creature which is under heaven,” Paul is not speaking of every
    living person on the face of the earth. The Greek word translated “every” is the word
    pas, which may be used in two ways: either 1) individually, as a reference to an
    object as comprising part of a whole (“everyone, everything, all, every, all things”),
    or 2) collectively, as a reference to a whole being comprised of some of all types, or
    every sort, within that whole.2 The Gospel was preached to everyone, regardless of
    race, class, age, gender, or background. The same expression is used in Acts 2:5
    where it is said that "...there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of
    every nation under heaven." Taken literally, this would be impossible, for certainly
    there was no one from the Americas present in the Jerusalem populace. Also, by
    Paul's own admission, there were areas where he preached where Christ was not
    named (Rom. 15:20). In like fashion, in John 12:19, the Pharisees state that “the

    200
    world” had become followers of Jesus, and the evangelist Luke makes use of the
    same idiom when he says that Mary and Joseph journeyed to Bethlehem because “all
    the world” was under Roman taxation (Lk 2:1). It was common in that time to refer
    to the Roman Empire as the “world,” and certainly every nation on earth was not
    under obligation to respond to Roman laws and regulations.

    Second, it is to be observed that Paul, in stating that the Gospel “was preached to
    every creature which is under heaven,” is making reference to the wide-spread
    success of the early Christians' evangelistic effort, which is duly noted in surviving
    texts from ancient secular historians such as Pliny the Younger and Suetonius. The
    “Gospel” in question is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and, as Mr. Lyons is correct in
    stating, such a Gospel could not have possibly existed before Jesus' incarnation. The
    span of time to which Paul is referring does not pre-date the public ministry of
    Christ; but rather, entails that period of time from the beginning of His preaching to
    the time of Paul's writing his letter to the Colossian church.

    The witness of Irenaeus


    Irenaeus was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul during the second century A.D.
    He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. The
    following quote is attributed to Irenaeus: “The thirty aeons are not typified by
    the fact that Christ was baptized in His thirtieth year: He did not suffer in the
    twelfth month after His baptism, but was more than fifty years old when He
    died.”3 The quote is from the heading to the twenty-second chapter of Book II
    of his work Against Heresies, however, the work was not divided by Irenaeus
    into its present form. Irenaeus divided the work into five books, but he never
    divided these books into chapters. Historian Philip Schaff and the editors under
    his direction supplied the titles or headers for each chapter when compiling the
    works of the early church fathers into their current thirty-eight volume
    collection. However, the chapter is question does deal with the age of Jesus,
    and it is to this chapter which we now turn our attention.

    Against Heresies was written in response to Gnostics who attempted to pervert


    Scripture in order to apply their own interpretations to certain passages. Their point
    was that Jesus died only one year after His baptism, thus fulfilling the "sufferings of
    the twelfth Aeon." Concerning their beliefs, Irenaeus writes:

    "They endeavor, for instance, to demonstrate that passion which, they say,
    happened in the case of the twelfth Aeon, from this fact, that the passion of the
    Savior was brought about by the twelfth apostle, and happened in the twelfth
    month. For they hold that He preached [only] for one year after His baptism….
    Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He
    continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they endeavor to
    establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, ‘To proclaim the
    acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution’), being truly blind,
    inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not
    understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor
    the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which

    201
    includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve
    months.”4
    This brings us to the chapter in question. In arguing against these heresies, Irenaeus
    points out that, following His baptism, Jesus journeyed to Jerusalem on more than one
    occasion in order to observe the annual Passover.5 In the fourth section of this chapter
    Irenaeus addresses the docetic belief that Jesus only appeared human, but was not
    really flesh and blood. In so doing, Irenaeus discusses Jesus’ progression through
    every stage of human development and maturity, from infancy to old age.
    “Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing
    the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be
    properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing
    while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only
    in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a
    Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or
    evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law
    which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by
    that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to
    save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through Him are born
    again to God - infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He
    therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus
    sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of
    this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety,
    righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to
    youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old
    man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as
    respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at
    the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise.
    Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born
    from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence," the
    Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.”

    Then, in section five, he states:


    “They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that
    which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain
    that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month.
    [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying
    His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary
    and more honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during
    which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had
    disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He
    had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had
    not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty
    years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it:
    "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He
    came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only

    202
    one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He
    suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained
    to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty
    years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will
    admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline
    towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the
    office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who
    were conversant in Asia* with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming]
    that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them
    up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but
    the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and
    bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we
    rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw
    the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest
    trace of an apostle?”

    * The term “Asia” likely refers to the Roman province of Asia, of which the city of
    Ephesus was the capital. Some critics believe Irenaeus was saying that Jesus was
    in Asia until the time of Trajan, but Irenaeus is in fact referring to the apostle John,
    not Jesus, as he states elsewhere: “The church at Ephesus was founded by Paul,
    and John remained there till Trajan’s time; so she is a true witness of what the
    apostles taught.”6
    In the above passage, Irenaeus makes reference to the stages of life as recognized
    by the ancient Jews, who reckoned old age to begin at the fiftieth year.
    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)
    From this passage, the Jews reckoned that a man reached the “age of a master,” or
    the age at which he may enter into service as a rabbi, or priest, at age thirty, and that
    following age fifty, he entered into “old age.” Irenaeus refers to someone under thirty
    as a “young man,” and that ages thirty to forty are the “first stage of life,” and
    between forty-one and fifty a man begins to "decline towards old age." It is this final
    stage of life, “old age,” which Irenaeus says Jesus “possessed while He still fulfilled
    the office of a teacher." He then says that those "who were conversant in Asia with
    John, the disciple of the Lord,… conveyed to them” that Jesus reached the age of
    fifty, the stage of old age. Then, in section six of the same chapter, Irenaeus appeals
    to Scripture as a basis on which to establish his claim concerning the age of Jesus.
    Below is the passage to which he refers, followed by his comments from section six.
    Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who died? … Jesus answered, …Your
    father Abraham rejoiced to see my 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? (Jn 8:53-54, 56-57)

    203
    * Some commentators claim that the Jews were mistaken on Jesus’ age, claiming
    that he possibly looked older than He actually was. Rather, it is more likely they
    were stating He was under the age of fifty, the age reckoned to be the beginning of
    one’s elder years, without specifying His actual age at the time. They merely
    placed Him in the age bracket of thirty to fifty. As commentator Matthew Henry
    paraphrases, the Jews were saying, “Thou art not yet reckoned to be an old man;
    many of us are much thy seniors, and yet pretend to have seen Abraham.”7
    “But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus
    Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said
    to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and
    was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast
    Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who
    has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his
    fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only
    thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty
    years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would
    certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they
    saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age,
    whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public
    register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was
    above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years
    of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken
    by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of
    Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they
    beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He
    did not then wont much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with
    that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou
    seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He
    suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the
    thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year….”8

    The oral tradition to which Irenaeus refers, when stating Jesus reached the age of
    fifty, exists nowhere in any ancient text. In fact, among ancient literature, all other
    references to Jesus’ age at the time of His death corroborate the Gospels that Jesus
    was thirty-three when He died. So what was Irenaeus saying? Was he just using
    faulty reason in his effort to refute the Gnostic claims, or was he really trying to
    make the claim that Jesus was just under fifty when He died? By his own admission,
    Irenaeus does accept events as they are accounted for in the Gospels, and he affirms
    the Gospel account of the ascension and the day of Pentecost

    “This Spirit did David ask for the human race, saying, ‘And stablish me with
    Thine all-governing Spirit;’ who also, as Luke says, descended at the day of
    Pentecost upon the disciples after the Lord's ascension, having power to admit
    all nations to the entrance of life, and to the opening of the new covenant; from
    whence also, with one accord in all languages, they uttered praise to God, the

    204
    Spirit bringing distant tribes to unity, and offering to the Father the first-fruits of
    all nations.”9

    In holding to the Gospels’ chronology, he accepted that Jesus suffered under


    Pilate, who was governor of Judea from 26-36 A.D. Jesus could not have suffered
    under Pilate when he was age fifty. Since Jesus “about thirty” in the fifteenth year of
    Tiberius' reign (Luke ch 3), He would not have reached age fifty until 45 or 46 A.D.
    Since He appears to present an elderly (that is, fifty – according to Jewish reckoning)
    Jesus, yet adheres to the Gospel chronology in other sections of his works, it is
    unclear as to his original intentions. Without the benefit of being able to interview
    him personally, there are several interpretations one can make relating to his
    statements.

    1. The majority of scholars named as experts in the writings of the church


    fathers conclude that in stating Jesus was fifty, Irenaeus may have forced a
    faulty Christo-centric time line in his zeal to counter the claims of the Gnostics
    that Jesus died at age thirty, after preaching for only one year. In other words, he
    perhaps ignored or overlooked certain facts in order to reach conclusions which
    both the Gospels and Irenaeus himself, elsewhere, clearly refute. Irenaeus was a
    man of faith who believed the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ, and he
    stated that Jesus observed three annual Passovers following His debut as a
    public preacher at age thirty, which corresponds to a death at age thirty-three, as
    the Gospels record.

    “But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that,


    while affirming that they have found out the mysteries of God, they
    have not examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after his
    baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the Passover, to Jerusalem,
    in accordance with what was the practice of the Jews from every
    land, and every year, that they should assemble at this period in
    Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the Passover. … Now, that
    these three occasions of the Passover are not included within one
    year, every person whatever must acknowledge.“10

    Simply put, he knew better – yet, in his zeal, he engaged in faulty reasoning.
    2. Irenaeus may be arguing in light of the Jewish reckoning of stages of human
    maturity. The point behind Irenaeus’ argument is that Jesus did not die after only
    one year of ministry, while He was still a “young man,” according to the Jewish
    reckoning that a young man was under age thirty. According to this view, he is
    merely saying Jesus was older than thirty at the time of His death – “as the
    Gospel [of John] testifies,” he says. Thus, he is placing Jesus within the next
    stage of maturity, which is, according to the same reckoning, between the ages
    of thirty-one to fifty, an age during which a man begins to pass from “youth” to
    “old age.” He begins by stating Jesus was twenty-nine when He was baptized:
    “For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year,
    but was beginning to be about thirty years of age.” He then makes the point that

    205
    Jews considered the age bracket of thirty-one to forty as approaching old age,
    but not yet in old age: “Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty
    years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit.”
    Then, he states that from ages forty to fifty, one begins to grow nearer to old age
    and farther from being a young man: “from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man
    begins to decline towards old age.” This is the point where his reasoning departs
    from the Gospel account. His conclusion was that Jesus “possessed” this latter
    stage, ages forty to fifty, “while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher,” and
    that this is according to what “the Gospel and all the elders testify.” However,
    the “testimony” that the Gospels affirm is that Jesus died at age thirty-three,
    following a three year-long public ministry, and while He was reckoned as a
    “master,” one between the ages of thirty-one to fifty, He did not live to age fifty.
    Irenaeus’ conclusion is not that Jesus lived to age fifty, but that He was
    somewhere between the ages of forty and fifty when He died, and was nearing
    age fifty: “though "not want[ing] much of being fifty years old." Of course,
    whether he stated Jesus died at age thirty-four or at age fifty is comparing apples
    to apples, since both ages, and every age in between, differ from the Gospels’
    testimony, as well as the testimony of the “elders” (church fathers).

    3. What of the “tradition” to which Irenaeus refers claiming Jesus reached age
    fifty? As said above, there is no such church tradition which claims Jesus was
    fifty years old when He died. Here, we have an individual making a statement,
    then attempting to validate that statement by appealing to dubious “traditions”
    which he believed were true, despite the contrary claims of the New Testament
    writers and earlier church fathers. As one apologist states, “There is no evidence
    whatever that Irenaeus was actually giving testimony to an actual and explicit
    Church tradition; rather, it seems he was using the data of tradition and
    subverting it to a theological motif for polemical purposes contra heretics. In
    other words, tradition itself is absolutely unscathed by Irenaeus claims here;
    rather, what we have is evidence of Irenaeus himself making a few marginal
    wrong turns in his attempt to ‘connect the dots.’”11

    The witness of Eusebius


    The following two quotes by the Christian historian Eusebius have been presented
    as evidence that the person of Jesus, as well as Christianity itself, is based on pre-
    Christian concepts.
    "... the names of Jesus and Christ were both known and honored by the
    ancients."12
    "... that which is called the Christian religion is neither new nor strange, but-if it
    be lawful to testify the truth-was known to the ancients."13
    In book one, section two of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius discusses the pre-
    existence of Christ, as the second person of the Trinity and as Creator of the
    Universe. He alludes to Paul’s confession in his letter to the Colossian church
    (1:15-16) that Christ existed before all things, as well to John’s declaration (Jn 1:1)
    that in the beginning, Christ, as the Word of God, was not only “with God,” but “was

    206
    God.” He then discusses the Old Testament appearances of Christ to men such as
    Abraham (Gen 18), Jacob (Gen 32), and Joshua (Josh 5), then concludes with a
    mention of Christ as the subject of Old Testament prophecy.
    In book one, section three, Eusebius explains how “the names of Jesus and Christ
    were both known and honored from the first." He explains that the name Christ was
    proclaimed by Moses in his referring to the high priest as “anointed” (it must be
    remembered that “Christ” means “Anointed One”) in the fourth chapter of Leviticus
    (vs 5 and 16) and how he conferred the name “Jesus” upon Hoshea, his future
    successor, when he gave him the name Joshua (“Jesus” is the Greco-Latin
    transliteration of “Joshua”) in Numbers 13:16. Eusebius then declares that Joshua
    “bore the image of our Savior,” which is in agreement with the recognition of Joshua
    as a type, or foreshadow, of Christ. As Eusebius states, “Moses thus bestows on [the
    high priest and Joshua] … the name of our Savior Jesus Christ as a signal of
    honor.”14 He draws attention to the writings of Jeremiah (Lam 4:20) and David (Ps
    1-2) when they referred to “Christ the Lord” and “His [God’s] Christ,” and also to
    the coming incarnation of the Christ (Ps 2:7-8). Concerning the prophets as a type of
    Christ, he states, “…certain of the prophets themselves became, by the act of
    anointing, Christs in type, so that all these have reference to the true Christ, the
    divinely inspired and heavenly Word, …. [But] no one of those who were of old
    symbolically anointed, whether priests, or kings, or prophets, possessed so great a
    power of inspired virtue as was exhibited by our Savior and Lord Jesus, the true and
    only Christ.”15 He then discusses the differences between these Old Testament types
    of Christ and the one who is the true Christ: that they who were His type did not
    receive worship, did not receive the same devotion to their persons following their
    deaths, nor had the same widespread effect as did Jesus.
    Eusebius declares that there is “nothing new or strange in the religion preached by
    [Jesus]” and that the religious principles of Christianity were not invented by the
    early Christians, but were known “from almost the beginnings of man.”16 He states,
    "All those [referring to the Old Testament saints] who have enjoyed the testimony of
    righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if
    not in name, he would not go beyond the truth. …[since] they also clearly knew the
    very Christ of God; for it has already been shown that he appeared unto [Abraham,
    Isaac, and Moses]. … So that it is clearly necessary to consider that religion, which
    has lately been preached to all nations through the teaching of Christ, the first and
    most ancient of all religions,"17 He then points out that men in the Old Testament
    were justified by faith, not the Law, as are those in the New Testament, since
    Abraham was counted as righteous because he believed on God (Gen 15:6, cf Rom
    4:3).
    These sections from the work of Eusebius, rather than casting suspicion on the
    integrity of the New Testament writers, serve to unite the Old with the New
    Testament of Scripture. In the Old, Christ was seen as a shadow in those who
    prefigured Him by virtue of their mission and office. As Old Testament types of the
    coming Messiah, they may rightly be called “Christs” or ones who have received a
    divine anointing. In the New Testament, the person of Jesus is not based on any
    person who existed prior to His incarnation, since only He was virgin born, only He

    207
    was crucified for the sins of man, only He was begotten of God, and only He shares
    in the divine nature – none of which may be said of any of the Old Testament types
    of Christ. As God Himself, the person of Jesus existed prior to being conceived in
    Mary’s womb, and this is that to which Eusebius is drawing attention. He existed in
    reality as the second person of the Trinity, as Creator, as the Angel of the Lord, and
    as the Word, and He existed in type in those people and objects which served as a
    foreshadow of the Messiah promised to the Jews. Also, as Eusebius points out, the
    doctrines inherent in Christianity were not the product of New Testament invention,
    but were proclaimed in ages past, although in a veiled fashion. The saints prior to the
    Christian era knew only what was revealed to them in prophecy and in promise. The
    content of Old Testament prophecy is that of New Testament doctrine. That which
    was revealed in part to Abraham, Moses, and David was revealed in full to John,
    Peter, and Paul. That which was foretold in the Old Testament was fulfilled in the
    New, yet the message remained the same: that it is through faith in God and the work
    of God’s Christ, Jesus the Messiah, that men are counted as righteous before the face
    of God. While the saints in the Old Testament looked forward to a coming Messiah
    and the saints in the New Testament looked backwards to the work of Jesus, the
    person in view was always the same Christ, who would save His people from their
    sins. Yes, Christianity existed prior to Christ, not in name, but in substance, and that
    is the message of Eusebius here in this passage.
    The witness of Augustine
    The following statements are attributed to Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354–430
    A.D.), among the most prominent of the early church writers. The first statement is a
    quote generally used as an admission that Christianity is based on beliefs pre-dating
    the time of Christ. The second statement is used as an admission that the God of the
    Bible and deities worshiped by pagans are one and the same.

    Statement #1: “That which is now called the Christian religion existed among the
    ancients, and never did not exist from the planting of the human race until Christ
    came in the flesh, at which time the true religion which already existed began to be
    called Christianity.”18
    The above statement is said to be from Augustine’s Retractations, a work
    answering the pagan Celsus, who claimed God did not exercise providential care
    for His people in past ages. The actual quote from the work in question reads as
    follows:
    "This very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among
    the ancients, nor was it lacking from the beginning of the human race, until
    Christ Himself came in the flesh, when the true religion, that already
    existed, began to be called Christian."19
    What Augustine is not saying:
    Augustine is not making the statement that Christian beliefs existed before
    Christianity. The fact is that prior to the first century A.D. there does not exist
    any reference in ancient literature to either “Christians” or “Christianity.” The
    earliest reference to “Christians” in ancient literature is from Scripture itself.

    208
    They therefore that were scattered abroad upon the tribulation that arose
    about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch,
    speaking the word to none save only to Jews. But there were some of them,
    men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake
    unto the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord
    was with them: and a great number that believed turned unto the Lord. And
    the report concerning them came to the ears of the church which was in
    Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas as far as Antioch: who, when he
    was come, and had seen the grace of God, was glad; and he exhorted them
    all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord: for he was a
    good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith: and much people was
    added unto the Lord. And he went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul; and when
    he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that
    even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and
    taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in
    Antioch. (Acts 11:19-26 NASB)

    The term “Christian” was first coined in Antioch, seemingly as a result of the
    events described here by Luke, events which would have taken place between
    40-44 A.D. Prior to this occurrence, believers in the Gospel of Christ were
    known as followers of the Way.
    And [Paul] entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for
    three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
    But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of
    the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the
    disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. (Acts 19:8-9 NASB)
    I [Paul] persecuted this Way to the death, binding and putting both men and
    women into prisons. (Acts 22:4 NASB)
    But this I [Paul] admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a
    sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in
    accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets. (Acts 24:14
    NASB)
    As far as Christian beliefs themselves, any so-called similarity to pre-
    existing religious beliefs has already been refuted in this work. The fact is that
    prior to Christ’s preaching, there was no person living who was in fact, or could
    even rightly be, called Christian or said to hold to beliefs which mirrored those
    of the Christian faith.
    What Augustine is saying:
    In making the statement that “the Christian religion existed among the
    ancients,” Augustine is making reference to the fact that the Old Testament
    Hebrews looked forward in time to a coming Messiah, whose arrival would not
    come “until Christ Himself came in the flesh,” and that, upon His arrival, “the
    true religion (that is, the religion of the Hebrews), that already existed, [would
    begin] to be called Christian.” In Genesis chapter fifteen God made a covenant

    209
    with Abraham that He would make his descendants as numerous as the stars of
    the heavens.
    And [God] brought [Abraham] forth abroad, and said, Look now toward
    heaven, and number the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said
    unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in Jehovah; and he
    reckoned it to him for righteousness. (Gen 15:5-6)

    The prophecy had a two-fold fulfillment. First, it was fulfilled in a


    generational sense, in that through Abraham’s descendants came the twelve
    tribes which would make up the nation of Israel. Second, the prophecy had a
    spiritual fulfillment in that those who believed in God would be reckoned as
    “children of Abraham” by faith.

    Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
    righteousness. Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons
    of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
    Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In
    thee shall all the nations be blessed. So then they that are of faith are
    blessed with the faithful Abraham.
    (Gal 3:6-9)

    For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was
    reckoned unto him for righteousness. … How then was it reckoned? when
    he was [circumcised], or [uncircumcised]? Not [when circumcised], but
    [when uncircumcised]: … that [Abraham] might be the father of all them
    that believe (Jews and Gentiles), though they be [uncircumcised], that
    righteousness might be reckoned unto them; … Now it was not [promised]
    for [Abraham’s] sake alone, that it (righteousness) was reckoned unto him;
    but for our (Gentiles’) sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who
    believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered
    up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification. (Rom 4:3, 10-11,
    23-25)

    Those in ancient times who believed in God, following in the same vein of faith
    as Abraham, held to the prophecy of the coming of the same Messiah who
    Christians believe was Jesus of Nazareth. Although many biographical aspects
    of Jesus’ life were foretold in Old Testament times, many people did not
    recognize Him as the Messiah, even after John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus as
    the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.” The Jews expected
    someone who would appear as a mighty figure, not the son (as was supposed) of
    a poor carpenter who lived in Nazareth, a small town widely known for its
    corruption and vices. Had the Jews expected a Messiah such as Jesus, certainly
    the religious authority in Jerusalem would have placed upon Him the highest of
    reverence. The fact is that Jesus was rejected by his own people. Rather than
    recognizing Him as the Promised Messiah, they shouted, “Crucify him!” and
    brought upon Him the cruelty of Rome. They anticipated a faceless Messiah,

    210
    and when His face was revealed in Jesus, they rejected Him as the Messiah.
    Nevertheless, the faith of Abraham and the faith of Christians is the same faith
    in the one, true God and Savior of man, by whom man is redeemed by grace
    through faith, in generations both ancient and present. This is the point
    Augustine is making – that the Judaism of ancient times was the forerunner or
    precursor to modern Christianity, going all the way back to the first man, Adam,
    and the promise made to him of a coming Savior.
    And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed
    art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly
    shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put
    enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed*:
    he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen 3:14-15)

    * Scripture only here refers to the “seed of the woman,” a reference to


    Jesus, as the virgin-born son of Mary.

    The focus of ancient Judaism was that of a coming Messiah (in the offering
    of sacrificial lambs for the purpose of cleansing of sin), whereas the focus of
    Christianity is that of a Messiah whose work is finished (in that Jesus is the
    Lamb of God, slain once for the sins of many), but the substance of both
    Judaism and Christianity is identical. Augustine further explains this in his letter
    to Deogratias, when responding to the question, “If Christ ... declares Himself to
    be the Way of salvation, the Grace and the Truth, and affirms that in Him alone,
    and only to souls believing in Him, is the way of return to God, what has
    become of men who lived in the many centuries before Christ came?” In his
    response, he states the following:

    “Before He [Christ] gave being to the Hebrew nation, by which He was


    pleased … to prefigure the manifestation of Himself in His advent, … and
    thenceforward even to our day, in which He is fulfilling all which He
    predicted of old by the prophets, … in all these successive ages He is the
    same Son of God, co-eternal with the Father. … Therefore, from the
    beginning of the human race, whosoever believed in Him, … was
    undoubtedly saved by Him, in whatever time and place he may have lived.
    For as we believe in Him both as dwelling with the Father and as having
    come in the flesh, so the men of the former ages believed in Him both as
    dwelling with the Father and as destined to come in the flesh. And the
    nature of faith is not changed, nor is the salvation made different, … that
    which was then foretold as future is now proclaimed as past. … And yet,
    from the beginning of the human race, were there ever wanting men who
    believed in Him, from Adam to Moses. … And from the beginning of the
    human family, even to the end of time, it is preached.”20

    Statement #2: Rather than quoting from Augustine's works, critics independently
    make the claim that “St. Augustine even stated that the priests of Mithra worshiped
    the same God as he did.”

    211
    The fact is that this so-called “admission,” usually expressed in this same
    above verbatim fashion on numerous web sites, is not found in any writing
    attributed to Augustine. In The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, collected by
    historian Phillip Schaff, Augustine only once mentions Mithra, in the following
    excerpt:

    “There was in the West at this time, and had been for centuries, a hankering
    after Oriental theosophy, the more extravagant the better. The wide-spread
    worship of Mithra was an excellent preparation for the more complete
    system of Mani. Manichaeism and Neo-Platonism antagonized the
    Christianity of the fourth and fifth centuries from opposite sides, and those
    minds for whom Platonism had no charms were almost sure to be attracted
    by the philosophy of Mani.”21

    Nowhere in the writings of Augustine did he claim the priests of Mithra


    worship the same God as he. In fact, nowhere is his writings does he mention
    the “priests of Mithra.” The vast majority of critics who make the claim to the
    contrary do so without providing an original source for the quote, and the reason
    for the lack of a source is because a source does not exist. Regarding those who
    do attempt to validate this claim by providing a source, the source provided is
    not the writings of Augustine; but rather, modern-day authors who lack
    scholarship.

    The witness of Tertullian


    The early church father Tertullian (160-220 A.D.), Bishop of Carthage, is quoted
    as saying, "You [pagans] say we worship the sun; so do you." The source cited for
    the quote is Joseph Wheless' book Forgery in Christianity.22 However, Wheless does
    not quote directly from Tertullian's work. Rather, he quotes from the heading labeled
    “Tertullian” in The Catholic Encyclopedia by Charles George Herbermann, in which
    Herbermann provides the above quote as a paraphrase of Tertullian's argument found
    in his work Ad Nationes (To the Nations). The chapter in question from Tertullian's
    original text is provided below in its entirety:
    “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? It is you, at all events, who have even admitted the sun
    into the calendar of the week; and you have selected its day, in preference to the
    preceding day as the most suitable in the week for either an entire abstinence
    from the bath, or for its postponement until the evening, or for taking rest and
    for banqueting. By resorting to these customs, you deliberately deviate from
    your own religious rites to those of strangers. For the Jewish feasts on the
    Sabbath and "the Purification," and Jewish also are the ceremonies of the lamps,
    and the fasts of unleavened bread, and the "littoral prayers," all which
    institutions and practices are of course foreign from your gods. Wherefore, that I

    212
    may return from this digression, you who reproach us with the sun and Sunday
    should consider your proximity to us. We are not far off from your Saturn and
    your days of rest.” 23
    In this chapter, he is merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the pagans in accusing
    Christians of worshiping the sun, since these very same pagans worshiped the sun
    themselves. In so doing, Tertullian did not identify the worship of Jesus as the
    worship of the sun. He only stated what the pagans “supposed” was the object of
    Christian worship. Hence, Herbermann's paraphrase of Tertullian is correct, since
    Tertullian is essentially saying, “You say we worship the sun; so do you." What
    Tertullian is not saying is that, “We worship the sun; so do you.” There is a vast
    difference between the two statements concerning what is the true object of Christian
    worship.
    Tertullian is also quoted as saying:

    “The Devil, whose business it is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact
    circumstances of the Divine Sacraments in the Mysteries of Mithras. He himself
    baptizes some, that is to say, his believers and followers; he promises
    forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount and thereby initiates them into the
    religion of Mithras; … he brings in the symbol of the Resurrection, and wins the
    crown with the sword.”
    The quote comes from chapter forty of Prescriptions Against Heresies and its
    broader context is as follows:
    “The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages
    which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles
    which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with
    the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some — that
    is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins
    by a laver (of his own); and 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, and
    before a sword wreathes a crown. ... He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his
    proficients in continence. ... is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-
    known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such
    emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those
    very things of which consists the administration of Christ’s sacraments, it
    follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set
    his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very
    documents of divine things and of the Christian saints — his interpretation from
    their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their
    parables.”
    Mythicists claim that this passage shows that Tertullian believed the Gospel of
    Christ was copied from the Mithraic religion. Aside from the obvious dating problem
    (Mithraism was not adopted by the Romans until the second century), it should be
    observed that Tertullian's objective was not to counter an argument that the Gospels'

    213
    account of Jesus' life was one borrowed from pagan myths. Rather, his intention was
    to illustrate how the devil influenced pagans into adopting beliefs which bore a
    similarity to Christianity. This influence was not due to the devil peering into some
    crystal ball and seeing how the prophesies would later be fulfilled; but rather, by
    perverting existing interpretations (with regards to virgin birth, baptism, the
    sacraments, and – if Tertullian's memory is correct – resurrection) and causing these
    perversions to be manifest within the religion of the pagans. In short, it was Jewish
    laws and beliefs, not the teachings of the Christians, which were copied by the
    pagans. In addition, these copies bore only a similarity to Christian beliefs, rather
    than being perceived as identical reproductions of Christian doctrine.
    The witness 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

    214
    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 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

    215
    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, 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.

    216
    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:

    “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

    217
    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. Below is
    the section of the work here in question. Read it 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

    FIRST APOLOGY by Justin Martyr


    CHAPTER 21: Analogies to the History of Christ
    And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was
    produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was
    crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing
    different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.
    … This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and
    encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honorable thing to imitate
    the gods … But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things.

    CHAPTER 22: Analogies to the Sonship of Christ


    And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with
    what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the
    paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds
    said to have been done by Aesculapius.

    CHAPTER 23: The Argument


    And that this may now become evident to you — (firstly) that whatever we
    assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets
    who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have
    existed; 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, being His Word and first-
    begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these
    things for the conversion and restoration of the human race: and (thirdly) that
    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 of infamous and impious actions, of which there is neither
    witness nor proof — we shall bring forward the following proof.

    218
    CHAPTER 24: Varieties of Heathen Worship
    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.

    CHAPTER 25: False Gods Abandoned by Christians


    And, secondly, because we — who, out of every race of men, used to worship
    Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with
    men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus
    (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you
    celebrate), or Aesculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods —
    have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened
    with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impassible
    God

    IV. A Pope's Confession

    The following quote is attributed to Pope Leo X, alleging that he claimed the
    Gospel story of Christ was but a useless fable.

    "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"1

    Most sources who cite this alleged comment by Leo rarely provide a source
    for the quote. When a source is provided it is the fourteenth edition of the
    Encyclopedia Britannica, where the quote is said to be on page 217. In
    reality, no mention of the quote, nor Leo, is found on that page. Rather,
    page 217 is concerned with “Respiration.” The section concerned with
    Pope Leo is pages 926-927 of volume thirteen. Still, no mention of Leo's
    purported claim can be found within the section concerning him. According
    to the Catholic Encyclopedia, a web-based volume, the person cited as the
    source for the quote is John Bale, a playwright and Catholic-turned-
    apostate. In his animosity with the Catholic Church, Bale lashed out at
    church authorities in the form of satirical depictions found in his plays. In
    one such depiction, The Pageant of Popes, Bale portrays Pope Leo X as
    saying, “All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe
    hath ben to us and our companie.”1 However, had Pope Leo X actually
    made such a claim as to the historicity of Jesus, his testimony would stand
    against more than a millennium and a half of testimony to the contrary. The
    testimony of one man, whether he be Pope or the Vatican's janitor, is hardly
    enough to eradicate such a long-standing historical precedent.

    219
    V. 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.

    220
    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.

    221
    The boat which you are to build,
    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.

    222
    ... and I set my hand to the oiling(!).
    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!

    223
    How could I say evil things in the Assembly of the Gods,
    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(!):

    224
    '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

    225
    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

    226
    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.

    227
    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.

    228
    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

    229
    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

    230
    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

    231
    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

    232
    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:

    233
    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

    234
    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.

    235
    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)

    236
    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.

    VI. 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

    237
    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

    238
    Sargon legend make note that his account contains elements (such as idiomatic
    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

    239
    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.

    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.

    240
    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:
    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

    241
    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
    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.

    242
    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
    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

    243
    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.
    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.

    244
    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.
    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.

    245
    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

    246
    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.

    247
    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.

    VII. 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

    248
    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.”

    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

    249
    of the fish used by the early church and found today on many bumper stickers
    (below).

    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.

    250
    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
    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)

    251
    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 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

    252
    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
    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)

    253
    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
    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)

    254
    [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,
    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?

    255
    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 five 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
    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.

    256
    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
    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,

    257
    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 five), 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 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 five 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

    258
    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.
    "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)

    259
    "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)

    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.

    260
    “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."

    “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

    261
    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
    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.

    262
    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
    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.

    263
    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
    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

    264
    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
    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)

    265
    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
    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

    266
    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.

    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.

    267
    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
    “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)

    268
    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
    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.”8Other 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.

    269
    VIII. 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 four 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 four of this work

    Crucifixion – previously discussed

    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,

    270
    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
    strictly Hebrew concept), but were rather depictions of Egyptian winged
    deities.

    The Hebrew Ark of the Covenant

    271
    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
    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 four of this work

    Holy communion – see Part four of this work

    The great flood – previously discussed

    Easter – previously discussed

    Christmas – previously discussed


    It is absolutely absurd to think that the ancient kings and queens of
    Egypt celebrated anything bearing even a close resemblance to Christmas or

    272
    Easter – especially since neither observance existed in any form until
    thousands of years after ancient Egyptians passed off the scene.

    Passover – previously discussed


    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!

    IX. 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:

    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.

    273
    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.

    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

    274
    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
    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:

    275
    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
    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

    276
    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

    X. 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
    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

    277
    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)

    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.

    278
    * Constantine ruled from 313-337 A.D., but did not assume full control of the Empire
    until 324 A.D.

    XI. 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
    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

    279
    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.

    XII. 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.

    280
    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.

    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

    281
    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.

    “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,

    282
    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. Attention has been drawn to a letter from Hadrian
    claiming that the followers of Serapis were also referred to as Christians and that the
    “Chrestus” or “Christus” to whom Tacitus is referring is Serapis rather than Jesus of
    Nazareth. The authenticity of the letter has already been addressed (see Part one,
    “The Unusual Suspects:” Zulis) and the letter shown to be a forgery. Still, were the
    letter authentic to the hand of Hadrian,it would still post-date the death of Tacitus by
    seventeen years, since the letter has been dated to 134 A.D. In addition, the context
    of the letter (even were it not a fake) is in the present tense, rather than serving as a
    claim that Serapis' followers were called Christians during the time of Tacitus.
    Finally, the biographical aspects of Tacitus' “Christ” match those of Jesus, not
    Serapis. Concerning “Christus,” Tacitus makes the following notations:

    The Christ to whom Tacitus referred is the one from whom Christianity
    received its name. Believers in Christ were first called Christians in Antioch
    during the time when the Apostles of Jesus were still alive. The designation
    the citizens of Antioch gave to the followers of Christ was in mockery of their
    belief in the poor carpenter from Nazareth, not in a deity who was a merger of
    Greek and Egyptian mythology, as was Serapis.

    Tacitus confirms that the Christ to whom he referred suffered the “extreme
    penalty,” as crucifixion was regarded, during the reign of Tiberius and at the
    hand of “Pontius Pilatus,” as the Gospels confirm regarding Jesus (cf. Lk 2:1)

    Tacitus confirms that the Christianity first originated in Judaea, which is


    true of Jesus, but not Serapis, since belief in the deity Serapis (then known as
    Osirapis, a merger of the deities Apis and Osiris) originated in ancient Egypt.
    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

    283
    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
    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

    284
    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
    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 the personification of wisdom (a
    concept to be addressed later in Part five of this book), 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

    285
    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
    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.

    286
    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

    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.

    287
    “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
    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

    288
    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
    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

    289
    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

    “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

    290
    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.

    “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

    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.

    291
    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
    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.”18 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.19 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

    292
    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
    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.”20

    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.”21 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.”22

    293
    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
    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."23 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.

    294
    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
    “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.

    295
    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.

    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

    296
    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
    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.

    297
    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.

    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. The content of the Satires are as follows:

    Book I
    Satire I: It is Hard not to Write Satire
    Satire II: Hypocrites are Intolerable
    Satire III: There is no Room in Roma for a Roman
    Satire IV: The Emperor’s Fish
    Satire V: Patronizing Patronage
    Book II
    Satire VI: Death is Better than Marriage
    Book III
    Satire VII: Fortuna is the Best Patron
    Satire VIII: True Nobility
    Satire IX: Flattering your Patron is Hard Work
    Book IV
    Satire X: Wrong Desire is the Source of Suffering
    Satire XI: Dinner and a Moral
    Satire XII: True Friendship
    Book V
    Satire XIII: Don’t Obsess over Liars and Crooks
    Satire XIV: Avarice is not a Family Value
    Satire XV: People without Compassion are Worse than
    Animals
    Satire XVI: Soldiers are above the Law

    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

    298
    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.

    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.

    299
    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
    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

    300
    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
    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.

    301
    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.

    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.

    302
    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.

    Seneca’s Tragedies:
    Hercules Furens (The Madness of Hercules)
    Troades (The Trojan Women)
    Phoenissae (The Phoenician Women)
    Phaedra
    Medea
    Thyestes
    Agamemnon
    Oedipus
    Hercules Oetaeus (Hercules on Oeta)

    Dialogues
    Ad Marciam, De consolatione (To Marcia, On consolation)
    De Ira (On anger)
    Ad Helviam matrem, De consolatione (To Helvia, On consolation)
    De Consolatione ad Polybium (To Polybius, On consolation)

    303
    De Brevitate Vitae (On the shortness of life)
    De Otio (On leisure)
    De Tranquillitate Animi (On tranquillity of mind)
    De Providentia (On providence)
    De Constantia Sapientiis (On the Firmness of the Wise Person)
    De Vita Beata (On the happy life)

    Other Works
    Apocolocyntosis divi Claudii (The Pumpkinification of the Divine
    Claudius)
    De Clementia (On Clemency)
    De Beneficiis (On Benefits)
    Naturales quaestiones (concerning ancient theories of cosmology,
    meteorology, and like subjects)
    Epistulae morales ad Lucilium - collection of one hundred twenty-four
    letters addressing moral issues

    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

    304
    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.”24

    “R. Shimeon ben Azzai said: ‘I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein
    was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard** of an adulteress’”25

    “[Mary] who was the descendant of princes and governors***, played the harlot
    with carpenters.”26

    “[Jesus’] mother was Miriam, a women's hairdresser. As they say, ... ‘this one
    strayed from her husband.’”27

    * Hanging was a term used in reference to crucifixion. (cf Jn 19.14, Acts 5:30,
    Gal 3:13)

    ** 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

    305
    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.”28

    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).

    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.”29

    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.”30

    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.

    306
    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.”31

    “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,
    Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his
    Chronicles.”32

    “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.”33

    “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.”34

    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

    307
    down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History calls, as appears to
    me without reason, an eclipse from the sun.”35

    XIII. Concerning alternate gospels and suspect ancient texts


    Welcome to the world of alternate reality, where black is white and up is down, where
    the Road Runner chases Wile E. Coyote, where Kilngons are a peaceful race who smell
    flowers and pet kittens, and Lex Luthor is the embodiment of “truth, justice, and the
    American way.” The word “gospel” means “good news” and is a term which was in use
    even before the time of Christ. Pagans used the term to refer to the “good deeds” of
    heroes, be it a mythological hero or the heroics of a living person. The victories
    accomplished by a military hero, for instance, were his gospel, or the “good news” about
    that one. Gospels, therefore, focused on the deeds of an individual, rather than his
    teaching or writing. The accounts of the life Jesus in the Bible, being told in narrative
    form and describing many of His deeds, as well as His teaching, are rightly named
    Gospels. In contrast, the writings of Paul, being doctrinal, philosophical, and practical in
    character, are not Gospels, for their purpose is not to give an account of the life, or deeds,
    of Paul. Likewise, some of the alternate gospels considered in this section are not gospels
    by definition, since some are a collection of sayings or teachings and are not written in a
    narrative format. After the composition of the writings now known as the New Testament
    there arose a number of these alternate versions of the life or teachings of Jesus, none of
    which were recognized by the church as authentic Apostolic writings. Although the
    official New Testament canon was not finalized until 397 A.D. at the Third Council of
    Carthage, the only written accounts of Jesus’ life which were recognized by the church
    were the four canonical Gospels, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and are now
    included in the New Testament. 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 canonical Gospels. Concerning the early acceptance of
    books now included in the New Testament, the late Bruce Metzger, a former professor at
    Princeton Theological Seminary and board member of the American Bible Society,
    stated, “Although the fringes of the emerging canon remained unsettled for generations, a
    high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained
    among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the
    Mediterranean world, but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia.”1
    While these alternate versions of the life of Jesus do not represent authentic accounts of
    the life of our Lord while among us, they do serve as a testament to certain unorthodox
    beliefs held by various Christian sects of the first few centuries of the church, and for that
    they are of value to historians and apologists.

    308
    Gabriel's Revelation

    In the year 2000 a stone tablet, three feet tall and bearing eighty-seven lines of
    Hebrew text, appeared mysteriously in the Jewish antiquity market. The tablet was
    supposed to have originated in Jordan and was dated, based on the style of the letters
    and the ink-on-stone technique, between the late first century B.C. and the early first
    century A.D.2 However, a conclusive date cannot be determined since doing so
    would involve methods of ink testing which would destroy the letters, thus damaging
    the already fragile artifact. It was also believed that those responsible for scribing the
    Dead Sea Scrolls were likewise responsible for the inscriptions found on this tablet.
    The tablet was named Gabriel's Revelation, based on the fact that the prophecy
    inscribed on the tablet is attributed to the angel Gabriel, who, in line eighty, is said to
    command a man to rise again on the third day. Israel Knohl, an expert in Biblical
    languages at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, believes the man to whom the
    command was directed was one named Simon of Perea, a royal servant who
    embarked on an arson spree against the ruling political power in Judea, an act for
    which he was killed by the Romans in 4 B.C. Knohl translates the famous eightieth
    line as follows (brackets indicate missing portions of the test which have been
    replaced by the translators):

    “In three days, live, I Gabriel com[mand] yo[u]”3

    Based on this inscription, Knohl concluded that the concept of a resurrection


    following a three day burial was later adopted by the Gospel writers, as an alteration
    of this earlier “messiah story.”4 However, professor Darrell Bock of Dallas
    Theological Seminary, expresses doubts as to Knohl's accuracy in translation: "The
    problem here is that there's not enough text to be able to be really confident about
    what the passage itself is reading in order to build a theory around it. … The text
    deals with some type of angelic communication, but beyond that it's very hard to tell
    what all is going on. ...The connection to messiah is virtually absent."5 In like
    fashion, Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary posits that the word
    translated “rise" by Knohl could rather be translated "show up," as describing one

    309
    merely making an ordinary appearance.6 Any interpretation of the text is problematic
    since the letters themselves are smudged and difficult to decipher.

    However, what is clearly absent in the text is a reference to a messiah or,


    specifically, to resurrection, either in body or in spirit. While the concept of bodily
    resurrection is a concept which was present in Judaic beliefs long before the time of
    Christ, as has been shown elsewhere in this volume, the concept of a dying and
    rising Messiah figure was understood by only a small percentage of the populace. In
    Part six of this book, the pre-Christian Messianic expectations will be addressed in
    detail. Here, it merely needs to be said that first century Jews largely regarded the
    Messiah as one who would conquer and reign forever as the king over a restored
    nation of Israel. The Old Testament taught that the Messiah would suffer and die, but
    such prophecies were greatly misunderstood until after the coming of Jesus, the true
    Messiah. The prophets Isaiah and Hosea, among others, proclaimed a future
    suffering Messiah. In Hosea 6:1-2 there is a reference to a resurrection occurring 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.

    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 in which a multitude of dry bones 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 concept of blessing or salvation being granted after the “third day” is
    expressed throughout the Old Testament. 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. The list could go on and on, as such
    numerous references abound to such a three day period of trial, suffering, or death,
    after which there is relief, freedom, or salvation. In his commentary on Hosea,

    310
    Matthew Henry states the following concerning this three day-long period (emphasis
    mine):

    “[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.”7

    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, before the putrefying
    stage of death took place, as it was said of the Messiah in the Psalms, then later
    referenced in the book of Acts:

    For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy
    One to see corruption. (Ps 16:10)

    For David speaketh concerning him [Jesus], 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. (Acts 2:25-27)

    Additionally, the context of the Hosea passage bears a striking similarity to the
    lines of prophecy found on the Gabriel tablet, in which the nation of Israel is being
    warned by a prophet of God's impending judgment upon them, followed by a
    national restoration. If Knohl is correct in his translation and the reference is indeed
    to a resurrection, there is still no reason to suspect that such resurrection is to be
    understood in other than a nationalistic context relating to the nation of Israel as a
    whole. However, even if the reference is to a man, as Knohl suggests, the question
    must be asked, what does this really prove other than that there were those in pre-
    Christian times who did expect a resurrection of the dead. Since bodily resurrection
    is something that every Jew anticipated for himself in the end of days, and since the
    messianic prophecies of the Old Testament do indeed predict a dying and rising
    Messiah, it is not unthinkable that an extra-Biblical reference would exist to such a
    messianic expectation. However, what it does not prove is that such expectation was
    widespread enough to persuade the Gospel writers to fabricate a resurrection story in

    311
    relation to Jesus of Nazareth. Certain rabbis in pre-Christian times did expect a dying
    Messiah, but the evidence in ancient rabbinic writings strongly suggest that those
    who held to such a belief were in the vast minority, which is why many Jews rejected
    the Apostles' preaching that the Messiah was crucified then rose from the dead – they
    expected a “King Messiah,” as He is often referenced in the Talmud (Talmudic
    references to the Messiah will be addressed in Part six), rather than a crucified
    Savior. Still, the belief in a dying and rising Messiah did exist, and therefore could
    be synonymous with the purported reference to resurrection contained in the Gabriel
    tablet. The problem with interpreting such a reference in a messianic sense is that the
    tablet makes no reference to a messianic figure. In other words, the tablet mentions a
    resurrection without referencing such a resurrection to a person of interest.

    Finally, it must be noted, as further evidence that the Gabriel tablet was not the
    source of the Gospels' resurrection account, that if the resurrection of Jesus was a
    hoax, then why did Jesus' enemies not produce a body to put an end to the Christian
    uprising? Why did the Apostles die for their faith if they knew it to be a lie? Why
    would the disciples portray themselves in Scripture as ones not expecting Jesus'
    crucifixion, then later even disbelieving that He has risen until they saw tangible
    evidence supporting He was no longer in the tomb? These and other considerations
    regarding the historicity of Jesus' resurrection will be considered in detail in Part
    five.

    In conclusion, the tablet known as Gabriel's Revelation, at best, serves to confirm


    a pre-Christian minority belief in a dying and rising Messiah, as foretold on the
    Hebrew Scriptures. However, any interpretation regarding its inscription is a matter
    of speculation. In the final analysis, despite Knohl's suggestion, the tablet does not
    stand as a basis on which was forged the Gospel account of Jesus' resurrection.

    The Secret Gospel of Mark


    In the summer of 1958 Morton Smith, professor of ancient history at Columbia
    University, made an astonishing discovery while visiting the Greek Orthodox
    monastery at Mar Saba, overlooking the Kidron Valley, east of Bethlehem. In the
    library there he found three pages of Greek manuscript bound within Isaac Voss'
    1646 collected edition of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (first century Bishop of
    Antioch, c.35-110 A.D.). Morton photographed the pages and left the originals in the
    care of the monastery. The pages contained a previously unknown letter attributed to
    Clement of Alexandria (died c.99 A.D.) in which Clement is writing concerning a
    “secret Gospel of Mark,” a longer, more “spiritual” (or Gnostic) version of the
    Gospel of Mark included in the New Testament cannon. in which is contained an
    allusion to a homo-erotic initiation practice of one of Jesus' disciples.8 Following his
    publication of the letter in 1973, fifteen years after its discovery, other scholars
    journeyed to the Mar Saba library to verify the document's existence, and found it
    there in accordance with Morton's claim.

    The letter, if authentic (authenticity will be discussed shortly hereafter), is a letter


    by Clement to one Theodore, in response to Theodore's inquiry regarding claims
    made by a sect known as the Carpocratians, who claimed to be the recipients of a

    312
    more esoteric version of the Gospel of Christ. The Carpocratians were so named for
    their founder Carpocrates, a second century philosopher who, according to Irenaeus,
    believed that Jesus was a naturally-conceived man upon whom the divine Son of
    God descended.9 His followers were also charged with holding “love feasts”
    involving acts of promiscuity.10 The Carpocratians appealed to a “secret gospel”
    attributed to the evangelist Mark (the writer of the second of the Synoptic Gospels –
    Matthew through Luke) in their attempt to validate their beliefs. This gospel, they
    claimed, taught that Jesus preached a secret and more mystical doctrine in secret, as
    opposed to the doctrine He preached in public. Clement, in his response to Theodore,
    admits to a knowledge of the secret gospel, but disagrees that the Carpocratians'
    interpretation of the gospel is accurate. According to Clement, Carpocrates secured a
    copy of the gospel, then perverted it to suit his own doctrine. The letter contains two
    excerpts from the work Clement from Mark's purported “secret” gospel, and apart
    from these references, no other text offers support for the gospel's existence. The two
    excerpts are as follows:

    “And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died
    was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him,
    'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus,
    being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and
    straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus
    rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in
    where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his
    hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech
    him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into
    the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him
    what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth
    over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught
    him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to
    the other side of the Jordan.”11 (Clement states this passage belongs
    between verses 34 and 35 of the tenth chapter of the canonical Gospel of
    Mark)

    “And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome
    were there, and Jesus did not receive them.”12 (Clement states this passage
    belongs within 10:46 of the canonical Gospel of Mark)

    Of these two excerpts, the first has drawn attention for what some believe to be
    evidence of homosexual practices between Jesus and His disciples (in this case, the
    disciple is a young man whom Jesus had just raised from the dead), as well as for its
    more gnostic, or mystical, portrayal of Jesus' teaching.

    The authenticity of “Secret Mark,” as it is often called, and also the Clementine
    letter in which exists the only extant reference to the gospel, is widely recognized as
    not being authentic to the hand of Mark (with regards to the gospel) nor Clement
    (with regards to the letter). Although, since 1980, the letter has been published in
    volumes containing the writings of Clement of Alexandria, the authenticity of the

    313
    Clement letter is doubtful on both physical and contextual evidence. Based on a
    detailed analysis of Morton's photographs, paleographers dated the letter to the late
    seventeenth to the early nineteenth centuries.13 According to German historian H.
    von Campenhausen, “Not only the manner of the transmission speaks against
    [Clementine authenticity], … [the letter] contradict[s] everything that we know from
    Clement.”14 As Edgar Hennecke notes, “... everything points to the view that the
    'secret gospel' is an apocryphon resting on the foundation of the canonical Gospels.
    On this ground alone any conclusions relating to the historical Jesus are not
    possible.”15 Scholar F. F. Bruce, in a lecture delivered at the University of London
    on February 11, 1974, made numerous observations between events described in the
    canonical Gospels and the Secret Mark excerpts contained in Clement's letter. His
    comments deserve to be quoted at length (emphasis mine):

    “The story of Jesus’ raising of the young man of Bethany from the tomb at
    his sister’s entreaty is superficially similar to the incident of the raising of
    Lazarus in John 11: 17-44; ... The young man’s sister makes her plea to
    Jesus after the example of the Syrophoenician woman who fell at Jesus’ feet
    (Mark 7: 25), ... Jesus’ anger is matched by his reaction to the leper’s plea in
    the Western text of Mark 1: 41, and by his indignation at the tomb of
    Lazarus (John 11: 33, 38) ‘The garden where the tomb was’ is a detail
    borrowed from John’s account of the burial of Jesus (John 19: 41). Jesus’
    action in taking the young man by the hand and raising him up comes not
    from the account of the raising of Lazarus but from the raising of Jairus’
    daughter (Mark 5: 41) or, even more closely, from the healing of Simon
    Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1: 31). The statement that ‘the young man
    looked on him and loved him’ reverses that of Mark 10: 21, where Jesus
    looked on the rich man and loved him. The young man who is here raised
    from the tomb was also rich. When he began to beseech Jesus that he might
    be with him, he followed the example of the cured Gerasene demoniac
    (Mark 5: 18). The time-note ‘after six days’ was the interval between the
    Caesarea Philippi incident and the transfiguration (Mark 9: 2). The linen
    robe thrown over the young man’s naked body reminds us of the young man
    similarly attired at the scene of Jesus’ arrest (Mark 14: 51). The statement
    that ‘he stayed with him that night’ may recall John 1: 39, ‘they stayed with
    him that day’. … The fact that the expansion is such an obvious pastiche,
    with its internal contradiction and confusion, indicates that it is a
    thoroughly artificial composition, quite out of keeping with Mark’s quality
    as a story-teller.”16

    Some who accept the letter as genuine do not regard it as belonging to the hand of
    Clement of Alexandria, but to the Clement named in the Decretum Gelasianum of
    Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome from 492–496 A.D. However, as Hennecke notes,
    if the letter is authentic to Clement of Alexandria, it would testify to nothing more
    than a late second century existence of an alternate version of Mark's Gospel, and
    would not serve to prove that such a version existed during the time of the Apostles,
    much less one belonging to the hand of Mark himself. He goes on to say, “When
    [Morton] Smith seeks to go back to the last years of the first century for the

    314
    composition of the expanded Mark, that rests on pure speculations."17 Clement
    himself, in the letter attributed to him, admits that the writer of the canonical Gospel
    of Mark is the same author who penned Secret Mark. It would seem that, if the letter
    is genuine to Clement, then it must certainly be determined that Secret Mark was
    written by the original disciple-turned-evangelist. However, Clement is known for
    his “uncritical” acceptance18 of apocryphal gospels as authentic to the person to
    whom the work is alleged to belong, as when he accepts the Apocalypse of Peter as
    belonging to the Apostle Peter himself.19

    The fact that Secret Mark is not mentioned in any ancient source, apart from the
    alleged letter of Clement, testifies to the likelihood that the Clementine letter itself is
    a late forgery. Stephen Carlson, in his book The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's
    Invention of Secret Mark states, “... the letter ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, and
    the physical manuscript itself—are twentieth-century imitations. The manuscript was
    written in what may appear to be handwriting of the eighteenth century, but the
    hesitation and shakiness of its strokes and the retouching of its letters, coupled with
    twentieth-century letter forms, indicate that the handwriting is actually a drawn
    imitation of an eighteenth-century style.”20 Accusations of forgery have even
    named Morton Smith himself as the culprit and his work as the “forgery of the
    century,” as it was described by Jacob Neusner, who had a close relationship with
    Smith.21 The Secret Mark excerpts contained within the letter accurately reflect
    Smith's own views regarding the historicity of Jesus. Additionally, some have noted
    a similarity between Morton's discovery and the plot of a 1940 novel by J.H. Hunter,
    The Mystery of Mar Saba, in which a fictional character named Sir William
    Bracebridge discovers a fabricated account, in the Mar Saba monastery no less, that
    purported the body of Jesus was secretly removed from His tomb, this effecting
    belief in His resurrection from the dead. Of course, any such allegation of forgery
    based on Hunter's novel as its source is a matter of speculation based on
    circumstantial evidence, and is presented here purely for the reader's consideration.
    Having addressed the suspect authenticity of the letter, I now turn the attention to
    the alleged homo-erotic overtones of the Secret Mark excerpts, an interpretation
    which requires a very broad stretch of the imagination. The narrative focuses on
    Jesus' resurrection of a young man from the dead (although it appears from the text
    that the man was not dead to begin with, since he called out to Jesus from inside the
    tomb, before Jesus “raised” him):

    And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb
    was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near
    Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway,
    going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him,
    seizing his hand.

    Following his emergence from the tomb, the youth is said to have “loved” Jesus after
    “looking upon Him.” Jesus is then said to accompany the youth to his house, where
    the youth comes into Him “wearing a linen cloth over his naked body,” and he
    “remained with Him that night:”

    315
    But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that
    he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house
    of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do
    and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his
    naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the
    mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the
    other side of the Jordan.

    With regards to the youth loving and looking upon Jesus, such cannot be
    understood in an erotic sense, as the very same thing is said of individuals mentioned
    in passages in the Gospels which clearly do not suggest anything but feelings of
    devotion or reverence. Concerning Jesus accompanying the youth to his house and
    remaining with him there, it must be noted that Jesus' disciples were present with
    Him at the time. The two did not depart alone. Besides this, it was common, as
    described in the Gospel accounts, for Jesus and His disciples to seek lodging in
    another's home. Concerning the description of the youth coming to Jesus “wearing a
    linen cloth over his naked body,”since the youth was in the privacy of his own home,
    he would have had no need to wear his outer garment. Nowhere in the text is the
    youth said to be naked in the presence of Jesus. Apparently, the Carpocratians
    alleged that Secret Mark makes use of the phrase “naked to naked” in this text;
    however, such phraseology is denounced by Clement who claimed no such phrase
    existed in the version of the gospel known to him. Also, if the Carpocratians had
    attempted to interpret Secret Mark in a fashion so as to validate their own
    promiscuity, such an appeal would have been made in a heterosexual, rather than
    homosexual, context, since the Carpocratians were not known to have engaged in
    same-sex sensual relations..

    In the body of Clement's letter, he is described as seemingly declaring, even if the


    Carpocratians' interpretation of the text was accurate, that such interpretation should
    be denied by he and Theodore, thus lying and suppressing the truth for the greater
    good. The following is an excerpt from the letter, as translated by F. F. Bruce
    (emphasis mine):

    “These people must be opposed in every way. Even if they were to say
    something true, not even so would the lover of truth agree with them; ... But
    of the matters under dispute concerning the divinely-inspired Gospel of
    Mark, some are utterly false and some, even if they contain certain things
    that are true are corrupted by those that are fictitious ... these people, then,
    as I have said already, one must never yield, nor must one make any
    concession to them when they pretend that their tissue of falsehoods is the
    mystical Gospel of Mark, but rather deny it with an oath. It is not necessary
    to speak all the truth to everyone.”22

    Here, the thrust of Clement's appeal is not the denial of truth for the sake of
    advancing the Christian agenda; but rather, that the Carpocratians were mixing truth
    with falsehood, and that the result was the overall corruption of doctrine. While he
    regarded their beliefs as containing elements of truth, he rejected such doctrine,

    316
    because of the cloud of heresy which permeated their overall sentiment. It was the
    Carpocratians' blend of truth and error that Clement was seeking to deny, not the
    elements of truth on which their perverted doctrines were based.

    In conclusion, Secret Mark offers no evidence that the canonical Gospels


    suppressed any practices not described by the New Testament writers. The notion
    that Jesus or His disciples engaged in homosexuality is utterly absurd. Jesus came to
    fulfill the Law of Moses, not engage in that which was forbidden therein, and named
    in the Old Testament as an abomination – a declaration made by Christ Himself,
    being one of the three members of the Godhead from whom the Law was given to
    Moses. Ultimately, with questionable dating and authenticity, as well as lack of
    scholarly support for its credibility, Secret Mark is of little importance, and absurd
    interpretations of the only two short excerpts in existence from this purported gospel
    stand as a testimony only to the depraved mind of man. Gregory Boyd sums it up
    nicely in his book Cynic Sage or Son of God? When he says, “The conclusions that
    Smith drew from Secret Mark regarding the historical Jesus as a homosexual
    'magician' are so bizarre as to hardly warrant mention. The scholarly consensus--
    even among those who are sympathetic to the document--has strongly rejected this
    sort of interpretation."23 That said, it is time to close the book on Secret Mark.

    The Gnostic Gospels of Judas and Thomas:


    Gnosticism, a system of thought which will be expounded upon shortly hereafter,
    is a system of thought which divides reality into two spheres of existence: the
    material world (including the body) which is evil, and the spiritual or immaterial
    world, which is good. Thus, it is only by the awakening of the soul, the person's true
    spiritual self, that one's potential and essence is realized and true freedom is attained.
    As a result, Gnosticism emphasizes an inherent divinity within man. This divinity,
    Gnostics say, is unrealized by hindrances placed upon the spirit, or that which is
    immaterial, by virtue of the body, or that which is material. Many of the apocryphal
    gospels contain Gnostic teaching. Of these, the two most prominent are the Gospel
    of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas.

    The Gospel of Judas


    In 1978, near Beni Masah, Egypt an apparently ancient Coptic document,
    written on papyrus, was discovered in a burial cave by peasants. The text was
    discovered to give an account of Jesus’ last evening spent with His disciples,
    describing Jesus’ betrayal from Judas’ point of view, portraying Judas as a
    hero rather than a traitor. Rather than telling the story of Jesus’ betrayal in
    narrative form, as does the Gospels, this text gives its account in the form of
    dialogues between Jesus and His disciples. The text, which would become
    known as the Gospel of Judas, became the subject of controversy and
    remains so to this day. Following its discovery, and its significance
    overlooked, the document was sold to a Cairo antiquities dealer, a sale which
    would mark the beginning of a long journey and exchange of unsuspecting
    hands, until the year 2000 when the text was purchased in Long Island, New
    York by antiquities dealer Frieda Nissberger-Tchacos. At her behest, the
    document was then examined by a scholar at Yale. By this time, due to

    317
    negligence and mishandling by previous owners, the document was in a state
    of severe deterioration, with eighteen of its original thirty-one pages missing;
    nevertheless, it was there that the document was first identified as the Gospel
    of Judas.

    The text does not name Judas as the author, nor is Judas assumed by
    scholars to be the individual who penned the text. Rather, the text was
    written by later Gnostic authors who were not among orthodox Christians.
    The sect named as the authors of this particular gospel are a group of men
    known as Cainites,24 who regarded the “villains” of Scripture, beginning with
    Cain, as a sort of hall of heroes. This they did from of a belief that the
    negative portrayal and persecution of such individuals indicated they
    performed a higher purpose, acting in service to the “God of Light” rather
    than the “god of this world,” a god who attempted to hinder their divine
    mission by destroying and twisting their otherwise moral and righteous
    intention into that which is perceived as actions performed against the will of
    the God of Light. Such a sect was in existence early in church history and
    was mentioned by the second century Christian writer Irenaeus, who states
    the following:

    “Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power
    above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such
    persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have
    been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury …
    They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these
    things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did,
    accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both
    earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a
    fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.”25

    The authenticity of the gospel as an ancient document is not in question,


    as the work itself was known and referenced by Irenaeus as shown in the
    passage above. The copy of the gospel which is extant today was discovered
    in the 1970s and was dated to the third or fourth century (289 A.D., + or –
    fifty years), according to the University of Arizona's Timothy Jull, a
    radiocarbon dating specialist who was commissioned to run a series of tests
    on five fragments of the gospel.26 The gospel is also presumed by Dr. Marvin
    Meyer, a Coptic expert from Chapman University, to be an Egyptian
    translation of an earlier Greek manuscript27 dating as early as 130 A.D.28 It is
    his view that the gospel was originally written in Greek, brought to Egypt by
    members of a Christian sect, then translated into Coptic, the ancient language
    of the Pharaohs.29 Meyer also expressed conviction that the same individuals
    who composed the documents of the Nag Hammadi library, among which
    was found the Dead Sea Scrolls, also composed the Gospel of Judas.30
    Various other tests, commissioned by The National Geographic Society,
    concluded the present copy of the gospel dates between 220-340 A.D.31 Dr.
    Stephen Emmel of the University of Münster, Germany, a top expert in

    318
    ancient handwriting concluded the document is an authentic ancient
    document, rather than a modern forgery.32 Simon Gathercole of Aberdeen
    University agreed that the document is authentic, but did not regard it as
    significant. “It is certainly an ancient text,” he says, “but not ancient enough
    to tell us anything new [concerning Jesus or His disciples]. It contains
    themes which are alien to the first-century world of Jesus and Judas, but
    which became popular later.”33

    The Gospel of Judas conveys themes peculiar to Gnosticism, an early


    heresy which proposed that mankind possesses an inherent divinity which is
    hindered by its entrapment within a material body. While the Gospel of Judas
    is not the only non-canonical gospel to reflect Gnostic thought, it does so to a
    greater extreme than the others mentioned within this section. For the
    Gnostic, the material world represented a prison in which his true spiritual,
    divine self was held. In the gospel, Jesus is presented as saying to His
    disciples that God is “within you” and He encourages them to “bring out the
    perfect human and stand before [His] face.”34 (Brackets indicate word or
    lines missing from the text which have been replaced by the translators.)
    They taught that awareness of this inner divinity is only realized through the
    possession of a knowledge which remains hidden, or secret, to most men.
    Gnosticism differs from Christianity in that the Christian looks outward and
    upward to discover God, whereas the Gnostic looks within himself. For the
    Christian, the knowledge of God is that revelation which has been graciously
    given to him by the King of the universe. For the Gnostic, knowledge of God
    is the realization of his own presumably divine potential. In the Gospel of
    Judas, Judas is portrayed as helping Jesus release His inner divinity through
    the shedding of His mortal skin. This he does by Jesus allowing Judas to turn
    Him in to the authorities, thus setting in motion events leading to His death.
    In His death on the cross, they say, Jesus was freed from His mortal
    hindrances and came into His full spiritual potential. One of the key lines in
    the Gospel of Judas is spoken by Jesus, who in the gospel says to Judas, “…
    you will exceed all of the [disciples]. For you will sacrifice the man that
    clothes me.”35 In the canonical Gospels, Judas’ portrayal is that of traitor, but
    in the Gospel of Judas, he is seen as the disciple specially chosen for a
    purpose higher than that of the other disciples. Judas’ acts in the Gospel of
    Judas are that of obedience to his Master’s instruction, a twist on the words
    found in the John’s Gospel where the following interaction between Jesus
    and Judas is recorded:

    Jesus therefore answereth, He it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and
    give it him. So when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to
    Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. And after the sop, then entered Satan
    into him. Jesus therefore saith unto him, What thou doest, do quickly.
    Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
    (Jn 13:26-28 NASB)

    319
    In acting thus, Judas becomes the catalyst by which Jesus is eventually freed
    from His bodily prison, according to the Gnostic. As a result, Judas became
    the object of reverence to the early Gnostics, for in aiding Jesus in fulfilling
    the purpose for which He was sent, Judas indirectly aids mankind in its own
    finding of the “truth” of man’s inner divinity. In such an interpretation,
    Judas' act turns from betrayal to self-sacrifice. In the third act of the gospel,
    Judas tells Jesus of a vision in which he was being stoned and severely
    persecuted by the other disciples. Knowing that turning Jesus over to the
    authorities will bring him revile and scorn, Judas nevertheless fulfills his
    Master's request to conduct himself in a manner which would be seen by
    less-enlightened disciples as an act of betrayal. Out of his love for his
    Master and his devotion to the higher knowledge of which he has come into
    possession, Judas' willingly sacrifices Jesus' life so that Jesus can then be
    liberated from His body, gain immortality, and fulfill His ultimate mission:
    to enable mankind to attain its true, hidden potential. The “salvation” offered
    by the Gnostic Jesus is merely a deeper understanding of “true” human
    potential, rather than a forgiveness of sins. After all, how can man be sinful
    if he is inherently divine? If there's no sin, there's no need for forgiveness
    and no need for a savior.

    The opening line of the Gospel of Judas summarizes the theme of the
    entire gospel by introducing the text as “The secret account of the revelation
    that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot”36 The gospel attributes
    to Judas a depth of revelation that was not given to the other disciples, for
    only Judas understood Jesus’ true mission and teaching, a “truth” which was
    hidden from the other eleven disciples. In the text, Jesus is depicted as
    saying to Judas, “Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries
    of the Kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great
    deal. For someone else will replace you, in order that the twelve disciples
    may again come to completion with their God … You shall be cursed for
    generations [yet] you will come to rule over them [and] you will exceed all
    of them, for you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.”37 The details of the
    actual betrayal remain the same in the Gospel of Judas as they do in the
    canonical Gospels: there is still the arrest (albeit not in the garden of
    Gethsemene) and the exchange of money (the amount is only specified in
    the canonical Gospels) which the religious officials agreed to pay Judas for
    his betrayal of Jesus. However, the Gospel of Judas does not contain a
    record of any events after Jesus’ betrayal, including the crucifixion and
    resurrection of Jesus, nor the suicide of Judas, as recorded in the canonical
    Gospels.

    The gospel conveys the relationship between Jesus and His disciples as
    one which is characterized by a certain measure of alienation. Jesus is often
    depicted as laughing at His disciples' questions and actions, since such
    reflect their lack of understanding concerning Jesus' true nature and mission.
    In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus responds to His disciples' ignorance and
    adherence to seemingly useless beliefs in a sort of ridicule fashion. When

    320
    Jesus tells them that no one of their generation will know Him, the disciples
    respond with anger, to which Jesus then replies, “Why has this agitation led
    you to anger? Your god who is within you and [the word(s) immediately
    following are here missing from the text] have provoked you to anger
    [within] your souls. [Let] any one of you who is [strong enough] among
    human beings bring out the perfect human and stand before my face.”38 The
    only disciple who finds such strength is (drumroll, please) Judas Iscariot,
    who then says to Jesus, “I know who you are and from where you have
    come. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo.”*39 Jesus, knowing that
    Judas has stumbled into a deeper revelation, pulls him aside and proceeds to
    instruct him in the secret knowledge mentioned above: “Step away from the
    others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom.”40 What follows in
    the text is a lengthy discourse concerning Gnostic cosmology, a discussion
    of which would be a long-winded rabbit trail at this point and would do little
    more than expand on what has already been said concerning the Gnostic
    character of this gospel.

    The Gospel of Judas ends quite abruptly and in narrative fashion with the
    arrest of Jesus, as follows:

    “Their high priests murmured because [Jesus] had gone into the guest
    room for his prayer. But some scribes were there watching carefully in
    order to arrest him during the prayer, for they were afraid of the people,
    since he was regarded by all as a prophet. They approached Judas and
    said to him, 'What are you doing here? You are Jesus’ disciple.' Judas
    answered them as they wished. And he received some money and
    handed him over to them.”41

    The Gospel of Judas expresses doctrine which is in direct conflict with


    doctrine expressed in the New Testament. According to Scripture, Jesus gave
    His life as a sacrifice for sin, a sacrifice which was made voluntarily and
    according to a covenant established before the creation of the world. The
    Gospel of Judas does not make reference to the work of Jesus being
    redemptive in nature. Rather, the gospel portrays Jesus as one who is simply
    brought into a higher level of consciousness, which is irrespective of any
    plan of divine forgiveness for any transgression of man. The gospel reflects
    themes similar to that of astrology, which declares an assumed inherent
    divinity within man (see the previous heading concerning astrology for a
    refutation that Christian doctrine contains astrotheological themes). Also,
    Jesus came to bear witness to God, not just to a select few, but to all men (Jn
    1:6-7). Such a mission does not fit into the description of Jesus in the Gospel
    of Judas, who pulls Judas aside in order to reveal to him truth that has been
    withheld from Jesus' other twelve core disciples. The Jesus of the Gospel of
    Judas does not match up to the Jesus of the New Testament, who does not
    scoff at the depravity of His disciples; but rather, responds with compassion
    and love. Finally, the Gospel of Judas denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
    Since Gnosticism considers the material world evil, a resurrection in bodily

    321
    form does not constitute a victory within their theological framework. It is
    only by the shedding of the body that the spirit is made free (The
    resurrection of Jesus in bodily form will be addressed further in part five). In
    the final analysis, the Gospel of Judas, at best, preserves the belief of an
    early Christian sect, but does not reflect the sayings of the historical Jesus.

    * One might guess that Barbelo refers to a locale, as the name of the realm
    mentioned by Judas. In actuality, Barbelo refers to a concept or, more
    precisely, a goddess. In Gnostic theology, Barbelo is the first “emanation” of
    God, by which the cosmos is created. Barbelo first came into being when the
    One (or “God the Father”) viewed himself in the “waters of the aeon.”42 The
    reflection of his image became the second figure in the Gnostic trinity, or
    “God the Mother.” Irenaeus described the origin of Barbelo as follows:

    “Some of them [referring to the Gnostic sect known as Sethians], then,


    set forth a certain Aeon who never grows old, and exists in a virgin
    spirit: him they style Barbelos. They declare that somewhere or other
    there exists a certain father who cannot be named, and that he was
    desirous to reveal himself to this Barbelos … They declare that this was
    the beginning both of light and of the generation of all things; and that
    the Father, beholding this light, anointed it with his own benignity, that
    it might be rendered perfect.”43

    The two beings together, Father and Mother, being viewed as one, result in
    the androgynous (including both male and female qualities) nature of the
    Gnostic godhead. In the Apocryphon of John, another ancient Gnostic text
    (the content of which is outside the bounds of the present work), Barbelo is
    identified as “the first thought, [God's] image; she became the womb of
    everything, for it is she who is prior to them all, the Mother-Father, the first
    man, the holy Spirit, the thrice-male, the thrice-powerful, the thrice-named
    androgynous one, and the eternal aeon among the invisible ones, and the first
    to come forth."44 The androgynous nature of the godhead resulted in a third
    entity, the “son.” This son was created as a result of the masculine and
    feminine properties of the One consenting one to the other to unite and
    create the third member of the Gnostic trinity, as described in the Gnostic
    Gospel of the Egyptians: “Three powers came forth from [the One]; they are
    the Father, the Mother, and the Son ... The second ogdoad-power, the
    Mother, the virginal Barbelon ... came forth; she agreed with the Father.”45
    Hence, the purported virgin birth of the Gnostic son of god is merely an
    event which occurs in the realm of the godhead, rather than an actual virgin
    birth occurring within humanity, since the Gnostic Jesus is not said to have
    had a literal physical body in the first place. Also, the Gnostic son of god is
    not an eternal being, but was fashioned through a union of the first two
    members of the trinity. Although Gnostics regard these three as one entity,
    the fact is that two of these three had a definite point of origin, unlike the
    Christian Trinity, whose members are equal and eternally co-existent. The
    Gnostic trinity began as a single being, which developed into a second, then

    322
    a third being, as described in the Three Steles of Seth: “Thou [the Father-
    Mother] didst continue being one; yet becoming numerable in division, thou
    art three-fold.”46

    The Gospel of Thomas


    Between 1897 and 1905 several fragments of the Gospel of Thomas,
    written in Greek, were discovered in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. Later, in 1945, a
    complete Coptic version of the gospel was found, along with the Gospel of
    Philip, as part of the Nag Hammadi library. The Coptic text, which was
    believed to have been a translation of the earlier Greek version, was dated to
    c.340 A.D.,47 while the Greek version dated c.140 A.D.48 Early testimony
    serves to corroborate the fact that the gospel existed at least around the
    middle of the third century, since the work is mentioned by Hippolytus of
    Rome (c. 170-c. 236 A.D.):

    “And concerning this (nature) they hand down an explicit passage,


    occurring in the Gospel inscribed according to Thomas, expressing
    themselves thus: 'He who seeks me, will find, me in children from
    seven years old; for there concealed, I shall in the fourteenth age be
    made manifest.'”49

    Early testimony, coming to us from Cyril of Jerusalem (c.313–386 A.D.),


    also serves to confirm that the early church regarded the Gospel of Thomas
    as a heretical document and not authentic to the Apostle's hand (emphasis
    mine):

    “Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the
    rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichaeans also wrote
    a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the
    fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort.
    Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these
    the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a
    seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen
    Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank …
    Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas: for it is the work not of
    one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked disciples of
    Manes*.”50

    There are those who argue for a dating earlier than 140 A.D. in an
    attempt to claim that the Gospel of Thomas was written prior to the
    canonical Gospels. Much of the evidence presented in their defense is
    merely circumstantial and based on an assumed relationship between one
    text to another. For instance, they claim that John's account of Thomas
    touching the risen body of Jesus is an Apostolic rebuttal of the Gnostic
    denial of a bodily resurrection. Also, in Galatians 2:9 where Paul says, “And
    when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the

    323
    grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands
    of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the
    circumcision,” it is claimed that since he did not mention Peter as among the
    leaders of the church, that such exclusion is reflective of the twelfth saying
    of the Gospel of Thomas which states, “The disciples said to Jesus, 'We
    know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?' Jesus said to
    them, 'No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose
    sake heaven and earth came into being.'”51 It is argued that the exclusion of
    Peter and the inclusion of James suggests a church government which, they
    say, existed prior to 70 A.D.52 However, Paul does mention Cephas, which is
    the Greek rendering of the Aramaic name CephaÕ53, a name by which the
    Apostle Peter was also known:

    One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was
    Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother
    Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is,
    being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when
    Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt
    be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. (Jn 1:40-42; cf.
    1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5)

    Another argument the critic uses for an early date is the citation given by
    Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:9, where he says, “But as it is written, Eye hath not
    seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things
    which God hath prepared for them that love him.” It is claimed Paul is
    citing the seventeenth saying of the Gospel of Thomas, which states, “Jesus
    said, 'I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no
    hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart.'”54 However, the
    text which Paul quoted (in typical Pauline style when citing the Old
    Testament, by prefacing the citation with, “as it is written, ...”) was the book
    of Isaiah, not the Gospel of Thomas:

    For from days of old they have not heard or perceived by ear, Nor has
    the eye seen a God besides You, Who acts in behalf of the one who
    waits for Him. (Isa 64:4)

    The format of the gospel is similar to that of Philip in that it contains a


    collection of sayings which are presented outside of any sort of narrative
    context. These sayings (114 in number), attributed to Jesus, only at times
    bear similarities to anything attributed to Him in the canonical Gospels.
    Proponents of the Jesus myth theory claim that the similarities between the
    Gospel of Thomas and the canonical Gospels demonstrate that the latter was
    based on the former; however, as shown above, the Gospel of Thomas bears
    marks which demonstrate that the text postdates the Gospels. The
    similarities between the two represent a borrowing of content from the
    author of the Gospel of Thomas, rather than the authors of the canonical
    Gospels. As stated, characteristics of the Gospel of Thomas identify the text

    324
    as one which was composed after the completion of the four canonical
    Gospels. Although the Gospel of Thomas contains sayings found in three of
    the four Gospels, the order in which the saying appear is different from the
    order they appear throughout Scripture, and the Gospel of Mark is excluded
    altogether, as shown in the chart below.55 Such a characteristic would not
    likely be present if the author of the Gospel of Thomas were following the
    life of Jesus as portrayed in the canonical Gospels.

    Canonical Gospel Gospel of Thomas


    Mt 5:10 Saying 69
    Mt 5:14 Saying 32
    Mt 6:2-4 Sayings 6 and 14
    Mt 6:3 Saying 62
    Mt 7:6 Saying 93
    Mt 10:16 Saying 39
    Mt 11:30 Saying 90
    Mt 13:24-30 Saying 57
    Mt 13:44 Saying 109
    Mt 13:45-46 Saying 76
    Mt 13:47-50 Saying 8
    Mt 15:13 Saying 40
    Mt 18:20 Saying 30
    Mt 23:13 Sayings 39 and 102

    Lk 11:27-28; 23:29 Saying 79


    Lk 12:13-14 Saying 72
    Lk 12:16-21 Saying 63
    Lk 12:49 Saying 10
    Lk 17:20-21 Sayings 3 and 113

    Jn 1:9 Saying 24
    Jn 1:14 Saying 28
    Jn 4:13-15 Saying 13
    Jn 7:32-36 Saying 38
    Jn 8:12; 9.5 Saying 77

    When a saying in the Gospel of Thomas is reminiscent of another work


    containing the same or similar saying, most often the other work in question
    is the Gospel of Matthew, Luke, or John. Such consistency serves to testify
    in favor of the proposition that the canonical Gospels were regarded as the
    sole authoritative source for the life of Jesus of Nazareth. As Harry Y.
    Gamble states, “[The Gospel of Thomas] demonstrates that the Fourfold
    gospel was accepted as the only authoritative source for teaching--by the
    very fact that its citations were predominantly from those gospels! And the
    fact that the four gospels were available to a single redactor at that time
    confirms the rather rapid and frequent distribution and exchange of
    Christian literature in the period.”56

    325
    The simple fact of the matter is that none of the first or second century
    Christian writers, none of whom were shy when it came to exposing
    heresies, mention the Gospel of Thomas, as would be expected if such a text
    existed during their lifetime. Prior to Hippolytus' comments above, there is
    no mention of the gospel in any surviving written record. The dependence
    the Gospel of Thomas apparently has on the canonical Gospels serves to
    post-date the writing of this apocryphal work in relation to the otherwise
    canonical accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The consensus of
    scholars is that the Gospel of Thomas is not a first century document; but
    rather, is one which dates at around the mid-second century. As Craig
    Blomberg, a leading scholar and professor of religion at Colorado's Denver
    Seminary, states, “the [Gospel of Thomas] may have first been written as
    early as about A.D. 150, but no actual evidence permits us to push that date
    a century earlier.”57 Likewise, H.J.W. Drijvers suggests the Gospel of
    Thomas was based not on the canonical Gospels, but on Taitian's
    Diatessaron (the first harmony of the Gospels, written c. 150 A.D.)58

    The author of the gospel is named, within the first lines of the text, as
    “Didymos Judas Thomas:” “These are the secret sayings that the living
    Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.”59 The words “didymos”
    and “thomas” mean “twin” in Greek and Arabic, respectively (“thomas” is a
    Greek derivative of the Aramic word “T'oma,” which means “twin”).
    Therefore, since “thomas” is not thought to refer to a name, the author is
    identified as Judas (or Jude or Judah, the Greek version of the Hebrew name
    Yedudah). However, such a name was very common among the early
    centuries of Christianity and there is no way to know exactly to which Judas
    this was in reference. The Gospel of John names Jesus’ disciple Thomas as
    “Thomas, which is called Didymus” (Jn 11:16; 20:24; and 21:2), or
    “Thomas, the twin.” It is in this sense that the identification “Judas thomas”
    is used in the Gospel of Thomas to name its author, as if “thomas” is his
    title, rather than part of his name. In contrast, the disciple Judas is never
    mentioned in Scripture as “Judas thomas.”

    The Gospel of Thomas is another Gnostic gospel, for which reason it was
    not included among the canon of the New Testament. The gospel teaches the
    inherent divinity of mankind, the realization of which is causes man to see
    the “kingdom of God,” which is embodied in the world around him. Also,
    the image of God is not one in which man naturally bears a resemblance to
    God in his essence, but is one which is realized by the awakening of a
    greater knowledge. The knowledge contained in the gospel is said to be a
    “secret” knowledge, as stated in the opening line of the text and is reflective
    of the same secrecy which is said of the knowledge described in other
    Gnostic gospels such as Mary and Judas. This knowledge is said to come
    from the teachings of the “living Jesus.” Christians regard Jesus as alive and
    well, being bodily risen from the dead, and sing songs to Him as the risen
    Lord. However, this is not the same sense in which the Gnostic regards Jesus

    326
    as “living.” According to the Gnostic, when Jesus walked among us in the
    flesh, His inner, spiritual self (that is, His true self which existed before
    being born of Mary) was imprisoned within His flesh and was later freed
    when His body died. Such a view is expressive of a conflicting dualism
    which did not exist within the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was fully
    man and fully God. Each nature coexisted harmoniously, without either His
    deity being hindered or His humanity being superhuman. The belief
    expressed in the Gospel of Thomas reflects the Gnostic belief in two realms
    of existence: the material and the spiritual. The spiritual realm consists of all
    that is good, bright, cheery, and full of life, whereas the material realm is
    wicked, dark, gloomy, and where death is inevitable. The majority of people
    those residing in the material realm are unenlightened individuals who
    simply have no clue as to what they are missing out on in the spiritual realm.
    However, there are a select few in the material realm who are blessings in
    disguise – eternal spirits who have been incarnated in the flesh but are
    unaware of their transcendent nature, being hindered by their material form.
    Such is the type of person Jesus of Nazareth is to the Gnostic. He is not
    believed to be God, since God (or rather a lesser god) is considered to be an
    evil being, having created the material realm. This is in stark contrast to
    Scripture, which proclaims, “The heavens declare the glory of God,” (Ps
    19:1) and affirms that even from the very beginning “God saw every thing
    that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” (Gen 1:31) According to
    the Gnostic, Jesus, being awakened to His true self, causes others, by the
    truth of His teaching, to be awakened to their true selves and embrace their
    higher nature by the shedding of their material form, as did Jesus when His
    material form died on the cross. The Apostle Peter declared of Jesus that
    salvation is in His name alone. The Gospel of Thomas, however, declares
    just the opposite, saying, “If you bring forth what is within you, what you
    have will save you. If you do not bring it forth, what you do not have within
    you will kill you. … the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside
    of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known,
    and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if
    you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are
    that poverty.”60 As one encyclopedia states, “The teaching of salvation (i.e.,
    entering the Kingdom of Heaven) that is found in The Gospel of Thomas is
    neither that of ‘works’ nor of ‘grace’ as the dicotomy is found in the
    canonical gospels, but what might be called a third way, that of insight. The
    overriding concern of The Gospel of Thomas is to find the light within in
    order to be a light unto the world.”61 For the adherent to Gnosticism salvation
    does not come through the work of Christ on the cross, or even through the
    work of Christ at all; but rather, through the awakening of knowledge within
    oneself, leading the individual to look within for his hope of salvation, rather
    than looking to the cross and reaching out to the only one who is mighty to
    save. For the Gnostic, truth is subjective, since his “truth” is that which lies
    within one's soul and is discovered through personal introspection. Such a
    notion denies the existence of absolute truth, which is naturally and
    necessarily objective (see the discussion in Part two concerning Freethought

    327
    and the objectivity of truth). The problem the Gnostic must overcome, in his
    inner search for whatever he finds therein and chooses to call truth, is the
    uncertainly that the conclusions he draws based on his own personal
    experiences and understanding are indeed reflective of that which is true.
    There is no guarantee that the truth discovered by Gnostic Bob will be the
    same truth discovered by Gnostic Phil, and who is to say which truth is
    correct unless there is some standard by which to judge each one's
    conclusions? While personal experience is one evidence for a person's faith
    (as millions of Christians would testify), experience and understanding
    should never be the basis for one's faith. Experience is only as valid as the
    proofs by which it is accompanied, and without such other proof religious
    ideas based on personal impressions can potentially lead to notions as absurd
    as those held by Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh, or the Heaven's
    Gate crowd. The confidence the Christian has been graciously given is that
    belief in the Gospel of Christ is not only reasonable and logical, but also
    accompanied by “many infallible proofs,” as stated by the evangelist Luke
    (Acts 1:3) and expounded upon throughout this present work. It is by grace
    through faith alone that people come to Christ, but it is not by faith alone that
    we live in Christ. As Christians, we do not live by a faith so blind that we
    cling to the cross as one lost at sea clinging to a raft and hoping for a ship
    which will never come, for God is both faithful and true, and He has
    mercifully provided us with evidence which, as Josh McDowell stated,
    demands a verdict.

    * Mani of Persia (c. 210-276 A.D.) was the founder of the Gnostic religion
    known as Manichaeism, a religion to which Augustine of Hippo belonged
    before his conversion to Christianity.

    The Docetic gospel: the Gospel of Peter


    The Gospel of Peter presently exists in the form of three fragments. The first, an
    eighth century fragment, was discovered in 1886 by French archaeologist Urbain
    Bouriant, and was discovered along with other manuscripts which were found in a
    monk’s burial chamber in the city of Akhmim, Egypt. The third and final fragment is
    a sixth century papyri, the discovery of which was published in 1972. Although the
    fragments in which the text presently exists dates no earlier than the eighth century,
    the Gospel of Peter itself is referenced in the writings of the early church. The early
    church historian Eusebius references the gospel in his address concerning Serapion,
    who is said to have written a letter “on the so-called Gospel of Peter, [in order] to
    refute the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some in the parish
    of Rhossus who had been led astray by it into heterodox notions..”62 Eusebius’
    mention of the Gospel of Peter lends to the popular consensus of dating the gospel to
    the latter half of the second century.63 Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown proposes
    the political organization described in the gospel attests that it was not written in
    Palestine within the first century, since an author writing at that time would not have
    confused the roles of Pilate and Herod as the supreme ruler in Jerusalem.64 He further
    suggests a second century date of composition since the Gospel of Peter contains an

    328
    amalgam of elements found in each of the four canonical Gospels (with the author's
    embellishments inserted throughout the narrative), the fourth of which was not
    composed until near the end of the first century. Also, certain theological elements of
    the gospel, which will be discussed shortly, are not known to have existed prior to
    the second century, but are a late modification of Christian doctrine as expressed in
    heresies which surfaced later.

    The Gospel of Peter purports to be written by none other than the Apostle Peter
    himself, as clearly stated in the text: “But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took
    our nets and went to the sea.” (Gospel of Peter 14.3) Although the work claims it is
    the work of the Apostle, it is likely and generally agreed upon by scholars, that the
    actual creation of the text did not occur until after Peter’s martyrdom. Brown also
    suggested the work was composed by an author who had compiled what he received
    by oral tradition as well as what that particular author recalled concerning the
    contents of the canonical Gospels, with his own embellishments inserted in the text.65
    The Gospel of Peter differs from the aforementioned Gospel of Judas in its style.
    Whereas Judas contained dialogues not framed within any narrative context, Peter is
    largely narrative in style. The fragments which exist today contain narratives of
    events which occurred within the last week of Jesus. It is not known if the lost
    fragments covered the same span of time in Jesus’ life or contained accounts of what
    had transpired before His triumphal entry in Jerusalem, marking the beginning of His
    last week prior to His crucifixion.

    Whereas the Gospel of Judas was largely Gnostic in its teaching, the Gospel of
    Peter reflects docetic themes. Docetism (from the Greek word “dokeo,” meaning “to
    seem”) is a belief that arose in the early church age and which was condemned as
    heresy by orthodox Christianity. Docetism teaches that Jesus only appeared to be a
    man without having actually taken upon Himself literal flesh and blood. According
    to this view, the flesh of Jesus was only illusion, whereas His true form was purely
    spiritual and, as such, could not suffer physical death or feel physical pain. It is in
    this line of thought that the Gospel of Peter alleges that Jesus did not die on the
    cross, but was “taken up” into heaven before He died (Gospel of Peter 5.5).
    Adherents to docetism believe that Jesus, as a spiritual manifestation of human form,
    felt no pain during His trials (Gospel of Peter 4.1). Also, in the same passage by
    Eusebius as cited above, it is indicated that Serapion declared the Gospel of Peter
    was used by adherents to docetism. Additionally, the gospel never once refers to
    Christ by the name Jesus nor the title Christ. Rather, the Savior is identified, even by
    His enemies, as “Lord” or Son of God,” thereby diluting His humanity in favor of
    His divinity, or spirituality, which falls right in line with docetic thought.

    The Gospel of Peter begins with Jesus’ trial before Pilate, but in this version of
    events, Pilate is acquitted of charges of villainy, and Herod, the king of the Jews, is
    named as the one according to whose word Jesus is finally sentenced to death
    (Gospel of Peter 2.3). The declaration of Jesus, “My God, my God, why hast thou
    forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46) is replaced with, “My power, my power, thou hast
    forsaken me.” (Gospel of Peter 5.5) In the canonical Gospels the disciples are
    depicted as fleeing the scene and, in one case, even denying any association with

    329
    Jesus, however, in the Gospel of Peter, the disciples remain in hiding for fear of their
    lives, after hearing charges against them of plotting to burn the Temple (Gospel of
    Peter 7.2). In the Gospel of Peter the Roman centurion does not break Jesus’ legs, as
    described in Scripture (Jn 19:31-33), in order that His death would be more painful
    and prolonged (Gospel of Peter 4.5). Following the death of Christ, the Gospel of
    Peter records the resurrection and ascension as happening on the same day, whereas
    the New Testament accounts for a span of time of forty days (Acts 1:3) between the
    two events. Also, the Gospel of Peter records more guards and watchmen at the tomb
    than does the canonical Gospels (Gospel of Peter 10.1).

    The majority of the Gospel of Peter concerns itself with events after Jesus’ burial.
    The account given of the resurrection is as follows:

    “But during the night before the Lord's day dawned, as the soldiers were
    keeping guard two by two in every watch, there came a great sound in the
    sky, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend shining with a
    great light, and they drew near to the tomb. The stone which had been set on
    the door rolled away by itself and moved to one side, and the tomb was
    opened and both of the young men went in. Now when these soldiers saw
    that, they woke up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there
    keeping watch). While they were yet telling them the things which they had
    seen, they saw three men come out of the tomb, two of them sustaining the
    other one, and a cross following after them. The heads of the two they saw
    had heads that reached up to heaven, but the head of him that was led by
    them wen beyond heaven. And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying,
    ‘Have you preached unto them that sleep?’ The answer that was heard from
    the cross was, ‘Yes!’”66

    The Gospels do not give an account of the actual resurrection of Jesus. In each
    Gospel, the tomb is found already empty. Even in Matthew’s account, which records
    an angel descending from heaven and rolling away the stone, it is apparent from the
    text that Jesus had already risen prior to the stone being rolled away. The Gospel of
    Peter describes, as shown in the passage above, two angels, with their height
    reaching to the heavens, emerging from Jesus’ tomb “sustaining” a third unidentified
    person, perhaps Jesus Himself, and behind them emerges the cross, floating in a sort
    of suspended animation. Following their emergence from the tomb, a voice from
    heaven asks, “Have you preached unto them that sleep?” to which the cross replies,
    “Yes!”

    Following the account of Jesus’ resurrection, the Gospel of Peter indicates the
    reason for the hurried burial was due to fear of retaliation by an angry Jewish mob
    (Gospel of Peter 12.1), whereas the canonical Gospels describe it as being done in
    order to finish the burial before the beginning of the Passover. The extant fragment
    of the Gospel of Peter ends abruptly and in mid-sentence after stating the disciples
    continued to grieve over the death of Jesus.

    330
    The docetic Jesus is a Jesus whose shedding of blood did not bring the remission
    of sin. Throughout both the Old and New Testaments the shedding of blood is an
    integral element in God's plan of salvation for man (Heb 9:22). The Old Testament
    sacrificial system, in which the blood of animals was offered to God in sacrifice, was
    in anticipation of the coming Messiah, whose blood would be shed for the sin of the
    world (Jn 1:29). If Jesus did not possess a physical body, then He would not have
    been able to fulfill that which was required to satisfy divine justice, which required
    blood for the sin of man. Therefore, the docetic Jesus does not fulfill the prophecies
    stated of the Messiah in the Old Testament, of whose death the shedding of the blood
    of animals was a foreshadow. According to the Gnostic view, the flesh of Jesus was
    only illusion, whereas His true form was purely spiritual and, as such, could not
    suffer physical death or feel physical pain. It is in this line of thought that the Gospel
    of Peter alleges that Jesus did not die on the cross, but was “taken up” into heaven
    before He died (Gospel of Peter 5.5). In order to die, Jesus had to possess a body, not
    just the illusion of a body. Finally, the notion that the Son of God manifested Himself
    in a body which only appeared human, but did not possess actual material human
    form nor felt pain is contradictory to characteristics which are applied to the
    incarnated Son of God in the Gospels. Jesus took upon Himself literal flesh and
    blood, part of a two-fold nature which will be discussed in detail in Part five.

    The “Bloodline” Gospels of Mary and Phillip:


    These two gospels contain elements which are widely used to suggest that Jesus
    and Mary Magdalene were married and could possibly have sired a secret bloodline
    still in existence today. The view gained widespread popularity with the 1982
    publication of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail and by Dan Brown's novel The Da
    Vinci Code, with its subsequent theatrical adaptation starring Tom Hanks. In his
    book, Brown makes more than a few critical errors in judgment, suggesting ideas
    about Jesus which he frames within the context of a fictional novel. While novel is
    fiction, the ideas presented therein are not, as admitted by Brown himself: “... the
    secret I reveal is one that has been whispered for centuries. It is not my own.
    Admittedly, this may be the first time the secret has been unveiled within the format
    of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new.”67 It is by this clever
    deceit that Brown has led many down a false path laden with misconceptions and
    misunderstandings, and at the end of which is a depiction of Jesus that does not line
    up with who Jesus really was. The errors of the book, which range to minor
    misconceptions to attempted deicide, are as follows:

    1. That the gnostic gospels predate the canonical Gospels and are therefore
    the most accurate accounts and depictions of the life and teachings of Jesus.
    Since this notion is among those under scrutiny in the present heading, no
    further discussion is here needed.
    2. That Constantine suppressed the gnostic gospels and, in their stead,
    imposed the canonical Gospels on the church. Also, that the deity of Christ
    was not a doctrine of the church until the Council of Nicea. Quite to the
    contrary, the New Testament, comprised of first century writings, do indeed
    affirm the deity of Christ, which will be shown in Part five. As far as

    331
    Brown's false assertions concerning doctrine put forth at the Council of
    Nicea and the role of Constantine, such an error has already been addressed
    under a previous heading.
    3. That the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi documents, rather than
    the books included in the New Testament, represent the earliest Christian
    writings. The truth is, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not Christian writings. They
    represent Jewish, not Christian thought. As far as the Nag Hammadi
    documents, The Gospels of Mary and Philip were among those found at Nag
    Hammadi, Egypt. and discussions on each of these works are immediately
    forthcoming.
    4. That Jesus had to have been married (since Brown claims that all first
    century Jewish men were married), that His wife was Mary Magdalene, and
    that the two sired offspring whose bloodline, the true “Holy Grail,” (as
    Brown hypothesizes) are presently alive and well. These claims will be
    addressed at the close of this heading. Here, I will briefly comment on
    Brown's analysis of Leonardo Da Vinci's painting The Last Supper, the
    original of which is seen on the following page (Figure 1):

    Figure 1
    Brown postulates that the figure sitting to the left of Jesus (center figure,
    obviously), and leaning to the left of the painting, is Mary Magdalene.
    However, if that is so, then why are there only eleven disciples portrayed,
    when the Gospels depict all twelve present at the table? Historically, Brown's
    “mystery figure” in question has been regarded as the disciple John, who
    many believe is the “beloved disciple” mentioned in John's Gospel. It was
    common practice for classical painters to depict that disciple with pale skin
    and red hair, as the questionable figure above is seen. Also, as far as the
    argument that this figure is painted with feminine features, the same can be
    said of Jesus Himself, as Da Vinci depicts Him (see Figure 2).

    332
    Figure 2
    Brown then engages in a bit of creative revision of Da Vinci's original
    composition by repositioning the presumed “Mary Magdalene” figure to the
    right of Jesus, rather than to the left (see Figure 3), and pointing out how
    nicely “she” fits on Jesus' shoulder:

    Figure 3
    In so doing, he sets forth the notion that the repositioning of the “Mary”
    figure suggests a coded message within Da Vinci's painting that indicates an
    intimate relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, a relationship
    which has been suppressed by the church in order to protect its doctrine of
    Christ's divinity. However, this repositioning leaves some irregularities
    concerning the positioning of the two figures to the immediate left of “Mary”
    in the original composition, thus throwing off balance the actions of the other
    figures. Furthermore, the repositioning of “Mary” counteracts the positioning
    of Jesus' left hand, resting on the table with its palm face up, rather than
    embracing His beloved “bride.” The reader may ask why I make an issue of
    this in the first place, and the answer is two-fold: 1) as an artist and painter
    myself, I recognize the tragedy of mutilating one of history's great works of
    art simply for the sake of presenting a fabricated agenda, and 2) the reason
    behind Brown's hypothesis that Jesus was married and fathered a bloodline is
    so that he may strip Jesus of His divinity, at least in the mind of his readers.
    Indeed, in The Da Vinci Code the notion is presented that if Jesus married
    and had a child, such a lifestyle would indicate that He was not divine.68 The
    validity of that claim will also be addressed at the close of this heading.

    333
    My purpose in this heading is not to focus on Brown's book or the film,
    regardless of whatever intent or ulterior motive the author may have had in view
    when writing the book. Concerning The Da Vinci Code, I have said above all that
    needs to be said. Rather, this section will address these two “bloodline” gospels
    directly without reference to Brown's novel, as his theories are, by his own
    admission, ones that have been “whispered for centuries.” Also, the forthcoming
    discussion concerning the supposed roles of Jesus as both a husband and father will
    be addressed without reference to any hypothesis presented strictly in Brown's novel.

    Gospel of Mary
    In 1986, in Cairo, Egypt, two fragmentary portions of a lost gospel, later
    known as the Gospel of Mary, were found in which it was suggested that
    Mary Magdalene had a more intimate relationship with Jesus than is
    described in the Gospel accounts. A third fragment was found in the
    Egyptian Nag Hammadi library in 1945. The first two fragments, written in
    Greek (believed to be the original language in which the text was written),
    were dated to the early third century, while the third, written in Coptic, dated
    to the fifth century.69 The gospel is generally dated between 130-180 A.D.,70
    but even this date post-dates the writing of the canonical Gospels and the
    existence of anyone who was a contemporary of Jesus. The author of the
    Gospel of Mary is unidentified in the text and it is not implied within that the
    work was written by an author writing as if he were one of Jesus’ disciples
    (which, given the late date, would be a futile attempt). It is assumed by the
    title the gospel is written by Mary, but which Mary is a subject for debate,
    which is again a moot point since Jesus’ mother, Mary Magdalene, or any
    other Mary named in Scripture would have passed from the scene prior to
    the appearance of this text. The author of the text, whoever he, she, or they
    may be, seems to be writing from the perspective of Mary Magdalene, as is
    the traditional view, and reflecting sentiments found elsewhere in the Gospel
    of Phillip, a discussion of which is immediately forthcoming. In each of
    these gospels, Mary Magdalene is portrayed as being especially loved by
    Jesus, above all others, thereby suggesting the two were husband and wife.

    The extant version of Gospel of Mary begins with a dialogue, the setting
    of which is missing from the text, although it appears the scene takes place
    after Jesus’ resurrection, for the disciples make mention of Jesus not being
    “spared,” suggesting that He had already been crucified. In the opening
    portion of the text, Jesus is instructing His disciples concerning the nature of
    sin. He says (brackets indicate words or portions which are missing from the
    original text and have been replaced by translators), “There is no such thing
    as sin; rather you yourselves are what produces sin when you act in
    accordance with the nature of adultery, which is called 'sin.' … This is why
    you get si[c]k and die: because [you love] what de[c]ei[ve]s [you]. [Anyone
    who] thinks should consider [these matters]! … Go then, preac[h] the good
    news about the Realm.”71 After Jesus leaves the scene, the disciples
    expressed their upset over the words spoken by Jesus, saying, “How are we
    going to go out to the rest of the world to announce the good news about the

    334
    Realm of the child of true Humanity? … If they did not spare him, how will
    they spare us?” Mary then offers words of comfort to the disciples, to which
    Peter replies, “Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than all other
    women. Tell us the words of the Savior that you remember, the things which
    you know that we don't because we haven't heard them.” Mary then says she
    will teach them “about what is hidden from [them].” Shortly after Mary
    begins her instruction, the dialogue is cut short due to four missing pages
    from the text. The text picks up with Mary relating a vision in which her soul
    ascends through four material “Powers” which attempt to prevent the soul
    from reaching its final resting point. The following excerpt is from her
    description of the vision she relates to the disciples:

    “When the soul had brought the third Power to naught, it went
    upward and saw the fourth Power. It had seven forms. The first
    form is darkness; the second is desire; the third is ignorance; the
    fourth is zeal for death; the fifth is the realm of the flesh; the sixth
    is the foolish wisdom of the flesh; the seventh is the wisdom of the
    wrathful person. These are the seven Powers of Wrath … The soul
    replied, saying, 'What binds me has been slain, and what surrounds
    me has been destroyed, and my desire has been brought to an end,
    and ignorance has died. In a [wor]ld, I was set loose from a world
    [an]d in a type, from a type which is above, and (from) the chain of
    forgetfulness which exists in time. From this hour on, for the time
    of the due season of the aeon, I will receive rest i[n] silence.'”

    Following Mary’s recounting of her vision, Andrew expresses doubt that


    Jesus told Mary the things she had claimed he did. Peter responds with
    jealousy over the prospect that Jesus revealed special knowledge to Mary,
    while withholding the same knowledge from them. Levi, also known as
    Matthew, rebuked Peter for his contention with Mary: “For if the Savior
    made her worthy, who are you then for your part to reject her? Assuredly the
    Savior's knowledge of her is completely reliable. That is why he loved her
    more than us. Rather we should be ashamed. We should clothe ourselves
    with the perfect Human, acquire it for ourselves as he commanded us, and
    announce the good news, not laying down any other rule or law that differs
    from what the Savior said.” The gospel concludes with the line, “After [he
    had said these] things, they started going out [to] teach and to preach.”

    The Gnostic character of the Gospel is most vividly expressed in Mary’s


    line, “The soul replied, saying, 'What binds me has been slain, and what
    surrounds me has been destroyed, and my desire has been brought to an end,
    and ignorance has died.” Thus, the body is seen as that which “binds” the
    soul and, upon death, the soul is no longer hindered by the “ignorance” it
    possessed while still in the body – a view which echoes the theology within
    the Gnostic gospels previously discussed under this heading. However, that
    which sets this Gnostic work apart from the Gospel of Judas or Thomas is
    the claim that Jesus loved Mary more than His other disciples (this notion

    335
    will be addressed further when considering the Gospel of Phillip) and that, as
    some read into the text, an intimate relationship existed between the two.
    Mary is seen as not only more enlightened, but also more receptive to the
    words of Jesus, since the disciples’ seem more interested in engaging in a
    sort of power play, debating who is greatest among them. The gospel may
    also reflect a debate in the early church over the role of women. In the New
    Testament, women are clearly prohibited from holding leadership positions
    such as a bishop or elder. In fact, in one passage, women are even instructed
    not to speak in the church. It may be that the author of the Gospel of Mary
    intended to defend a matriarchal leadership within the church by presenting
    Mary in such a light as does this text. Indeed, she held authority comparable
    to that of the Apostles, for she was an eyewitness to Jesus, being a close
    companion of His. It was Mary Magdalene who first saw the risen Jesus, a
    fact which makes her the first Christian to ever spread the Gospel of the risen
    Lord. Whatever was the author’s intention, the text is used today as an
    engine to promote the notion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were husband
    and wife, a notion which will be addressed shortly hereafter.

    Gospel of Philip
    In 1945 the Gospel of Phillip was first discovered as part of a library
    found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The text dates to the latter half of the third
    century A.D., according to Wesley W. Isenberg, who translated the Coptic
    text,72 although others suggest a date of composition as early as 180 A.D.73
    The title of the text does not identify Phillip as the author (were that the case,
    the document would have had to been composed by him in the first century).
    Rather, the title refers to the fact that Phillip is the only disciple mentioned
    within the text.

    The Gospel of Philip is not a narrative work, as are each of the four
    canonical Gospels. In style, the book more closely resembles the book of
    Proverbs, since the Gospel of Philip contains random sayings and follows no
    organizational formula, with changes in subjects often occurring suddenly. It
    is believed the sayings found in the gospel are collected from various lost
    writings, with some sayings being found in the canonical Gospels. The over-
    all topic with which the gospel is concerned is the value of ordinances such
    as baptism and, in particular, marriage. In the Gospel of Philip, the unity be-
    tween husband and wife is seen as typical of spiritual unity, which echoes the
    New Testament’s teaching that the marriage relationship is reflective of the
    relationship Christ has with His church. However, the sayings of the gospel
    are flavored with Gnosticism, and convey various notions which are diamet-
    rically opposed to doctrines taught in Scripture. For instance, in Genesis,
    mankind is created in God’s image, however, in the Gospel of Philip, men
    and women, when considered separately, do not bear the image of God.
    Rather, it is only through the institution of marriage and the unity they
    achieve therein that they reflect God’s image. According to the Gospel of
    Philip, the sin of Adam and Eve broke the unity they shared and the coming
    of Jesus was for the purpose of restoring this broken unity between men and

    336
    women.74 Likewise, the Genesis account of creation is not at all like the de-
    scription of creation which is stated in the Gospel of Philip, which states,
    “the world came about through a mistake. For he who created it wanted to
    create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For
    the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter, was he who made the
    world.”75 Here, not only is the sovereignty of God undermined by the “fail-
    ure” of His creation, but also His eternal nature is denied when the text
    claims God is not “imperishable.” The gospel also lashes out at the Old Tes-
    tament sacrificial system by saying, "God is a man-eater. For this reason,
    men are sacrificed to him. Before men were sacrificed, animals were being
    sacrificed, since those to whom they were sacrificed were not gods.”76
    Nowhere in Scripture are men sacrificed to God in accordance with any di-
    vine mandate. There are accounts of human sacrifices by leaders of Israel in
    the Old Testament, but such actions were condemned by God and, as a result,
    the guilty parties were met with punishment and/or curse. In fact, it was such
    a sin for which a curse was brought upon the Davidic lineage of Jehoiakim,
    who instituted pagan idol worship and human sacrifice as part of the religion
    of Israel. As a result, it was foretold that no one of his lineage, after the short
    reign of his son Jehoiachin would ever sit on his throne. Thus, it was during
    Jehoiachin’s reign that the Jews were led into Persian captivity, thereby
    marking an end to the Davidic royal line (Jer 22:30, 23:5-6). As far as animal
    sacrifices, if anyone were to be guilty of charges of animal cruelty, it would
    be man himself, whose sin was the cause of the institution of the sacrificial
    system. It was by grace alone that God even provided a means of salvation,
    and the sacrifices offered in Old Testament times were foreshadowing the
    coming redemption provided by the offering of Jesus’ body and blood on the
    cross. Finally, the Gospel of Philip denies that Jesus was born of a virgin,
    saying, “Some said, Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. They are in error.
    They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive
    by a woman? … And the Lord would not have said ‘My Father who is in
    heaven’ unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply ‘my
    father.’”77 I will not dive into a discussion on the virgin birth here, but will
    merely point out that both the Gospel writers and the Apostle Paul affirmed
    Jesus’ virgin birth (a discussion of which is forthcoming in Part five). As far
    as Jesus’ statement about His Father being in heaven, such was not a clarifi-
    cation of which father He was referring to; but rather, was a direct claim to
    deity. Had Jesus simply said, “Father,” without adding, “who is in heaven,”
    such would not have been an admission that He was the natural born son of
    Joseph (who actually was Jesus’ father in a legal, but not biological, sense).
    However, in saying, “My Father who is in heaven,” Jesus is directly claiming
    to be the Son of God (the Hebrew concept of sonship will also be addressed
    in Part five, as such a term was also used to refer to oneness to another in
    essence or purpose, rather than strictly an ontological begetting of person).

    The Gospel of Philip is best known for allegedly implying that a marriage
    relationship existed between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Although such a
    relationship is not blatantly stated in the gospel, it does describe Mary as His

    337
    “companion” and the one who is “loved more than all” and who Jesus “used
    to kiss often.” In some translations, Mary is even named as Jesus’ “lover.”
    The suspicion of marriage is derived from two passages from the text,
    quoted below (brackets indicate missing words which have been restored by
    the translator):

    “There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his
    mother, and his sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his
    companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each
    a Mary.”

    “And the companion of [the saviour was] Mary Magdalene. [Christ


    loved] her more than [all] the disciples, [and used to] kiss her
    [often] on her [the word here is missing from the text, although
    many translations insert “mouth”]. The rest of [the disciples were
    offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him "Why
    do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and
    said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man
    and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no
    different from one another. When the light comes, then he who
    sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in
    darkness.”78

    As shown above, the identification of Jesus as the one who loved Mary
    more than the disciples is based on the translator’s assumption rather than
    anything that is explicitly stated in the text. The jealously of the disciples at
    Jesus' affection for Mary suggests that the relationship between Jesus and
    Mary, as presented in this text, was not that of husband and wife, else why
    would such a form of love be that of which the disciples would become
    jealous. Certainly, there are no homosexual undertones contained within this
    gospel, yet the disciples desire that Jesus love them with the same kind of
    love He had for Mary. After Jesus is asked why He loves Mary more than the
    others, the reply He gives makes no reference to His love for her being
    grounded in a matrimonial relationship. Rather, He states His reason through
    the giving of a parable, thereby indicating that Mary has come into a greater
    spiritual understanding than the others, and it is this understanding which has
    earned her His great affection. Also, the word translated “companion” in the
    above passage is the word koinonos, which is neither a synonym for “wife”
    nor “spouse; but rather, simply means “a partner, associate, comrade, or
    companion in anything.”79 As such, the same word could have been used of
    any one of Jesus' disciples. Paul uses the same word when speaking of his
    friend and fellow believer Philemon in the following passage, when writing
    to his friend on behalf of a former slave (Onesimus) of Philemon, with
    whom Paul has since come in contact, that Philemon would receive
    Onesimus back into his fellowship, despite any past transgression:

    338
    If thou [Philemon] count me therefore a partner, receive him
    [Onesimus] as myself. (Philemon 1:17)

    As far as Jesus kissing Mary, such does not denote a marriage


    relationship. The fact that Jesus is said to have kissed Mary “often” likewise
    does not denote an intimacy set within the bounds of marriage. It is widely
    known that in ancient times a kiss was a form of greeting, rather than strictly
    an expression of devotion. In various passages in the New Testament,
    believers are admonished to greet one another with a “holy kiss.” (see 1 Sam
    20:41; Prov 24:26; Rom 16:16; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:25; 1 Pet 5:14). The
    New Manners and Customs of the Bible explains that the custom was
    practiced by “the laying on of hands on each other’s shoulders then a pulling
    together and the giving of a kiss, first on the right cheek and then on the
    left.”80 A kiss served as an outward expression of love, hospitality, and
    brotherhood, not unlike the common handshake today.81 The kiss of
    hospitality was practiced among members of the same sex as well as those of
    opposite sex, at least until the third century when the two genders were
    separated with respect to such a practice.82 The practice of kiss-giving
    continued beyond the Apostolic era, as the early apologist Justin Martyr
    testified that kisses were exchanged among Christians prior to engaging in
    the Lords Supper.83 Aside from the kiss on the cheek, a mouth-to-mouth kiss
    was also used to show brotherly love and, like the kiss on the cheek, was not
    restricted to being between those of opposite sex. It is believed that this was
    the type of kiss by which Judas betrayed Jesus in the garden of Gethsemene.
    (Lk 22:48) Such a kiss was not practiced by the giving of a single kiss, but
    by repeating the kiss several times in a single instance,84 thus hearkening
    back to the Gospel of Thomas when it states that Jesus kissed Mary “often.”
    The Coptic word translated “kiss” in the Gospel of Thomas is the word
    “aspaze,”85 which is equivalent to the Greek word “philema,” translated
    seven times in the New Testament as “kiss” (Lk 7:45; 22:48, Rom 16:16; 1
    Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26; 1 Pet 5:14) and denotes “a sign of
    fraternal affection.”86 Furthermore, in each of the above passages where the
    word appears in the New Testament, it is referring to a kiss of hospitality, not
    within the context of sensuality or by people in a marital or otherwise
    sensual relationship. In fact, elsewhere in the same gospel, the text makes
    reference to such a fraternal form of kissing:

    “The perfect are conceived thru a kiss and they are born.
    Therefore we also are motivated to kiss one another— to receive
    conception from within our mutual grace.”87

    Ian Wilson, in his book Jesus: the Evidence, provides a nice short, yet
    accurate, analysis by stating, “[the Gospel of Philip] has no special claim to
    an early date, and seems to be merely a Mills and Boon-style fantasy of a
    type not uncommon among Christian apocryphal literature of the third and
    fourth centuries.”88

    339
    Addendum: Could Jesus have been married and had a child?

    Consideration one: As a first century Jew, was Jesus required by


    law to marry?
    One of the reasons that some claim Jesus had to have been married
    is the claim that celibacy was forbidden for first century Jews. Nowhere
    in the Mosaic Law were Jews commanded to remain celibate. In fact,
    some of the greatest prophets of the Old Testament, such as Jeremiah
    and Elijah, were never said to have been married. Likewise, in the first
    century there were Jews who remained unmarried, and did so without
    violating any religious ordinance. It is true that the religious authorities
    presiding in Palestine in the first century imposed their own form of
    law on the people, as many liberties were made when it came to
    applying the Law of Moses to areas of social and religious practices. As
    a result, Temple worship became flavored with commercialism and
    laws regulating society were made to conform to the wishes of the
    priesthood and the Sanhedrin, the judicial authority in Jerusalem, next
    to King Herod. However, celibacy was not a requirement imposed upon
    Jews by those in authority in the first century. In fact, both Josephus
    and Philo, two first century Jews, testified in their writings to the
    celibate lifestyle had by some within their ethnic group. Their
    testimonies are as follows, the first two by Josephus and the third by
    Philo:

    “These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem


    continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue.
    They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons' children,
    while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to
    be of their kindred, and form them according to their own
    manners.”89

    “There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and
    neither marry wives.”90

    “Again, perceiving with more than ordinary acuteness and


    accuracy, what is alone or at least above all other things
    calculated to dissolve such associations, they repudiate
    marriage; and at the same time they practise continence in an
    eminent degree; for no one of the Essenes ever marries a
    wife.”91

    Consideration two: Why might Jesus have remained celibate?


    In Jesus' time, it was customary for Jewish males to marry by around
    age sixteen. Jewish boys did not choose their own bride. Rather, the
    marriage was arranged by the parents. At times, marriage was
    postponed to a later age, or neglected altogether, if one's circumstances
    or obligations warranted a single life. Such may have been the reason

    340
    why Jesus would have chosen to remain single. Jesus and, presumably,
    His mother and foster father (that is, Joseph) knew of the mission for
    which He was sent. As the Messiah, Jesus was not destined to live a life
    of a king in a fashionable palace, in victory over His enemies, and as
    one who united the twelve scattered tribes of Israel, as many of His
    time thought regarding the Messiah's purpose. Rather, He was sent to
    die for sin. His purpose as the Lamb of God who would be sacrificed
    according to the Father's predetermined plan to redeem man is one
    which Jesus was fully aware of. Even at age twelve, in the only reliable
    account we have of any event during Jesus' childhood, Jesus was aware
    that He was sent by God, whom Jesus named, even in His youth, as His
    Father. Later, during His public ministry Jesus spoke to His disciples
    concerning both the time and manner of His death in Jerusalem during
    His coming visit to the city during Passover week. Knowing that His
    life would end at the early age of thirty-three (Jews were legally
    considered “young men” until age thirty – see the heading in Part one
    concerning Jesus' baptism at age thirty), thereby preventing Him from
    fulfilling familial obligations as either a husband or father, the life of
    celibacy may have been a lifestyle according to which He felt obligated
    to abide. Jesus was not the only child of Joseph's household. The
    Gospels speak of Jesus as having brothers and sisters. Yet, Jesus
    regarded His role as Messiah as that which superseded all such
    relationships. This frame of mind is particular evident in the following
    account where Jesus names His mother and brethren as those who do
    His Father's will, rather than those with whom He shared a blood
    relation.

    While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his
    brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one
    said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand
    without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said
    unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my
    brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples,
    and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever
    shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is
    my brother, and sister, and mother. (Mt 12:46-50)

    Also, the Gospel of Matthew records an instance when the Pharisees


    questioned Jesus concerning divorce, to which Jesus replied that
    divorce was permissible in the case of infidelity. Following His reply
    to the inquiry, Jesus makes the following statement to His disciples:

    For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their
    mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were
    made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made
    themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that
    is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Mt 19:12)

    341
    Many scholars perceive in this passage Jesus' defense to His disciples
    for not taking for Himself a wife, since He says that some men remain
    celibate for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, that is to say, for the
    sake of a divine calling to a particular ministry. In remaining single,
    these ones so called devote their lives and their time to what is
    perceived as a special and, perhaps, more noble purpose – one which
    would be hindered by virtue of spousal obligation. However, Jesus
    recognizes this type of celibacy is uncommon and difficult to
    understand, although not unreasonable and condemned within His
    society as immoral or illegal.

    Jesus' marital status is not expressly stated in Scripture, although it is


    strongly implied (and not for doctrinal reasons) that He was unmarried
    during His ministry. Aside from the indication above, another indication
    that Jesus was not married is the lack of mention of a spouse when
    referring to Jesus' relatives. His mother, foster father, brothers and
    sisters are mentioned, as well as are Salome, Jesus' aunt and Mary's
    younger sister, and His cousins Zechariah, Elizabeth, and John (the
    Apostle John and son of Salome). However, even at the time of His
    death, there is no mention of any spouse present. In fact, the only
    woman present at the crucifixion to whom Jesus expresses any type of
    familial obligation is His mother Mary,* whom He places in the care of
    the “beloved disciple,” who is widely considered to be the disciple
    John. Of course, it is possible that one could argue Jesus had been
    married but that His wife died prematurely prior to the beginning of His
    public ministry. Were that the case, there would have been no reason to
    mention His status as widow in the Gospels, since the purpose of
    ancient biographies was to present an account of the deeds which made
    one worthy of being the subject of a biographer. However, the
    proposition that Jesus was a widow is based on nothing other than a
    theory unfounded on even circumstantial evidence.

    It is also suggested that the wedding at Cana, where Jesus performed


    His first recorded miracle by turning water into wine, was actually the
    wedding of Jesus. However, the context of the passage, as commented
    upon below, does not present Jesus in the role of bridegroom.

    And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and
    the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and
    his disciples, to the marriage [if Jesus was the groom, He
    would not have been among those on the “guest list”]. And
    when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him,
    They [that is, the wedding party] have no wine [had Mary and
    Jesus been among the wedding party, she would not have
    spoken in the third person]. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what
    have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother
    saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

    342
    And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the
    manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three
    firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with
    water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto
    them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.
    And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the
    water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but
    the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the
    feast called the bridegroom [this clearly refers to a person
    other than Jesus], And saith unto him, Every man at the
    beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well
    drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good
    wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana
    of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples
    believed on him. After this he went down to Capernaum, he,
    and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples [notice the
    lack of mention of a spouse among His traveling
    companions]: and they continued there not many days. (Jn
    2:1-12)

    * Some critics claim that Mary Magdalene, who was present at the
    crucifixion, was Jesus' spouse and the one whom Jesus entrusts to John,
    but this notion is refuted merely by the context of the passage. Such a
    theory will be addressed later.

    Consideration three: Could Jesus have been married and still fulfill
    His roles as the divine Son of God and Messiah?
    There are two reasons why some Christians believe, rather
    adamantly, that Jesus absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a
    doubt could have never been married. The first reason is the casting of a
    negative light on sensual pleasure, even when had within the context of
    marriage. While it is clear in Scripture that Jesus could not have
    engaged in sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage (for such is
    forbidden in the Mosaic Law, and Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not
    break it), it is nowhere stated that such pleasures within the bonds of
    matrimony is a transgression of the Law. In fact, quite the contrary is
    stated and sexuality within marriage has the benefit of being blessed by
    God, regardless of whether the husband in question is an utter social
    and moral degenerate or the virgin-born Son of God. Any claim to the
    contrary echoes too closely the sentiment of Gnosticism, which places a
    stigma on material and physical pleasure, a stigma which is not
    supported by Scripture. The second reason why some Christians believe
    it an impossibility for Jesus to have been married is the notion that in so
    doing, His deity would be compromised by the marriage relationship. It
    is the critic's intention, when presenting this argument, to brings forth
    whatever notion he or she can present in order to foster doubt,
    regardless of how unfounded, on Jesus' deity. After all, as the critic

    343
    claims, if Jesus was married, then such would affirm He lived a life
    common to men of His time, in which case there was nothing special
    about Him and He most certainly was not the Son of God. Jesus' deity
    and equality with God the Father is clearly stated numerous times in
    both the Old and New Testament, in a prophetic and historical context,
    respectively. However, Jesus was not only divine; He was also human. I
    will reserve an in-depth treatment of Jesus' two natures for Part five.
    Here, I will contain the treatment to the claim that Jesus was fully God
    and fully man, not half God and half man or two-thirds God and one-
    third man, and also that these two natures co-existed within the person
    of the Messiah in a harmonious relationship. At no time could Jesus do
    anything as a man that would counteract anything He could do as God,
    or vice-versa. Therefore, as a man Jesus could have been married, and
    such a relationship with another human being would not have stripped
    Him of His deity, since marriage is a perfectly natural and God-
    ordained type of relationship between one man and one woman. I agree,
    for reasons stated in the previous paragraphs, that it is likely that Jesus
    was not married; however, it is simply not correct to say that He
    definitely could not have been married, as such a premise is based on
    false assumptions regarding His dual natures. As the Messiah, it was
    necessary for Jesus to be conceived of a virgin, but it was not necessary
    that Jesus live a virgin life. The attempt to undermine the New
    Testament's many claims to Jesus' deity in order to reduce Him to just
    your average Joe is purely based on false ideas and, consequently,
    inevitably false conclusions. As the saying goes, “Garbage in, garbage
    out.”

    Some critics claim that the reason Jesus is not portrayed in Scripture
    as being married is that the Gospel writers suppressed an actual
    marriage, a suppression which was continued by the church, in order to
    protect Jesus' deity. Aside from what has been said above (and will be
    expounded upon later in this book) concerning the harmony between
    Jesus' humanity and deity, a harmony which would not be interrupted
    by a marriage relationship, it only needs to be further noted that
    nowhere in Scripture nor in any doctrinal creed formed by the church
    (and there many been many formed in the last two thousand years,
    including the one by myself in the postscript of this book) is the
    perpetual virginity of Jesus named as an article on which the church
    stands. The Catholic church and several other groups regard Mary as
    living a life of perpetual virginity, a notion which is implied in the
    second century text The Nativity of Mary and later made Catholic
    dogma in 1950, however such an idea is outside the bounds of this
    discussion. In conclusion, it must be asked: if it is true that the church
    did suppress Jesus' marital status in order to protect a false notion that
    He was divine, when all along He did not possess one ounce of divinity,
    then why did the writers of the New Testament die for their adherence
    to a false doctrine? If Jesus was 100% man and 0% God, then why did

    344
    the Apostles, when faced with the choice to renounce their faith or
    perish, not simply sign on the dotted line that they renounce their belief
    in something they knew was a falsehood in the first place? Granted, the
    Apostles' steadfastness to their professed faith does not testify to the
    validity of those beliefs which they professed (no more than a terrorist's
    cause is validated simply because he believes in his cause), but it does
    testify they believed that what they professed was the truth and not a
    falsehood that was intentionally suppressed by their own hand. The
    simple truth is, the theory that the Gospel writers suppressed anything
    in order to present a false Gospel simply contradicts the testimony of
    history.

    Consideration four: If Jesus was married, could Mary Magdalene


    have been His wife?
    Having answered the question of whether or not Jesus could have
    been married, I will now address the issue concerning Mary Magdalene
    as the most likely candidate for “Mrs. Jesus,” as the suggestion goes
    among the various camps of critics and the less informed. Mary is
    called Magdalene because she was from the fishing village of Magdala.
    Some believe she is the same person identified as either Mary of
    Bethany or as the unnamed prostitute in Luke chapter seven (a
    suggestion that gained momentum after such was stated in a sermon by
    Pope Gregory the Great in 591 A.D.), however no contextual support
    for either of these notions is provided by Scripture. The first mention of
    Mary Magdalene is from Luke's eighth chapter, in which it is said that
    she had formerly been possessed by seven demons.

    And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and
    infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven
    devils, And Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and
    Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto Him of
    their substance. (Lk 8:2-3 NASB)

    The short passage above not only mentions the reason for Mary's love,
    but also the manner in which that love took expression. Each of these
    three women, Mary, Joanna, and Susanna, experienced some sort of
    deliverance from physical bondage, be it infirmity or possession by
    demons. Their devotion to Jesus was the result of the redemption, both
    spiritual and physical, which He had granted to them, rather than the
    devotion of any one of these women being due to a bond of matrimony.
    Also, the expression of Mary's devotion for Jesus is not described as
    being any different from the other two women, each of whom gave to
    Jesus “of their substance,” or their time, their belongings, and, most
    importantly, their unwavering devotion. The only relationship that the
    Gospels portray between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is that of Master
    and devoted follower. Mary's devotion to Jesus, rather than being a
    reason to suspect a marital relationship, should serve as a model for all

    345
    who have been likewise washed by the blood of the Lamb. Prior to
    Luke chapter eight there is no indication that Jesus even knew Mary
    Magdalene. Of course, it is possible that He was acquainted with her
    and that her relationship to Him prior to her cleansing was that of an
    unbeliever, however, any such assumption is not supported by the
    Gospels. As far as we know, prior to Mary's cleansing, she and Jesus
    had not even met, much less were betrothed. After Luke's initial
    mention of Mary there is no further mention of her in the Gospels'
    accounts until the crucifixion (Mk 15:40) where she remains by the side
    of her Lord, along with Jesus' mother and other of His female disciples.
    Thus, the mention of Mary in the Gospel of Philip as Jesus'
    “companion” fits right in line with the Gospel's description of Mary as
    one of Jesus' female traveling companions.

    The very fact that Mary Magdalene is named in accordance with her
    place of origin is a strong indication that she was unmarried. It was
    customary for first century Jewish women to be named by their
    hometown if they were not united in marriage; otherwise, their
    designation would be after their husband's name,92 as is the case of
    Joanna, who is identified as “the wife of Chuza (Lk 8:3), or another
    Mary, identified as “the wife of Cleophas.” (Jn 19:25) Concerning the
    use of geographic designations Dr. Ben Witherington III states, “This
    was done because it was believed that a person's origin said something
    definitive about (and perhaps even determined) who that person was or
    could be, hence Nathaniel's question about whether anything good
    could come out of Nazareth (Jn 1:46).”93

    Before closing this portion I feel I must address a documentary that


    was released on DVD in 2008 and has since received much attention.
    The documentary Bloodline was produced by Rene Barnett and written,
    directed, and narrated by Bruce Burgess. The film investigates the
    theory that not only is there a bloodline alive today which is made up of
    the descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, but also that the bodies
    of Jesus and Mary are entombed in France and guarded by a secret
    society (which chose to go public in 1956) known as the Priory of Sion,
    a society founded in 1099 and to whom belonged such notable figures
    as Sir Issac Newton, Botticello, Victor Hugo, and even Da Vinci
    himself, according to parchments discovered in 1975. As the
    filmmakers pursue various clues left for them by a deceased priest who
    desired to reveal the “truth,” Bloodline plays itself out like an Indiana
    Jones movie, although without all the action and thrills that are
    characteristic of Indy's adventures. Likewise, in Da Vinci Code fashion,
    the suggestion is made in the film that within certain pieces of art there
    exist clues which indicate that a marriage existed between Jesus and
    Mary Magdalene. One such work presented as evidence is a stained
    glass window in Kilmore Church on the Isle of Mull in Scotland, in
    which Jesus and Mary, whose image is perceived by some as a pregnant

    346
    woman, are depicted with their right hands in embrace (see Figure 4).
    Another work presented is a scene depicting Jesus’ burial, in which a
    moon has been painted in the top left corner of the image (see Figure
    5), suggesting the burial was at night. Speculation put forth in
    Bloodline is that such a scene indicates Jesus was not dead at the time
    of burial, since Jews were forbidden to touch a dead body at night.

    Figure 4 Figure 5

    Priory of Sion member Nicholas Haywood, who is interviewed in


    the film, claims there is evidence of a bloodline, saying that “the
    mainstay of evidence are a series of items which are kept together …
    and attests wholeheartedly” that such a bloodline exists. This“body of
    evidence,” which the filmmakers believe is a literal reference to a
    corpse, is said to exist in the area around Rennes-le-Chateau in
    southwest France. It is also said that a priest by the name of Jacques
    Saunière found a crypt under his church in which this evidence once
    existed. Attempts to excavate the tomb, now sealed, is prohibited by the
    French government. The evidence Saunière is said to have found,
    parchments which proved Jesus was alive in 45 A.D., are now believed
    to be sealed in the Vatican’s archives. Yet, copies of these parchments
    are provided by an anonymous source during the filming of Bloodline.
    Upon analysis, the copies were dated to the time of the French
    Revolution and found to make the claim that Jesus, along with His wife
    and kids, were smuggled to France, where they now are said to be
    entombed. Also on the parchment is a coded map of the area in which
    the supposed holy family is buried in an underground temple near
    Rennes-le-Chateau and still remain in a mummified state, according to
    Haywood (who was careful not to affirm the existence of these bodies,
    but to merely comment on their state of being if they did exist).

    What follows next is the pursuit of a series of clues said to have been
    left by Saunière concerning the location of the actual tomb. While it can
    be proven that Saunière did once walk the area in which the clues were
    discovered, no proof exists that they were indeed left by him, rather

    347
    than by a hoaxer. The clues, which were handwritten notes bottled up
    and dug into nooks and crannies or hidden under rocks, were found and
    followed in a scavenger hunt-like fashion. According to one note,
    Saunière is claimed to write, “...the resurrection of Jesus was a trick …
    it was Mary Magdalene who took his body from his tomb... the
    Disciples were fooled ... Later ... the body of Jesus was discovered by
    the Templars and then hidden three times ... Rome knows all about this,
    but they can not afford to let the secret be known ... they threatened to
    kill ... if the location of the tomb was revealed....” Another note led the
    filmmakers to a cave in which a shoebox-size chest was dug up. Inside
    the chest were found various artifacts which were later examined by
    Israeli archaeologist Dr. Gabriel Barkey. The contents of the box
    included a ceramic cup, a small scroll dating between 1440-1620 A.D.,
    a first century Judean ointment jar, and coins dating between the first
    and sixth centuries. On the scroll was a handwritten map of the Rennes-
    le-Chateau church and the following challenge: “Here you begin to
    undertake a search for the secret tomb and treasure which I have
    guarded. And by the act of finding it you become its guardian.” Also on
    the map was an arrow pointing to a crypt within the church. In the end,
    the adventurers were led to a cave in which was discovered a partially
    mummified corpse laid beneath a shroud decorated with a red Crusader-
    style cross. Close examination of the corpse was not possible due to
    lack of accessibility to the body (which was filmed by lowering a
    camera through a small opening above), however several hair strands
    were able to be retrieved through the use of precision tools. Analysts
    who examined the strands were unable to determine the age or gender
    of the corpse, but stated they believed the body was of middle-eastern
    origin. The film closes with a clip of a recorded phone call from an
    anonymous high-ranking Vatican insider who is heard saying, “Clearly,
    the fact that Christ had children, that it wasn't a story of resurrection …
    the truth is different. But there is no point in revealing truth to people
    until they are ready. People sometimes, they want to buy a lie more
    readily than the truth. … The Catholic Church is the Priory of Sion, if
    you like.” Plans to further excavate the tomb is presently underway.

    The best evidence presented in Bloodline that Jesus and Mary


    Magdalene were married and are now buried in France is the discovery
    of a corpse of unknown age or gender in the area where their bodies are
    supposed to be located. Aside from the corpse, no items were presented
    which stands as empirical evidence or as evidence which can provide a
    direct link to Jesus of Nazareth. What more, there is no answer given to
    the evidence which does exist concerning the resurrection of Jesus (see
    Part five concerning the historical resurrection of Jesus). Rather, the
    theories proposed in the film are pursued with a rather tunnel vision
    sort of investigation, to the exclusion of evidence to the contrary or
    with an attempt to explain just how it was that Mary Magdalene stole a
    body from a tomb which was under Roman guard. The artwork

    348
    presented in the film is of late origin and is not accompanied by early
    testimony to any belief that Jesus and Mary were married. Even in the
    image of Jesus and Mary holding hands, the idea that she is depicted as
    pregnant is subjected to one’s own visual interpretation. In fact, as
    noted above, neither the Gospel of Mary nor Thomas suggests that such
    a union existed, and the very notion is against the Gnostic teachings
    which permeate the texts. The scrolls and notes found during the
    scavenger hunt for the tomb are highly suspect, as the authenticity of
    none of these papers can be proven and it is unlikely that someone in
    charge of guarding such a “holy grail” would leave clues which could
    place the guardianship of these items in the hands of someone who
    would not be guaranteed to be a worthy sentry.

    In conclusion to this fourth consideration, I will remind the reader


    that although the Gospel of Philip mentions Mary as Jesus'
    “companion” and the one whom He loved “more than all” and “kissed
    often,” none of these statements denote a marriage relationship, for
    contextual and linguistic reasons previously stated.

    Consideration five: If Jesus was married, could He have fathered a


    child, thus beginning a bloodline of Jesus which could still be alive
    today?
    In the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus it is suggested that the
    anonymous “beloved disciple” mentioned in the Gospel of John (Jn
    20:2) is actually a reference to a son born to Jesus and Mary
    Magdalene. It was also the “beloved disciple” to whom Jesus charged
    with the care of His mother following His crucifixion (Jn 19:25-27).
    Even if Jesus did have a son, it is clear that the Gospels present a
    chronology of events which does not support the notion that the
    “beloved disciple” is Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s son, and such
    evidence will be presented under the following heading dealing with
    the supposed “Jesus family tomb.” Here, I will address the question of
    whether or not Jesus could have had a son without compromising the
    Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus.

    The Gospels do not mention any child born to Jesus, however, some
    see this lack of mention as an attempt to conceal Jesus’ son, in order to
    protect his identity and spare him persecution. It is in the spirit of such
    speculation that critics interpret the obscure reference to the “beloved
    disciple” as a reference to Jesus’ son. However, if Jesus did have a son
    who was at least an adolescent by the end of Jesus’ ministry, the
    identity of this son would have already been a thing of public
    knowledge, since Jesus would have had no reason to conceal His son's
    identity prior to His public recognition as the Messiah. Secondly,
    Nazareth, where Jesus lived, had a population of about five hundred,
    and everyone there would have known of any children born to Him.
    Thirdly, this supposed son was present at the crucifixion and the one to

    349
    whom Jesus committed the care of His mother. There was no effort to
    conceal the son’s identity during Jesus’ lifetime, and therefore no need
    to conceal his identity in the Gospels. Fourthly, the theory that the son’s
    identity was concealed in order to provide for his safety is untenable on
    the grounds that Jesus never told His disciples they would be free from
    persecution. Rather, He foretold they would be persecuted, as shown in
    the passages below:

    So ye are witnesses and consent unto the works of your


    fathers: for they killed them, and ye build their tombs.
    Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them
    prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and
    persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed
    from the foundation of the world, may be required of this
    generation; from the blood of Abel unto the blood of
    Zachariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary:
    yea, I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation. (Lk
    12:48-51 NASB)

    But before all these things, they shall lay their hands on you,
    and shall persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues
    and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my
    name’s sake. It shall turn out unto you for a testimony. Settle
    it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand how to
    answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all
    your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to gainsay.
    But ye shall be delivered up even by parents, and brethren,
    and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to
    be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my
    name’s sake. Lk 21:12-17 NASB

    Jesus instructed His disciples not to flee persecution; but rather, to


    embrace it:

    Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’


    sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye
    when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all
    manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (Mt 5: 10-11
    NASB)

    Such a sentiment is echoed in the letters of the New Testament when


    Paul declares that he took joy in his persecution, knowing that it was
    for the glory of God. What glory is there is hiding a disciple from such
    persecution? Jesus did not encourage His disciples to hide behind
    masks, but to embrace persecution, knowing that they would be blessed
    in so doing. Fifthly, if Jesus had a son, such a tradition would have
    existed within the church, for the identity of this child would have been

    350
    known to Jesus’ disciples. After this child would die, and even if the
    Apostles had concealed the identity of this child during his lifetime, the
    need for concealment would die with him. The fact is that in the
    writings of the early church there is not found any reference to a child
    born to Jesus.

    Still, is it possible that Jesus, as the Son of God, could have had a
    son? Until this point, I have only addressed the notion that Jesus did
    have a son, but that such a relationship was shrouded in secrecy. The
    issue now under consideration will be whether or not Jesus’ siring of an
    offspring would have violated His divinity or made Him unfit to die for
    the sin of others. It is evident that His humanity would not have been
    compromised by becoming a father, no more than the humanity of any
    other male is compromised by fatherhood, but what about Jesus’ deity?
    Could the Son of God, as God in the flesh, become a father to another
    human being through the normal process of regeneration and still be
    divine? While the notion of fatherhood is not contrary to any
    physiological consideration relating to Jesus of Nazareth, there remain
    theological concerns which must be addressed in such speculation. As
    God, Jesus of Nazareth was without sin. It was Jesus’ sinlessness which
    made His death a worthy sacrifice for sin and a sacrifice acceptable to
    the Father; otherwise, Jesus would have only died as a man paying the
    penalty for His own sin, as a sinner being under the same curse of death
    as anyone else (this point will be discussed in detail in Part five
    regarding Jesus’ role as Mediator between God and man). The sinless
    state of Jesus was one that was inherent to His nature. As God, Jesus
    could not sin, for acting in sin is against the divine nature. Although the
    qualities of Jesus’ human nature were distinct from His divine nature
    (for instance, as a man, Jesus needed to eat, but as God, He is self-
    sustained), both natures – the divine and the human – were possessed
    by the single person of Christ. Therefore, had Christ, in His humanity,
    committed sin, the person of the Son of God would have also
    committed sin. Since God cannot be something that is contrary to His
    nature and since God cannot break His own decree, then no sin could
    enter into Him by any act committed by Jesus’ humanity. Some may
    argue that if Jesus was unable to sin, then He was not fully human,
    since every person is born with a sinful nature. However, it must be
    remembered that man was not created with a sinful nature. Rather,
    Adam became sinful by a choice to sin. Jesus was fully human,
    regardless of the lack of a sinful nature, but His humanity was reflective
    of the humanity of man as it was before sin entered into the matrix. In
    saying Jesus' humanity was reflective of man prior to the fall into sin, I
    am not saying that Jesus' humanity was identical to Adam's state prior
    to the fall. Adam was created with the ability to sin or not to sin, and he
    chose the former. Jesus, on the other hand, was only able not to sin. The
    difference between Adam's original state and Jesus' humanity is that the
    former was innocent, whereas Jesus was perfect. I say that to say this:

    351
    since Jesus was without even the ability to sin, then what sort of moral
    nature would a son of Jesus possess? If Jesus had a son, would that son
    likewise be sinless, or would he possess the same moral guilt as any
    other member of the human race? If “Jesus Jr”. (who, strictly for the
    sake of argument, I will name Theo) would also be sinless, then a
    fourth member would be introduced into the Holy Trinity, as only God
    can be without the ability to sin. Still, if Theo would have been created
    as a divine being, then his divinity would have been violated by the
    very fact of his creation, for God is without beginning or end. Also, if
    Theo was without original sin (that is, a sinful nature inherent from
    birth), then he, like Jesus, would have been suitable to be the Lamb of
    God who takes away the sin of the world, as John the Baptist declared
    of Jesus at the moment of Jesus’ baptism. However, Jesus alone is said
    in Scripture to be worthy of such a position. Only in Jesus’ name is
    there salvation. Only by His shed blood is sin forgiven and blemished
    men are cleansed of the filth of sin, having their soul washed white as
    snow. Therefore, since only the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are
    inherently sinless, Theo would have needed to be in possession of a
    sinful nature, inherent from birth, just the same as any other person. So,
    while one question has perhaps been answered (ultimately, only God
    knows the answer to such speculations), another issue raises its head
    and asks the question, “If a son of Jesus was born with a sinful nature,
    then from where did such a nature come?” Scripture states that sin is
    passed on through the man, not genetically, but by representation (Rom
    5:12). Theologians speak of the “federal headship of Adam,” meaning
    that Adam was the representative head of the human race, on a
    corporate scale, as the male is the representative head of his family. The
    book of Hebrews speaks of two types of humanity: one sinful line
    represented by Adam’s sin and worthy of divine wrath, while the other
    is represented by Christ’s righteousness and worthy of adoption as sons
    of God (further discussion on this will be reserved to the
    aforementioned section regarding Christ’s mediatory work). As men
    inherit sin by virtue of a spiritual relationship with Adam, so do men
    receive redemption by virtue of a spiritual relationship with Christ. If
    Jesus did have a son, it is not likely that His son would have been
    miraculously fashioned from a lump of clay. Although Jesus did have
    the power to create life in such fashion, His miracles were for the
    purpose of directing people to the Father and as evidence for Jesus’ own
    deity, rather then merely for show or self-service. Therefore, Theo
    would likely have been born through the normal reproductive process.
    Still, the question remains: to what or whom would Theo’s sinful nature
    be attributed? One may argue that since Theo came into being through
    normal human regeneration, then he would have inherited the sin nature
    passed on through Adam, despite Theo’s biological father being without
    a sinful nature. One may also argue that Jesus is the representative head
    of a new creation, as Hebrews states, and that anyone generated from
    Him stands in Christ’s righteousness and is not in possession of the

    352
    guilt brought on by a sinful nature. However, that argument brings us
    back to problem number one; that is, not how Theo would become
    sinful; but rather, was Theo sinful. Therefore, I must conclude that
    while it was humanly possible that Jesus produced an offspring through
    the normal interaction of the sexes, it would have been neither practical
    nor necessary for Him to do so, and the notion that Theo would have
    existed at all presents theological problems that cannot absolutely be
    resolved by a finite mind (which does not mean that resolutions to such
    problems do not exist). I have presented arguments here which seem
    logical according to the measure of revelation given to man in
    Scripture, but I have done so with tongue-in-cheek and the feeling that
    perhaps I have been writing the synopsis for an episode of The Twilight
    Zone. In the final analysis, I will state that it is not likely that Jesus
    fathered a child, not only for the reasons listed above, but also because
    the purpose of Jesus’ coming was to seek and save those who are lost
    (Mt 18:11), not to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:27-28).
    Conclusion
    In a court of law a verdict is given after it has been shown that the charges
    against a defendant cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If farmer
    Bob is accused of stealing farmer Joe’s chicken, the goal of the defense
    attorney is not to prove farmer Bob’s innocence, but rather to disprove his
    guilt. In other words, if it can be shown that the defendant is likely not to
    have been the culprit in the crime, then the jury cannot reasonably render a
    guilty verdict, even though it may still be conceivably possible that farmer
    Bob did in fact steal the chicken. The argument concerned with any
    supposed bloodline of Christ is not too unlike such a scenario. Yes, it is
    possible that Jesus was married. Yes, is it possible that He was married and
    had a son. However, the likelihood of either of these being true is very low;
    therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that neither proposition is true.
    Also, the idea that either or both of these notions could conceivably be true
    does not constitute a heretical view. Rather, the true heresy behind the
    bloodline theory is that Jesus survived the crucifixion, lived a normal life,
    died a natural death, and remained in His tomb. The tragedy of adhering to
    this view is that attention is given to the relationship between Jesus and
    Mary, without considering the relationship between Jesus and sinners. Even
    if Jesus was married, He still died for sin, and it is this which marks the
    relationship which is of utmost importance – the relationship between Jesus
    and a sinner, by which the sinner is forgiven and adopted as a child of God.
    In the New Testament, only the church itself is named as the bride of Christ,
    as shown in the passages below (emphasis mine):

    For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of
    the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is
    subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in
    everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
    church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having

    353
    cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might
    present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or
    wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without
    blemish. Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their
    own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man
    ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as
    Christ also the church; because we are members of his body. For this
    cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his
    wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I
    speak in regard of Christ and of the church. Nevertheless do ye also
    severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife
    see that she fear her husband. (Eph 5:23-33 NASB)

    And [Christ] 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 NASB)

    For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and
    as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice
    over thee. (Isa 62:5 NASB)

    I will greatly rejoice in Jehovah, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for


    he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me
    with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with a
    garland, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels. (Isa 61:10
    NASB)

    Then come to [Jesus] the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the
    Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them,
    Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is
    with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken
    away from them, and then will they fast. (Mt 9:14-15 NASB)

    For I [Paul] am jealous over you [the Corinthian church] with a godly
    jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as
    a pure virgin to Christ. (2 Cor 11:2 NASB)

    Again, I ask, was Jesus married? The answer is definitely, conclusively,


    resoundingly YES!. He was married, not to an earthly bride, but to the
    church itself, for whom He gave His own body and blood and with whom He
    is united in an everlasting union. This is the relationship which matters – not
    that Jesus may have been married to Mary Magdalene or any other woman,
    but that He is married to the believer. Any earthly marriage in which Jesus
    may have had a part is irrespective of the power of the blood of Christ by
    which the bonds of sin are shattered forever. However, the marriage of Jesus
    to the church (that is, believers in Old Testament times, New Testament
    times, and into the modern era) is the only relationship by which men have

    354
    hope for salvation, peace with God, and the promise of absolute deliverance
    from sin.

    XIV. Concerning the “Jesus family tomb:”

    The tomb and its discovery


    On March 28, 1980, while excavating three miles south of Jerusalem, in the East
    Talpiot neighborhood, a team of construction workers unearthed a tomb, carved within
    limestone bedrock, as they were laying the foundation for an apartment building in the
    area. The tomb was dated to the Second Temple period1 (c.538 B.C to 70 A.D.) and
    contained six shafts in which would have been placed a corpse, and two shelves, on
    which a corpse would be laid out. On the walls of the tomb were carvings, which
    included several chevron symbols, a symbol shaped after an inverted “V.” A chevron
    symbol, accompanied with a circle, also adorned the stone above the entrance to the
    tomb. (see Figure 1) Speculation concerning the meaning of this image centers on a
    similar symbol on the facade above the Nicanor gate of the Jerusalem Temple2. It was
    through this gate Jewish men left the Temple’s Court of Women and entered into the
    Court of Israel where male Jews offered sacrifices to God. The belief is that the symbol
    marks the end of a pilgrimage, as many Jews made their way from points throughout
    Palestine to Jerusalem, in order to participate in the various feasts and ceremonies.
    Likewise, as evidenced in Scripture, it was common among Jews to regard their life as
    merely a pilgrimage to the hereafter (cf. Gen 47:8-9), thus making one’s death the end of
    their earthly pilgrimage. On the floor of the tomb were found three skulls, a find which
    suggests that the tomb had been vandalized at some point in antiquity, since Jews took
    care when depositing one’s bones in a tomb. The tomb also contained ten ossuaries (one
    of which later disappeared, believed stolen), or stone chests in which were laid to rest the
    bones of a deceased person. In ancient Israel, it was common practice to revisit the tomb
    of a loved one about a year after his or her passing and after the flesh had decayed from
    the bones. At this time, the bones were cleaned and placed in an ossuary as their final
    resting place and in expectation of a bodily resurrection in the end times. In the case of
    men executed as convicted criminals, the bodies were commonly deposited in a shallow
    ditch or laid to rest in a tomb reserved for criminals, as it was unlawful for a criminal to
    be buried in his family tomb until a year after his death, at which time his bones were
    permitted to be recovered and placed in an ossuary within the family’s tomb. What was
    so striking about the Talpiot tomb was that six of the ossuaries found therein contained
    inscriptions, one of which read, “Jesus, son of Joseph,”(see Figure 2) while names found
    in the other inscriptions included the names of other figures mentioned in the Gospel
    account of the life of Jesus. It was therefore believed by many skeptics of Christianity
    that the tomb of Jesus had in fact been discovered, thus confirming the lack of credibility
    in any claim that He had risen from the dead. Human remains, severely deteriorated, were
    found in each of the ten ossuaries. Investigators suspect this indicates the tomb had been
    used by more than one generation of a family, although no analysis was done to confirm
    such suspicion, nor was it determined exactly how many individuals were represented by
    the bones contained within the ossuaries. Shortly after the discovery of the tomb, the
    bones which were found inside the ossuaries were removed from their limestone boxes

    355
    and buried in an unknown location. The ossuaries were then shelved in the Israeli
    Antiquities Authority warehouse, where they sat for over twenty years. As far as the tomb
    itself, the entrance was sealed due to safety concerns after local children made their way
    into inside to play. The tomb remained sealed until 2005 when investigative journalist
    Simcha Jacobovici began his investigation of the tomb. However, since Jacobovici did
    not obtain permission from the Israeli Antiques Authority to excavate the tomb, it was
    again resealed. In 2007 a documentary titled The Lost Tomb of Jesus, produced by
    Hollywood film great James Cameron (Titanic and The Terminator) and Jacobovici, aired
    on The Discovery Channel, in conjunction with the release of Jacobovici’s book The
    Jesus Family Tomb.

    Figure 1 Figure 2

    The inscriptions
    Of the ten ossuaries found within the stone, six bore names inscribed within the outer
    wall of the stone box. The names were identified as follows:

    “Yeshua bar Yosef”


    This inscription, written in Aramaic, the language used in Jesus’ time, reads,
    “Jesus, son of Joseph.”

    “Mariamne, also known as Mara”


    This inscription was written in Greek and was presumed to be on the ossuary once
    containing the bones of Mary Magdalene, based on a passage in the Gnostic Gospel
    of Phillip (c.180-350 A.D.) in which she is said to be named Mariamne.

    “Maria”
    The name “Maria,” a Latin form of the name Miriam, or Mary, was inscribed
    using Hebrew letters.

    356
    “Yosa”
    The name inscribed as “Yosa” was believed to be Joses, or Joseph, the brother of
    Jesus identified in Mark’s Gospel (Mk 6:3).

    “Yehuda bar Yeshua”


    This inscription, in Aramaic, translates as “Judah, son of Jesus.” The book The
    Jesus Family Tomb speculates that the person identified by this inscription was
    indeed a son of Jesus of Nazareth and (presumably) Mary Magdalene, but was
    named in the Gospels as Jesus’ brother, named Thomas or Jude, in order to spare him
    from possible persecution as the son of one who claimed oneness with God.

    “Matiah”
    The name “Matiah” is the Hebrew form of the name Matthias or Matthew, the
    name belonging to one of Jesus’ disciples. Since the ossuary bearing this name was
    found in the tomb along with other ossuaries, it is believed this person was a relative
    of Jesus or a person named on another ossuary. The filmmakers behind The Lost
    Tomb of Jesus documentary believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had “many”
    relatives named Matthew, despite any evidence for this in ancient writings.

    DNA testing of the remains


    Dr. Stephen Pfann, a paleographer at the University of the Holy Land, and Steven
    Cox, a forensic archaeologist from New York, analyzed remains adhering to the interior
    walls of the “Yeshua” and “Mariamne” ossuaries. DNA tests on the remains found in the
    ossuaries concluded that the individuals represented by the inscriptions were not related
    on their mother’s side. In the film, Dr. Pfann is recorded as saying, “…if they were
    unrelated, [they] would most likely be husband and wife.” In short, it was determined the
    two individuals were not mother and son or brother and sister (at least not genetically,
    since a step-sibling relationship could still be possible). Paternal relation was not able to
    be determined by means of DNA tests.3 No further testing was done to determine if
    Yeshua and Mariamne’s remains belonged to the same time period, nor to determine if
    there was any relation to the remains of other individuals found within the tomb. Still,
    Jacobovici suggested, from Pfann’s analysis, that the couple was married, despite
    evidence to substantiate such a claim, and that Yehuda, or Judah, was their son. Dr. Pfann
    later went on record denouncing any marital relation between Yeshua and Mariamne.4
    DNA tests were not done on the remains in the Yehuda ossuary to determine if Mariamne
    was indeed his mother. When questioned on such lack of research, Jacobovici replied that
    the other ossuaries had been vacuumed clean, but admitted that more sophisticated testing
    could be performed to salvage genetic material from the interior walls of the ossuary,
    although such testing was not pursued by the analysis. Without further analysis of the
    other ossuaries, it would be equally plausible to suggest that Mariamne was the wife of
    Matiah, Yehuda, or Yose. In response to such criticism, Jacobovici replied, “We're not
    scientists. At the end of the day we can't wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA. We
    took the story that far. At some point you have to say, I've done my job as a journalist.”5

    357
    Analysis of the evidence

    Problems with the tomb

    Although Jesus was born in Bethlehem, He was from Nazareth. His presence
    in the city of Jerusalem, or the surrounding vicinity was only ever as a visitor or,
    at the end of His life, convicted criminal. Palestine was divided into two general
    areas, the northern area of Galilee, in which Nazareth was situated, and the
    southern area of Judea, where Jerusalem was located. After His death, Jesus was
    buried near Golgotha, just outside the walls of Jerusalem. The selection of the
    tomb near Jerusalem was due to the necessity for a speedy burial, which needed
    to be accomplished before the Passover, in keeping with Jewish Law. We know
    nothing of the tomb in which Jesus was buried other than it was situated in a
    garden and purchased by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin and
    likely a believer in Christ. It is possible the tomb was purchased so that Jesus
    would not be buried in a tomb reserved for criminals, as was the custom of the
    day. One year after His burial, the family of Jesus would remove his bones from
    the Jerusalem tomb and place them in an ossuary in a family tomb, which would
    have been either in Nazareth or Bethlehem, not Jerusalem. Of course, His
    resurrection effected a change of such a plan.

    Christian tradition does not identify Talpiot as the location of Jesus’ tomb.
    The spot presently known as the burial site of Jesus is the Church of the Holy
    Sepulcher, located in Jerusalem. Tradition holds that this church was built on the
    same spot where Emperor Hadrian erected a temple to Aphrodite in the second
    century A.D. The temple is said to have been erected on the very spot where
    Jesus was buried, as an expression of contempt for Christianity, by violating a
    place for which Christians felt great reverence. Also, in early Christian writings,
    such reverence is never expressed concerning a tomb in the area southwest of
    Jerusalem now known as Talpiot.

    The chevron and circle symbol is not a known Christian symbol. Were it so,
    such a symbol would have likely adorned the sites associated with early
    Christianity. If the symbol is to be associated with a façade of the Temple, as
    suggested previously, then the use of the symbol may represent devotion to the
    rites of Judaism or, specifically, to the Temple itself, as the “house of God,”
    since the Temple once contained the Ark of the Covenant, a sacred Hebrew
    chest which symbolized the physical presence of God among the Jewish people.
    It is in this vein of thought that Dr. R. Kirk, Associate Professor of Old
    Testament and Hebrew at the Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary,
    states, “Such an architectural feature [as the chevron] points to temple worship;
    and this means that those buried in the tomb [featured] on [The Lost Tomb of
    Jesus] ‘documentary’ were more likely observant Jews. Though it is not
    impossible that they were Jewish Christians (who met for a while in ‘Solomon's
    porch’), given the numbers of Jews to Christians over the amount of time
    ossuaries were in use... I don't think it would take a statistician to figure out that
    the odds are much better that this is simply a Jewish tomb … Perhaps this was a

    358
    priestly family. Or perhaps this was a family related to the restoration of temple
    worship. Or, perhaps this was just a very observant family that loved to worship
    at the temple. Certainly the verse comes to mind from David's Psalm 23, ‘...and
    I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.’”6 Asbury Theological
    Seminary’s Dr. Ben Witherington agrees that the chevron symbol found on the
    tomb “suggests that … we are dealing with a priestly family's private tomb.”7
    With this view in mind, it is interesting that, in Jerusalem, the façade of the first
    century Tomb of the Sanhedrin (the Jews’ legal authority which convened
    within the the Temple’s Hall of Hewn Stones) is also decorated with such a
    chevron symbol.

    The Tomb of the Sanhedrin

    The same symbol is also represented as carved on many ossuary boxes and lids,
    as shown below, although some have suggested such a carving on the triangular
    lid merely served as handles with which the lid could be easily lifted from the
    box.

    Jesus came from a poor family, and it is unlikely that His relatives would
    have been able to afford such a tomb. In ancient Jewish society, the poor would
    bury their dead in individual trench graves dug into the earth, and the tomb

    359
    identified with a stone marker, much like modern burial practices. In this type of
    burial, the remains were never placed in an ossuary a year after the initial
    burial.8 While it is possible that the purchase of a costly rock-hewn tomb could
    have been afforded by means of gifts from Jesus’ followers, the very existence
    of such a tomb fails to account for other points delineated in this list.

    The tomb contained multiple remains, aside from those found in ossuaries,
    and was much larger than was needed to hold the remains of a single family,
    suggesting to some that it was a communal burial chamber rather than a family
    tomb.

    Problems concerning the inscriptions

    The problem of multilingual inscriptions


    The Talpiot ossuaries contained languages in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.
    Were the tomb a single-generation family tomb, it is less likely that the
    inscriptions would be inscribed in more than one language. The filmmakers of
    The Lost Tomb of Jesus suggest that Migdal, the village that Mary Magdalene
    called home, was a Greek trading center, thereby accounting for the Greek
    inscription on her ossuary. Concerning the presence of multiple languages on the
    inscriptions and the type of city in which Mary lived, Dr. Ben Witherington III,
    Professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, writes, “This suggests a multi-
    generation tomb, not a single generation tomb, and indeed a tomb that comes
    from after 70 A.D. after the Romans had destroyed the temple mount and Jewish
    Christians fled the city. … The earliest Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, including
    members of Jesus’ family and Mary Magdalene, did not speak Greek. They
    spoke Aramaic. We have absolutely no historical evidence to suggest Mary
    Magdalene would have been called by a Greek name before 70 A.D.. She grew
    up in a Jewish fishing village called Migdal, not a Greek city at all … It makes
    no sense that her ossuary would have a Greek inscription and that her alleged
    husband an Aramaic inscription.”9

    Statistical analysis
    A major point by which many were convinced that this was indeed the “Jesus
    family tomb” was such a specific grouping of ossuaries bearing names contained
    in the Gospels, and the unlikelihood that such a grouping could be attributed to a
    mere commonality of such names in ancient Palestine. Concerning the name
    Yeshua, Professor Paul Maier states, “There are 21 Yeshuas cited by Josephus,
    the first-century Jewish historian, who were important enough to be recorded by
    him, with many thousands of others that never made history.”10 Likewise,
    Newsweek magazine reported, “Charlesworth of Princeton Theological
    Seminary says he has a first-century letter written by someone named Jesus,
    addressed to someone else named Jesus and witnessed by a third party named
    Jesus.”11

    In defense of such a supposition, Jacobovici appealed to a study done by


    Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics and mathematics at the University of

    360
    Toronto. Feuerverger determined the odds that such a grouping of names would
    be found in a single tomb were 600 to 1, since, while these individual names
    were not uncommon, the grouping of these specific names becomes rare, and
    therefore makes the claim that the Talpiot tomb belongs to the family of Jesus of
    Nazareth one which “needs to be taken seriously.”. Later, after becoming less
    confident in the results of his study as he was when making his initial
    conclusion, Feuerverger stated, “I now believe that I should not assert any
    conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the New
    Testament family12 … The results of any such computations are highly
    dependent on the assumptions that enter into it. Should even one of these
    assumptions not be satisfied then the results will not be statistically
    meaningful”13 The “assumptions” to which Feuerverger referred are the beliefs
    concerning the identities of the individuals named on the ossuaries; therefore,
    his calculations are only as valid as the premises on which they are based, rather
    than on hard data. Following Feuerverger’s retraction of the initial findings, The
    Discovery Channel removed from its website all mention of Feuerverger and his
    original study.14 Additionally, Stephan Pfann, president of Jerusalem's University
    of the Holy Land, notes that the common usage of the names found in the
    Talpiot tomb greatly diminishes the claim that the tomb belonged to Jesus’
    family: “Remarkably, a mere 16 of the 72 personal names [found on ossuaries]
    account for 75% of the inscribed names.”15 He furthermore noted that the names
    Mary, Joseph, Jesus, Matthew, and Judas were found to be among the “top
    sixteen” names discovered on ossuaries.16 Richard Bauckham, Professor of New
    Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland conducted his own
    study to determine the commonality of the names found on the Talpiot ossuaries.
    The chart on the following page is the result of his research, through which
    2,625 male subjects and 328 female subjects (Bauckham noted that the
    significantly less number of female subjects was due to the fact that female
    names were not recorded as often as male names) were used to determine the ten
    most common Jewish names among males and 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 ossuaries.17

    361
    MALE NAMES COLUMN A COLUMN B
    Rank Name Total Total Found Percent of Total
    References on Ossuaries References (out
    of 2625)
    1 Simon/Simeon 243 59 9.3%
    2 Joseph 218 45 8.3%
    3 Eleazar 166 29 6.3%
    4 Judah 164 44 6.2%
    5 John/Yohanan 122 25 4.6%
    6 Jesus 99 22 3.8%
    7 Hananiah 82 18 3.1%
    8 Jonathan 71 14 2.7%
    9 Matthew 62 17 2.4%
    10 Manaen/Menahem 42 4 1.6%

    FEMALE NAMES COLUMN A COLUMN B


    Rank Name Total Total Found Percent of Total
    References on Ossuaries References (out
    of 328)
    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%

    From his study, Bauckham concluded the odds that names on the
    Talpiot ossuaries belonged to the same Jesus and Mary Magdalene
    mentioned in the Gospels were "very small indeed,”18 since Jesus
    was the sixth most common name among males, and the name
    Mary being found at the top of the list on female names, as shown
    in the above charts.

    Other scholars are in agreement with Bauckham’s findings.


    William Dever, who has worked forty years in the field of
    archaeology and was named by The Washington Post as the “dean
    of biblical archaeology among U.S. scholars,”19 stated the
    following concerning the claim that the names found in the Talpiot
    tomb belonged to Jesus’ family: “It's a shame the way this story is
    being hyped and manipulated [since] all of the names [on the
    Talpiot ossuaries] are common. … It's a publicity stunt, and it will
    make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent
    people because they don't know enough to separate fact from
    fiction.”20 Dever also stated that such claims go “far beyond
    any reasonable interpretation [of the facts].”21 Likewise,
    Jacobovici’s claims were denounced by Joe Zias, formerly the
    curator of archaeology at the Israeli Antiquities Authority, and
    Amos Kloner, the original excavator of the tomb, saying that such

    362
    claims were “nonsense.”22 Zias was particularly critical of the
    claims in his statement that The Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary
    was a “hyped up film which is intellectually and scientifically
    dishonest.”23 David Mavorah, a curator of Jerusalem’s Israel
    museum, also commented that the claims made by the filmmakers
    were “far-fetched,” since the names Joseph, Jesus and Mariamne
    were “among the most common names of the period.”24

    Finally, archaeologists who first excavated the tomb in 1980


    saw no significance to the names, further testifying to the
    commonality of these names, even when grouped together in such
    a fashion. They apparently saw no evidence, based on the names,
    that this tomb belonged to Jesus’ family. Even if they wished to
    exploit the tomb in an attempt to discredit Christianity, or even just
    to make a buck from a publicity stunt, the commonality of the
    names would serve as no evidence with which to present such an
    argument. The speculations by the filmmakers of The Lost Tomb of
    Jesus are based on assumptions made by them, and these
    assumptions do not hold up against professional archaeological
    research. Such is expressed by Joe Zias, anthropologist and former
    curator (1972-1997) for archaeology and anthropology at the
    Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, who served in the team who
    originally excavated the tomb when it was first discovered, and
    who personally numbered the ossuaries, stated, “Simcha
    [Jacobovici] has no credibility whatsoever. He’s got this guy
    Cameron, who made Titanic … what does this guy know about
    archaeology? I am an archaeologist, but if I were to write a book
    about brain surgery, you would say, ‘Who is this guy?’ … Projects
    like these make a mockery of the archaeological profession.”25

    Who’s who?
    Before presenting the arguments below, I must comment that one objection
    that the tomb did not belong to Jesus’ family is that the tomb contained no
    ossuaries for His other brothers and sisters mentioned in the Gospels, however,
    in all fairness, I must regard this objection as inconclusive. As stated above, the
    Talpiot tomb contained bones scattered in disarray, which suggests the tomb had
    been vandalized at one point. Were that the case, then the missing ossuaries
    could be easily explained away. That objection aside, there remain numerous
    others which stand as valid reasons to disregard the tomb as belonging to Jesus’
    family

    The “Yeshua” (Jesus) ossuary


    Had Jesus not risen, His tomb and ossuary would have been adorned
    with such things befitting God’s anointed Messiah, yet the “Yeshua”
    ossuary in the Talpiot tomb was no different, in style, than the others found
    therein. Furthermore, the inscription would not have read “Jesus, son of
    Joseph,” since His family and Apostles regarded Him as being virgin born.

    363
    Rather, it would likely have read, “Jesus, son of God,” or “Jesus, son of
    Mary.” In fact, Dr. Pfann, who examined DNA evidence from the Yeshua
    and Mariamne ossuaries, doubts that “Jesus” is the correct translation of the
    inscription. It is his contention, after viewing hi-resolution images of the
    inscription, that the reading could more accurately be translated as
    “Hanun.”26 It was also known by some who were associated with Jesus
    prior to His ministry that He was not the natural-born son of Joseph. This is
    evident in a passage in Mark (6:2-3) where Jesus is referred to as the “son
    of Mary.” Ancient Jewish society was largely patriarchal, in which a man
    was known by his relationship to his father, not to his mother. Any reference
    to a man according to his maternal relation was considered an insult. It
    would have been known by those familiar with Jesus’ family that Mary
    became pregnant with Jesus prior to her marriage with Joseph. As such,
    Jesus was regarded as her illegitimate child, and any address to Jesus as the
    “son of Mary” was an attack on His supposedly dishonorable conception.

    Palestine was divided between the northern region of Galilee and the
    southern region of Judea. The inscriptions on the ossuaries found in the
    Judean Talpiot tomb generally follow the same formula (“[son’s first name],
    son of [father’s first name]”), which was typical of epithets made by
    Judeans, who identified individuals according to their parentage. However,
    it was typical of Galileans to identify individuals according to their
    hometown,27 and so it is that Jesus was identified as “Jesus of Nazareth,”
    (Jn 1.45) rather than “Jesus, son of Joseph.” In the instances where the
    crowd refers to Him as the “son of Joseph” or “son of the carpenter,” (Mt
    13:54-56, Lk 4:21-22, Jn 1:45, 6:41-42) their mention of Him as such is an
    expression of their disbelief in Jesus as the Son of God, for He possessed
    the same physical characteristics as did those who doubted His messianic
    claims.

    There is no instance in the Gospels, or other early Christian writings, in


    which Jesus is named as the natural-born “son of Joseph.” While there are
    references to Joseph’s parentage of Jesus, such is not the same as a
    reference to blood relation. These references will be discussed further in
    Part six.

    If the “Yeshua” Talpiot ossuary was intended to belong to Jesus of


    Nazareth, then it must be asked who would bury such an item, and for what
    motive? There are really only a few options to consider in answer to this
    question:

    The family and/or followers of Jesus:


    If the family of Jesus believed that He had risen from the dead,
    since they saw Him with their own eyes, why would they place an
    ossuary, bearing His name, in a tomb, thereby counteracting their
    evangelistic efforts? By contrast, if they believed that He remained
    dead after the third day following His crucifixion, why then would

    364
    they proclaim that He had risen, thereby jeopardizing their own
    lives. All but one of the Apostles were executed for their faith.
    While their martyrdom does not speak to the truthfulness of their
    faith, it does speak to the fact that they believed in the resurrection
    to the point they were willing to give their own lives for their faith
    in such an event. Furthermore, if they knew Jesus was not
    resurrected; but rather, stole His body, then later intended to bury
    His bones to hide evidence that would counteract any claim of His
    resurrection, then why would they plant evidence to the contrary
    by inscribing an ossuary that essentially read “Here lies Jesus”?
    Also, why place such an ossuary in a tomb belonging to Jesus’
    family and alongside ossuaries inscribed with the names of His
    relatives? The “Jesus family tomb” would certainly not be the
    wisest choice of location in which to hide evidence that could be
    used to debunk Jesus’ resurrection. Finally, one of the Apostles was
    James, Jesus’ brother and the writer of the New Testament book
    bearing his name. If James knew his brother was not risen from the
    dead, he surely would not have been as unwavering in his faith as
    he was, and would not have been a “pillar” of the church, as Paul
    described him to be.

    An unorthodox Christian sect:


    By “unorthodox Christian sect” I am referring to groups such as
    the Gnostics or Marcions, who professed faith in Christ, but held to
    beliefs other than those taught by the Apostles. Many of these
    groups regarded Jesus to be risen from the dead, although in a
    spiritual, rather than bodily, sense. There are a number of problems
    with this theory, and I will reserve such comments for Part five.
    Here, I will merely point out that even a casual reading of the
    Gospels reveal that the tomb of Jesus was found devoid of a
    corpse. The women arrived at the tomb to prepare the body for a
    proper burial, since Jesus’ burial was rushed the day He died in
    order to have Him buried before the Sabbath, but rather than being
    able to accomplish their intended purpose for the visit to the tomb,
    they found that the body was not there. Also, if a member of such a
    sect, who regarded Jesus as only spiritually risen, knew of an
    ossuary containing Jesus’ remains, then the bones of Jesus would
    have provided him with the best apologetic tool available by which
    to prove his belief valid in the eyes of those who believed in Jesus’
    bodily resurrection.

    Jesus’ opponents or unbelievers:


    If the Romans, Pharisees, members of the Sanhedrin, or other
    opponents of Jesus obtained His bones, had He remained in the
    grave, why would they have motive to bury such remains in a tomb
    with Jesus’ relatives? There were many who would have gladly
    exposed Christianity as a fraud, had they possessed the evidence to

    365
    do so. If the bones of Jesus were obtained by such a one, then the
    ossuary bearing Jesus’ remains would have been on display for all
    to see, not buried in a tomb, thereby covering up evidence that
    would contradict the claims of Christianity. The fact of the matter
    is that no such evidence has been presented by even the harshest
    critic of Christianity.

    The “Mariamne” ossuary:


    In The Lost Tomb of Jesus Feuerverger is cited as concluding “that there
    is only one chance in six hundred the Talpiot tomb is not the Jesus family
    tomb, if Mariamne can be linked to Mary Magdalene.” Once this premise,
    that Mariamne is a reference to Mary Maglalene, falls apart, then the entire
    “Jesus’ tomb” theory crumbles faster than one can say, “Humpty Dumpty.”
    On March 4, 2007, Ted Koppel, former news anchor for Nightline and
    managing editor for The Discovery Channel, aired a prime time special
    titled The Lost Tomb of Jesus—a Critical Look, in which he presented a
    written statement from Feuerverger who said, “I must work from the
    assumptions given to me, and the strength of the calculations are based on
    those assumptions … If for some reason one were to read it as just a regular
    form of the name Maria, in that case the calculation produced is not that
    impressive, and the statistical significance would wash out completely.”

    The woman represented by the inscription “Mariamne” is supposed to be


    Mary Magdalene, based on a reference in the Gospel of Philip, which, the
    filmmakers say, identifies her as “Mariamne.” With little repetition of what
    has been stated previously concerning the Gospel of Philip, the references
    to Mary in that text cannot reasonably be held as authentic to the time when
    Mary Magdalene would have died, since the oldest extant copy of the
    Gospel of Philip dates to the fourteenth century, is merely a copy of a fourth
    century text, and contains Gnostic beliefs which were not known to have
    existed in the first century. Also, in the New Testament itself, as well as
    early church literature, Mary Magdalene is never identified as “Mariamne.”

    As Richard Bauckham notes, the names “Mariamenou” and “Mara” are


    inscribed as “MARIAMENOUMARA,” with no space in between, thus
    lessening the possibility that the ossuary contained the remains of two
    separate women, as some have speculated. The name Mariamenou, he goes
    on to say, is in the genitive case, thereby indicating possession (that is,
    “’belonging to’ Mary”). The name “Mara” is believed to be a shortened
    version of Mariamne or Martha, and this is exactly how Amos Kloner, the
    original excavator of the tomb, cataloged the Mariamne ossuary in his
    original report. Bauckham postulated that the person named on this ossuary
    possessed two names: Mariamne and Mara. If this is the case, then it is
    plausible, by appealing to the practice common at the time of an individual
    having both a Greek and a Semitic name, that Mariamne was her Greek
    name and Mara was her Aramaic name, or that Mara was an abbreviated

    366
    form of Mariamne.28 Were this the case, the ossuary could be translated as,
    “Mariamne, [the name] belonging to Mara.”

    There exists no first century evidence that the name Mariamne was in
    use at that time in Judea. The earliest usage of the name Mariamne dates to
    the late second or early third century.29 Also, nowhere in the Gospels is
    Mary Magdalene referred to as Mariamne.

    Some investigators associated the name “Mara” with the Aramaic word
    for “master,” but such association is ruled out based on the contextual usage
    of the word as inscribed on the ossuary. As stated above, the name
    Mariamne is in the genitive case, indicating possession. Thus, if the word
    “master” is applied to the name “Mariamne,” the proper reading would be,
    “The master belonging to Mara,” “The master of Mara,” or, “Mara’s
    master.” Adherents to the Jesus tomb theory propose that Mary is called
    “Master” in the Gospel of Phillip, however, the genitive use of Mariamne
    on the ossuary does not support a reading of, “The Master, Mary.”

    The “Maria” ossuary


    The name Mary, as shown in the statistical analysis above, was certainly
    not uncommon in ancient Judaic society. The name itself, even grouped
    together with the names inscribed on other ossuaries, does not indicate that
    the ossuary belonged to the mother named in the Gospels’ Nativity account.
    It is also likely that, had this ossuary been the one containing the Gospels’
    Mary’s remains, it would have been inscribed with something to the effect
    of “Mary, mother of Jesus,” or, “Mary, mother of the Lord.”

    The “Yosa” ossuary


    The identification of Yosa as Yeshua’s brother is an improbable
    conclusion, since Yosa’s ossuary does not identify him as a “son of Yosef,”
    whereas Yeshua’s ossuary does include such identification. Also, since
    “Yosa” is a form of “Yosef,” it is possible that the “Yosa” ossuary once
    contained the bones of Yeshua’s father, rather his brother. Such a
    supposition does not indicate that this Yosa was indeed the same “Joseph”
    named in the Gospels’ nativity narratives, for the many other reasons
    delineated under this heading as to why this tomb did not belong to Jesus’
    family in the first place.

    The “Yehuda” (Judah) ossuary:


    The filmmakers of The Lost Tomb of Jesus describe one of the ossuaries
    as being that of a child, whose ossuary reads “Yehuda bar Yeshua,” or
    “Judah, son of Jesus.” The proposition brought forth in the film is that the
    person to whom this inscription refers is the son of Jesus of Nazareth, born
    to Him by His wife, Mary Magdalene, and that this son is not named in the
    Gospels in order to obscure his identity and spare him from the persecution
    that later befell the disciples of Jesus. Further speculation is made in the
    film to link this person to the disciple known in the Gospels as the “beloved

    367
    disciple” (Jn 20:2) and “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 19:26; 21:20).
    Whether or not Jesus could have had a son has already been addressed
    under the previous heading. Here, considerations relating to any supposed
    son of Jesus will be restricted to the claims made in the documentary, which
    are: 1) that the “beloved disciple” of John's Gospel may have been Jesus'
    son and 2) that the “Yehuda” ossuary belongs to the son of Jesus of
    Nazareth.

    John, the only Gospel writer who identified one of Jesus’ disciples in
    such terms, states it was the “beloved disciple” who leaned on Jesus’ breast
    in the upper room during the final observance of the Passover and asked
    who it was who would betray Jesus (Jn 20:2). John also describes an
    instance during the crucifixion when Jesus looks down at His mother and
    the “beloved” disciple, He charges this disciple with the care of His mother.
    The film suggests that this was Jesus addressing His son, or the “beloved
    disciple,” and His son’s mother, presumably Mary Magdalene, who is
    indeed listed by John as those present at the crucifixion. Jesus, they say,
    charged His son with the care of His wife, Mary Magdalene, as the theory
    goes; however, the context of the passage clearly indicates otherwise, as
    seen below (emphasis mine).

    But there were standing by the cross of Jesus His [Jesus’] mother
    [Mary, the husband of Joseph], and his mother’s sister [Jesus’ aunt],
    Mary the wife of Clopas [“Clopas” perhaps refers to Joseph’s brother
    and Jesus’ uncle, according to a passage in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical
    History30], and Mary Magdalene [who is not identified in this passage
    as being of any relation to Jesus]. When Jesus therefore saw His
    [Jesus’] mother [Joseph’s wife], and the disciple standing by whom He
    loved, He saith unto His [Jesus’] mother, Woman, behold thy son! [a
    reference to the relationship which the beloved disciple would now
    assume, rather than a reference to a pre-existing mother/son
    relationship] Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And
    from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home. (Jn 19:25-27)

    According to tradition, the “beloved disciple” is none other than the


    Apostle John himself, a belief which is supported by John’s Gospel.

    Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following;
    who also leaned back on his breast at the supper, and said, Lord, who is
    he that betrayeth thee? … This is the disciple that beareth witness of
    these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is
    true. (Jn 21:20-24)

    Also, the Apostle John is widely recognized by Christian scholars as the


    same John who is named as the son of Salome, the younger sister of Mary,
    the mother of Jesus (Mk 15:40; cf. Mt 27:56). If such identification of John

    368
    is accurate, then John and Jesus were in fact cousins, thus shedding light on
    why John, of all Jesus' twelve core disciples, was called “beloved” of Him.

    The proposition that the “beloved disciple” mentioned in the Gospels is


    Jesus’ son is dependent on a chronology that does not exist in the Gospels.
    The evangelist Luke states in his Gospel that Mary Magdalene was a
    woman from whom had been cast seven demons (8:1-3). Following that,
    she became a loyal disciple of Jesus, accompanying Him on His journeys as
    He went from city to city preaching the good news of the kingdom of God.
    It is not stated whether or not Jesus knew Mary before her cleansing, but it
    is certain that, even if they were acquainted, there was no marriage
    relationship between them, given Mary’s state prior to her cleansing.
    Therefore, if Jesus had married Mary Magdalene, the marriage would have
    taken place after this event described by Luke. Luke also states that Jesus
    began His ministry about age thirty (3:1), and it was at some point during
    the first year of this ministry that Mary was purged of her demons. Jesus’
    ministry lasted only three years, the end of which was marked by His
    crucifixion. Even if the marriage between them occurred shortly after her
    cleansing, she could not have given birth to Jesus’ son until early during
    Jesus’ second year of ministry, to allow time for the pregnancy. If Jesus had
    a son born to Him at the beginning of His second year of ministry, then the
    child would have only been two years old at the time of Jesus’ last supper
    with His disciples. The “beloved disciple” of John’s Gospel is clearly
    described as being older that a toddler, given his interaction with Jesus at
    the table and Jesus’ charge to this one for the care of another human being.
    As far as the filmmakers' claim that the obscure reference to the “beloved
    disciple” is an attempt to conceal the identity of Jesus’ son in order to secure
    his safety, such a notion has been refuted in the previous heading and does
    not require repetition at this juncture. Concerning that theory in relation to
    the “Yehuda” ossuary, it only further needs to be stated that if the Apostles
    were clever enough to conceal Jesus' son's identity in the writing of the
    Gospels, the same cleverness was obviously not exercised in the burial of
    the bones in an ossuary inscribed with “Judah, son of Jesus.”

    The “Matia” (Matthew) ossuary: a relative of Jesus?


    The Talpiot tomb contains an ossuary naming Matthew, who was not
    named as a relative of Jesus; but rather, a disciple. If a disciple of Jesus
    would have been buried in His family tomb, it would more likely have been
    John, the “beloved disciple” and the one to whom Jesus entrusted with the
    care of His mother, or Peter, the head of the Apostolic church in Jerusalem
    in the time following Jesus’ ascension. The Lost Tomb of Jesus appeals to
    Luke 3:23-24, in which, assuming the genealogy is that of Mary, “Matthat”
    is named as Mary's grandfather. There is no reason for Mary's grandfather to
    be buried with her in Jerusalem, rather than in his own family tomb, unless
    Mary's tomb was multi-generational. Still, the presence of the name
    Matthew on an ossuary, given the popularity of the name, is no reason to
    assume the man buried inside was a relative of the Virgin Mary. The

    369
    filmmakers' argument largely rests on the fact that all the names on the
    Talpiot ossuaries are “Gospel related,” however such a claim fails to
    consider the widespread commonality of the names found in the Gospels.

    The “James” ossuary: is it the missing tenth ossuary?


    As stated above, one of the ten ossuaries found in the tomb in 1980 was lost and
    presumed stolen. In October 2002 a press conference was held to announce the discovery
    of an ossuary bearing the inscription “Yaakov bar Yoseph Achui de Yeshua,” translated
    "James son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus.” (see Figure 3) The Geological Survey of Israel
    dated the chest to the first century A.D. It was later claimed to be the missing ossuary of
    the Talpiot tomb and declared as further evidence which validated the notion that the
    tomb belonged to Jesus and His family. The “James ossuary,” as it is called, belonged to
    one Oded Golan, an antiquities collector residing in Tel Aviv, who claimed to have
    obtained the chest in the antiquities market in Jerusalem’s Old City a decade prior, but
    did not realize the significance of the inscription and therefore did not come forward with
    the find.

    Figure 3

    Following the discovery of the announcement of the James ossuary, Golan’s own
    integrity came into question with the discovery of yet another fraudulent find to which he
    was linked. In January 2003 a tablet, named the “Jehoash Inscription,” was brought
    forward by an individual who wished to remain anonymous. The tablet appeared to
    describe repairs made to the Temple by Jehoash, as described in the twelfth chapter of the
    second book of Kings. After detailed analysis of the tablet, it was declared a forgery and
    the Israeli Antiquities Authority began an investigation into the source of the tablet. A
    false business card and telephone number was traced to a Tel Aviv man who claimed
    Golan as his client, although Golan denied the charge. A search warrant was issued for
    Golan’s premises and office, which produced photos of him with the tablet, thereby

    370
    furthering the charges against him. Later, it was discovered that a rented storage space
    belonged to Golan, although such was not disclosed to the police by Golan himself.
    There, authorities discovered numerous forged artifacts in varying stages of production,
    along with the tools necessary for creating such forgeries. This find resulted in the
    authorities aggressively questioning Golan, during which he confessed to the forgery
    accusations against him and revealed the location of the Jehoash tablet.

    On June 18, 2003 both the Jehoash tablet and the James ossuary were declared by the
    Israeli Antiquities Authority to be modern forgeries. In the case of the ossuary, while the
    Geological Survey of Israel dated the chest to the first century A.D., the inscription on the
    ossuary was proven to be a modern modification to the ancient chest, since the type of
    chalk used on the ossuary did not match chalk found on other ancient ossuaries. Analysts
    at the Geological Survey of Israel found the ossuary contained three outer coatings, the
    outermost of which had been cut through to form the inscription, then covered with
    artificial coating to give the appearance of antiquity. In her report on the James ossuary,
    Dr. Rochelle I. Altman noted the inscription on the ossuary is comprised of two parts: the
    first reading, “James, son of Joseph,” and the second reading, “brother of Jesus.” The
    placement of the first portion of the inscription was “carefully calculated” and “in
    proportion to the overall size of the box,”31 whereas the second portion of the inscription
    offsets such proportion. The first portion, she observes, is composed of a more formally
    executed script with precise angles and wedges, indicating the writer was fully literate
    and very competent with the process of carving on stone, whereas the second is executed
    without the same measure of precision, indicating the writer was not as familiar with the
    ancient script as was the writer of the first portion of the inscription, but was perhaps
    copying the script from what he observed on other ossuaries. Also, the letters of the first
    portion of the inscription are straight, possibly having been inscribed with the use of a
    frame to maintain alignment of the letters, but the letters of the second portion are
    misaligned and written in a sloppy fashion. Altman also commented that the trapezoidal
    shape of the ossuary, being longer on one end than the other, is such that suggests it was
    intended for a one-person tomb, rather than being stacked with other ossuaries in tomb
    intended for multiple boxes, since the shape of the James ossuary is such that is “not
    convenient for either stacking or side-by-side storage.” On December 29, 2004, over a
    year after the announcement that both the ossuary and tablet were forgeries, the Israeli
    justice ministry officially charged Golan with forgery, along with his three associates,
    Robert Deutsch, Shlomo Cohen, and Faiz al-Amaleh. As of January 2009, the four
    conspirators’ trial remains ongoing.

    In the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus, the James ossuary is purported to be the
    original lost ossuary from the Talpiot tomb, despite evidence that the inscription is a
    forgery. The basis for their claim is the result of an analysis of the chest, the results of
    which stated the outer coating on the James ossuary contains the same minerals as the
    outer coating on the other nine ossuaries which remain from the Talpiot tomb. However,
    according to the report of the antiquities dealer from whom Golan obtained the ossuary,
    the ossuary originated in Silwan, rather than Talpiot, and the soil contained within the
    ossuary matched the soil of that area, whereas the soil in the other nine ossuaries matched
    that of the Talpiot area. Also, the early Christian historian Eusebius reported that James’
    grave marker was “by the Sanctuary,” 32 or near the Temple mount in Jerusalem, not in the

    371
    Talpiot area. Additionally, the missing Talpiot ossuary was not said to have contained an
    inscription on its outer wall.33 Finally, a photo presented during Golan’s trial by former
    FBI agent Gerald Richard revealed the ossuary present in Golan’s home in the 1970s,
    prior to the 1980 discovery of the Talpiot tomb.34

    On a final note concerning the James ossuary, if the bones of James (regardless of the
    family to which this James belonged) were found in a tomb which belonged to a
    particular family, rather than being a communal burial chamber, there would have been
    no need to further identify James by his sibling relation. All that would need to be
    inscribed on his ossuary is the standard formula “James, son of Joseph.” James’ family
    would be aware enough of who his brother was, without having to inscribe his name on
    James’ ossuary. The presence of the brother’s name, along with the characteristics
    described above, strongly suggests that the latter portion of the inscription, “brother of
    Jesus,” is a later forgery to an otherwise authentic inscription.

    Concerning the “Simon bar Jonah” ossuary


    In a second tomb, not far from the presumed “Jesus tomb,” there was found an ossuary
    bearing the inscription “Simon bar Jonah.” Also on the ossuary was inscribed the same
    chevron and circle symbol carved above the entrance to the “Jesus tomb.” Since Simon
    was the Hebrew name of the Apostle Peter, the filmmakers suggest that this is in fact the
    ossuary of the disciple, and further their supposition by drawing attention to the chevron
    and circle symbol found on both the “Simon” ossuary and on the entrance to the “Jesus
    tomb.” While the exact meaning of the symbol is uncertain, as stated previously, the
    predominant speculative view is that the symbol is a reference to the end of one’s earthly
    “pilgrimage,” an end brought about by the death of the body. As such, the meaning does
    not have any significance that would be specific to Jesus or any of His relatives or
    followers. Also, the symbol is not found in any early Christian inscription or work of art,
    as would likely be the case if such a symbol adorned the tomb of the Savior. Finally,
    since Simon was the most common name, according to Bauckham’s study, there is no
    logical or statistical reason to link this ossuary with the Apostle named Simon Peter.

    The filmmakers' manipulation of information


    On more than one occasion in The Lost Tomb of Jesus documentary, information and
    statements made by experts were used in such a fashion to suit the filmmakers’ intended
    purpose, rather than correctly reflecting the material being presented. Professor Francois
    Bovon of Harvard University, when interviewed for the documentary, was led to believe
    he was being interviewed on questions concerning the gnostic Gospel of Phillip. In a
    letter to the Society of Biblical Literature, he said, “As I was interviewed for the
    Discovery Channel's program The Lost Tomb of Jesus, … the questions were directed
    toward the Acts of Philip and the role of Mariamne in this text. I was not informed of the
    whole program and the orientation of the script.”35 Bovon’s frustration is shared by others
    who were cited in the film. Robert Genna, Laboratory Director at New York’s Suffolk
    County Crime Lab, was cited as stating that the patina, or outer covering of materials or
    sediment which accumulates over time, of the James ossuary matched the patina of the
    Talpiot ossuaries, and both he and Amos Kloner, who excavated the tomb in 1980, were
    cited as saying that the James ossuary was the lost tenth ossuary of the Talpiot tomb. In
    Ted Koppel’s special, The Lost Tomb of Jesus—a Critical Look, he presented a written

    372
    denial from Genna that he never stated the patina on the James ossuary matched those of
    Talpiot ossuaries, and that further research needed to be conducted in order to
    substantiate such a claim. He said, “The elemental composition of some of the samples
    we tested from the ossuaries are consistent with each other. But I would never say they're
    a match … No scientist would ever say definitively that one ossuary came from the same
    tomb as another.”36 Likewise, Amos Kloner, denied ever stating the James ossuary was
    the missing Talpiot ossuary. Quite to the contrary, he stated the James ossuary was
    conclusively not the missing ossuary, since the original tenth ossuary from Talpiot, which
    he observed with his own eyes during the 1980 excavation, and consequently cataloged
    with a detailed description, did not bear an inscription as does the James ossuary.37 In a
    press conference, Jacobovici cited an unnamed forensic archaeologist who was said to
    have made the claim that the individuals represented by the Yeshua and Mariamne
    inscriptions “must be” husband and wife, since the DNA of the two did not match. For
    Koppel’s special, he obtained a written denial from Dr. Carney Matheson, the forensic
    archaeologist who examined the DNA, that such a conclusion was not drawn through the
    analysis of the DNA, since analysts “cannot genetically test for marriage.” Matheson also
    stated that the claim that Yeshua and Mariamne were husband and wife “has been taken
    out of context … While marriage is a possibility, other relationships like father and
    daughter, paternal cousins, sister-in-law or indeed two unrelated individuals [are also
    possible].”38

    Other critical errors of the “Jesus tomb” hypothesis


    The opening of The Lost Tomb of Jesus lays down the premise on which the entire
    documentary is based. After briefly recounting the death, burial, and resurrection account
    described in each of the Gospels, the filmmakers state, “... according to the Gospel of
    Matthew, there was another story circulating after Jesus' death, and thought the Gospel
    calls it a lie, it was rumored that Jesus’ disciples secretly took their Master's body,
    presumably to give Him a permanent burial. If this is true, according to first century
    burial practices, Jesus’ body would have been taken to a rock-hewn family tomb. Given
    that He was crucified for insurrection, the reburial would have been done in secret, by
    His closest disciples. Jesus’ body would have been shrouded and left to decompose. One
    year later, His disciples would have returned, this time joined by His family for the final
    burial ceremony, … placing [His bones] in a limestone coffin, called an ossuary. Jesus'
    name would have been inscribed on the side, then [the ossuary] … sealed away forever,
    deep inside His family tomb.” The whole of the “Jesus tomb” argument rests on the
    notion that the body of Jesus was removed from its original burial site and relocated to
    another tomb at some point prior to when the original tomb was found empty. This
    particular premise is flawed on more than one level. First, the theory fails to consider that
    the reason for the rumor (that the disciples stole Jesus’ body) is that the tomb was found
    empty in the first place. The Romans began the spread of such a rumor in their attempt to
    account for the missing body of Jesus, which had been reported as gone from its burial
    place. The claim that such a rumor preceded the empty tomb is a reversal of the
    chronological order of events as they occurred in the Gospel. Second, the filmmakers fail
    to account for the Roman guard which was placed at Jesus’ tomb, in order to prevent the
    disciples from doing the very thing the filmmakers accuse them of. Third, if the disciples
    stole the body, they would certainly not have inscribed an ossuary with Jesus’ name and
    placed it in the tomb belonging to His family, for such would have been uncovered by

    373
    those who would have gladly presented evidence to Christianity’s discredit, were they
    able to do so. Furthermore, if one is to discredit the Gospels as an historical record, and
    claim they are replete with error and inconsistency, then not only must he regard the
    resurrection account as a severe embellishment of what actually occurred after Jesus’
    burial, but he also must regard the “disciples-stole-the-body” rumor as non-existent as
    well, since it is by the Gospels themselves that we are told that such a rumor existed after
    Jesus’ resurrection.

    The filmmakers state that in order to be “historical and realistic,” one must believe
    that the body of Jesus was placed in a family tomb, rather than risen from the dead, for
    such was in accordance with the custom of the day. First of all, there is no historical
    record which states the body of Jesus was buried in a family tomb. The historical records
    which do exist, namely the Gospels themselves and the writings of the early church
    fathers, plainly state that Jesus arose from the dead. Second, the only realistic explanation
    for the removal of Jesus’ body from its original tomb is that He did in fact rise from the
    dead, as the historical records claim. Skeptics have presented a number of alternate
    explanations to account for the resurrection (see Part five under the heading “Jesus’
    resurrection is a fact of history”), but each of the explanations presented fail to account
    for one or more factor which must likewise be considered in order for the explanation to
    be valid and realistic.

    Supporters of the “Jesus tomb” theory regard the Gospels as “historical and realistic”
    only so far as they support, or are made to support, such a theory. In so doing, they base
    their propositions on the belief that the family of Jesus was named correctly in the
    Gospels, but then reject the same Gospel accounts when not doing so would support the
    belief that Jesus’ body did not remain in His tomb for more than three days following His
    resurrection. Consequently, their conclusions are based on a “pick and choose” form of
    evidence selection. Also, they place equal value on the Gospel of Phillip that they do on
    the Gospels, despite that the Gospel of Phillip dates centuries after Christ, whereas the
    Gospels were written by those who were alive during, and witnesses to, the life of Christ.
    The early dating of the Gospel records (see Part six for more on the integrity of these
    records based on the dating) gives to them a level of credibility that no other gospel,
    Gnostic or otherwise, could possess. By analogy, in Cameron’s film Titanic (a cinematic
    masterpiece, by the way), the story is told through the eyes of a character named Rose
    Dawson, who, in the story, was a survivor of the disaster. The character of her testimony,
    being a firsthand account, lends the viewer to become absorbed in the story by virtue of
    the credibility of the witness through whose eyes the story is told. Likewise, in a jury trial
    where an eyewitness can testify against the defendant, the prosecution would certainly
    not send the defendant home in favor of calling in someone who heard her story through
    the “grapevine.” Supporters of the purported “Jesus family tomb” base the identity of
    Jesus' family members solely on the Gospel record, since they are the primary source
    material for Jesus of Nazareth. However, they reject the account of the resurrection,
    which is described in each of these Gospels. The obvious basis for such rejection is due
    to the supernatural and miraculous character of such events, but if these characteristics of
    the Gospels are the basis on which such records are considered embellished, then there is
    no reasonable ground on which to assume the Gospels are historically accurate in other
    respects, such as the names of Jesus' relatives. Such inconsistent reasoning results in

    374
    circumstantial evidence (that is, the ossuaries' inscriptions) being the basis on which the
    Gospels are understood and interpreted, rather than vice-versa. According to this method
    of deduction, the Gospel accounts are determined to be historical and accurate only so far
    as they go to support assumptions based on the ossuaries themselves, rather than on the
    integrity of the primary source material (which will be considered in detail in Part six).
    Again, in the case of a jury trial, where there are eyewitnesses to the crime, the validity of
    any circumstantial evidence presented must be rendered inconclusive if the eyewitness
    accounts tell a different story. Yet, in the case of the Jesus family tomb, conclusions are
    drawn based on a preconceived view of the Gospels, rather than what the Gospels
    actually state about Jesus. In addition, no effort is made by the filmmakers of The Lost
    Tomb of Jesus to account for the integrity of the Gospel record. Throughout the whole of
    the film, claims are made based on the assumption that the Gospel account of the
    resurrection is a tale of a non-historical event, and no effort whatsoever is made to
    validate these assumptions on other than circumstantial evidence found in the Talpiot
    tomb. The only solid evidence either for or against the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus'
    family is against such a belief, for the evidence (that is, the Gospels) state clearly that
    Jesus experienced a bodily resurrection from the grave. On the other hand, the only
    support for the notion that the Talpiot tomb is the tomb of Jesus' family are the theories of
    the filmmakers themselves, and those theories are based solely on an uneducated
    approach to the primary evidence itself and on assumptions (which are presented as fact
    in the film) concerning the circumstantial evidence as found in the inscriptions. It is no
    wonder that professional archaeologists regard the claims made regarding the Talpiot
    tomb as that which is an embarrassment to the profession and an abandonment of true
    scientific methods.

    Conclusion
    In conclusion, if I may employ a play on words, James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici's
    so-called “evidence” that Jesus' tomb has been discovered is a failure of titanic
    proportions and it will take more than skilled filmmaking to raise this sunken ship. The
    only reasonable conclusion concerning the “Jesus family tomb” is that the tomb in fact
    did not belong to Jesus’ family.

    375
    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

    377
    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
    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

    378
    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
    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

    379
    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
    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

    380
    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
    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.

    381
    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
    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, as
    shown in Part one, 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.

    382
    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

    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.

    They 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.

    They 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

    383
    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
    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

    384
    “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
    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?” The substance of this argument will be addressed
    in Part five, when discussing the character of God. Here it serves to merely state that
    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.

    385
    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?” These questions will be addressed further in Part five, when
    discussing the sovereignty of God, and I will simply point out here that the presence
    of evil (be it evil caused by the wickedness of man, or by natural disaster) is due to
    man’s 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 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 six). 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,

    386
    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
    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

    387
    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
    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

    388
    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
    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. Since both of these topics will be addressed in Part

    389
    five, I only present them here to illustrate this type of fallacy. A false dilemma also
    arises when derived conclusions creates a negative situation that does not actually
    exist. A prime example of this is Scott Bidstrup’s “meme virus,” discussed
    previously. In his hypothesis, the Christian is one under a sort of cultic and secret
    persuasion or influence, being brainwashed into believing the things he does – or
    else!. Since such does not describe the real disposition of the Christian, Bidstrup’s
    theory is a colossal failure which is grounded in his creation of a false dilemma.

    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
    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

    390
    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
    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

    391
    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. So it is that the
    religion known as Zoroastrianism, which flourished among the Persians in the
    centuries before Christ, and to which the Jews were exposed during their Persian
    captivity, is perceived as the precursor to Christianity, and the spring from which
    many Christian doctrines emerged centuries after the Jews returned from their
    captivity. The doctrinal differences between the two religions have been discussed in
    detail in Part three and will not be reiterated here, as there is a plethora of reasons to
    consider such a claim invalid.

    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
    in the supposed declaration of Pope Leo X who is said to have declared the Gospel
    of Christ to be nothing more than a “fable,” however, such a statement was only
    attributed to him in a work of fiction, and not actually said by Leo himself. Another
    example is the attempt to 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 five
    under the heading “Jesus’ resurrection was a bodily resurrection”).

    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

    392
    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.

    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, as has been

    393
    shown in Part three of this book. 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.

    VI. The meme virus


    In his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme” in his
    attempt to apply the principles of evolution to the spreading of ideas and beliefs from one
    person to the next within a culture. His theory was that evolution depended on the
    existence and transmission of a gene which was able to replicate itself autonomously, or
    without any external motivational factor. In his article The Mind Virus1, critic Scott
    Bidstrup applies Dawkins’ theory to the survival and transmission of Christian doctrine,
    from one age to the next. He contends that these doctrines spread, as a virus, through the
    behavior of Christians in their response such doctrines. He argues that Christianity was
    fashioned as a remodeling of Judaism in order to make it more acceptable to Gentiles,
    and therefore causing it to spread beyond traditional geographic and cultural boundaries.
    The factor to which he attributes the success of the disease, as he identifies it, known as
    Christianity, is the synergy in which the individual elements of the Christian faith work
    together in unison to create a pathogen which spreads throughout and “infects” mankind
    by means of a series of seven mind games. The subtleness by which these mind games
    infect, along with the keen interaction of one game with the other, ensures their success,
    as a whole, as an effective meme complex, or as a means by which ideas survive from
    one transmission to the next. These mind games, or the genes of the pathogen, which are
    integral to the spread of the disease, are as follows:

    The first mind game Bidstrup identifies is the “fantasies that accompany
    indoctrination.” By this he is referring to the appeal of certain Christian doctrines
    and the blessings which are said to be bestowed upon the believer, by which a
    person is emotionally compelled to accept such doctrines as spiritual truth.
    According to Scripture, men are born blind to spiritual truth and, in effect, dead to
    God, being unable and unwilling to lift even lift a single finger in a work that is done
    with the intention of bringing glory to God. Such a state of being is then graciously
    reversed upon the call of the Holy Spirit, by which blind eyes are opened to the light
    of truth and the spiritually dead are raised to new life in an everlasting relationship

    394
    of communion with God, being then made free of the guilt of sin which once held
    him in slavery to sin. Bidstrup reduces the call of the Spirit to what he calls a mere
    “warm and fuzzy” feeling by which people are compelled to accept certain concepts
    as absolute truth, and the conversion of a man from spiritual death to new life is
    regarded as nothing more than “the result of stimulation of the temporal lobes of the
    brain.” Bidstrup’s failure in such an analysis is that he regards these warm and fuzzy
    feelings to be such as would sustain the new believer throughout his entire Christian
    life. The truth is that the Christian life has its ups and downs. There are moments of
    triumph and failure, moments of exaltation and persecution. While the end-all result
    is that of indescribable blessing, the road on which one travels to that point is
    marked with moments which are characterized by feelings not so warm and fuzzy.
    The Apostle Paul regarded his own persecution as a cause for joy, being persecuted
    for Christ’s sake; however, during the many beatings, floggings, and stonings he
    experienced, the emotion he felt was not likely marked with the warmth and
    fuzziness that entail Bidstrup’s Christian experience. If one’s conversion experience
    is marked with feelings of exhilaration, once such feelings fade and the convert is
    again faced with the tasks and trials of everyday life, it is not the initial emotion
    which carries his faith; but rather, his hope and trust in a God who sacrificed His all
    so that man would be spared from condemnation. This is the source of the enduring
    character of the Christian faith: not that such faith is borne on the wings of
    physiological responses or electrons stimulating neural reaction; but rather, an
    enduring hope, a prevailing comfort, and a peace which passes all understanding. It
    is no wonder that one who has not come into a personal relationship with God is
    unable to comprehend the depth of spiritual blessings found in the person of Jesus,
    the Son of God, for they are spiritually discerned. Also, if the promises of God were
    mere fantasies, as Bidstrup attributes them to be, then there would be no evidence to
    stand to the veracity of such things. The truth is, there are numerous reasons to
    believe, not only in a Creator God, but also in a personal Redeemer God. The design
    of the world around us, the inherent conscience of man, the integrity and reliability
    of Scripture, and the necessity for a First Cause from which all other causes are
    caused, are just some of the evidences available to man that the God of the Bible,
    and the Gospel of Christ, is not a figment of man’s imagination.

    Bidstrup’s second mind game is the discredit which is attributed by the Christian
    to anything that is in contradiction to that which he believes. Thus, such concepts as
    evolution, the fallibility of Scripture, and a fictional Gospel are all regarded to be
    concepts which are the offspring of sinful men. In so doing, the Christian isolates his
    beliefs from that which would cause them to fall short of reason or be found lacking
    in solidarity. The chief means by which this mind game is played out, Bidstrup says,
    is giving discredit to the world, or to the system of thought which is contrary to the
    doctrines of Christianity. It is by this method that such things as humanism, atheism,
    deism, and skepticism are regarded as ways of thinking that are not only in error, but
    more so are wicked and destructive in and of themselves. For instance, when a non-
    Christian presents supposed evidence that Jesus was not an historical figure, such
    evidence is disregarded as being valid, in favor of adherence to the Gospel account
    of Jesus. Bidstrup goes on to say, “This mind game, of course, short-circuits the
    intellectual life-cycle of learning that is an important part of mental health. The

    395
    meme complex deals with this by allowing subsequent learning modification with
    only approved doctrines and dogma.” In short, Bidstrup’s mentally deficient
    Christian is pre-programmed, through the meme complex, to accept only that which
    is in line with Christian doctrine. The truth of the matter is that the doctrines of the
    Christian faith form a logical and coherent whole. The problem is not that the
    contemporary church is composed of programmed droids who simply respond to
    others according to set criteria; but rather, the problem, generally speaking, is a
    lethargic response by the church to its faith. When a Christian is faced with a world
    view contrary to his own, he all too often merely looks the other way and continues
    on his own path, rather than giving a response to the hope that is within him, or else
    he responds with harsh judgment to those who are speaking from a carnal mind or
    are, as the catch-phrase goes, “living in sin.” Also, the evangelistic mandate of
    Christ by which Christians are to be a light in the darkness and a witness to the truth
    is often replaced by a tendency to remain in a box and separate oneself from those
    whose lifestyle may not measure up to what he or she considers to be a life that is
    right with God. All too often, a heathen or a “backslidden” Christian is given an
    ever-so-righteous slap in the face by fellow believers who judge them according to
    their words or deeds, rather than reaching to them in sincerity and a genuine attempt
    to give them aid or respond in kindness. The Christian life must be lived outside the
    walls of the church, and the modern-day Christian-in-the-box must “work out his
    salvation,” as the Apostle James states. This working is not the work by which the
    man is made just in the sight of God, for such work is only accomplished by the
    shed blood of Christ on the cross. Rather, this work of the Christian is the outpouring
    or outward manifestation of the change that has already been effected within him by
    the power of the Holy Spirit. In other words, it is because the Christian is justified
    before God that he is commanded to walk in truth, as a testament to that which has
    been granted him. In the Old Testament believers were instructed to offer blood
    sacrifice to God, and so it was that many an animal was slain on an altar, as an
    expression of the coming salvation which would be provided by the Lamb of God,
    Jesus Christ, slain for the sin of the world. Now that the sacrifice for sin has been
    paid once for all by the blood of Christ, believers no longer need offer blood
    sacrifice to God, but rather are to be a sacrifice themselves – not as a sacrifice slain
    on an altar, but as a living sacrifice, separated unto God and from the world that
    Bidstrup describes. However, separation is not equated with isolation, and Christians
    are to be in the world, but not of the world. Even Jesus associated and socialized
    with those regarded to be among the worst of the bunch, and for this even He was
    accused of guilt-by-association by religious leaders who should have instead bowed
    the knee to Him in reverence. So it is with the Christian life – it is to be lived with
    respect to non-believers, not in contempt of them; with humility, not prideful self-
    righteousness (for it is only by the grace of God that the most noble of Christian
    does not engage himself in less-than-honorable activities); and considering contrary
    views, rather than shunning them without first giving them a proper evaluation.

    The third mind game of which the meme virus makes use is the so-called
    “distortion” of word meanings so that certain words or concepts assume a meaning
    to the Christian, different from the meaning that is generally understood by non-
    Christians. Bidstrup claims this special meaning, as understood by the Christian,

    396
    reinforces the Christian experience, and leads the person to believe that such an
    understanding was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit. Bidstrup presents the
    following words as examples of his premise:

    Meaning to the non-Christian Meaning to the Christian


    Life A state of non-death; being Being in a state of spiritual
    aware sensitivity arising out of the state of
    belief; being saved; being in a state
    of salvation

    Death A state of not being alive; Not being spiritually sensitive; not
    the endpoint of living being saved; not being in a state of
    salvation

    Truth That which is real and verifiable That which is revealed by the Spirit

    Wisdom Understanding that is shown The doctrines of the Gospel as


    to be correct revealed by the Spirit

    The manner to which Bidstrup attributes strength to this particular mind game is the
    special understanding that has been imparted to the Christian by virtue of his
    communion with God, thereby influencing his behavior to fall more in line with
    what is expected of a Christian, and reinforcing the doctrines and mandates as
    described in Scripture. The error in such an analysis is two-fold. First, the existential
    use of these words is not limited to the Christian sphere. Even for the non-Christian,
    when he experiences a change or event which invigorates him or inspires him to a
    great degree (such as marriage, the birth of a child, or embarking on an attractive
    career opportunity), the resulting effect on the person is often described as a new
    life, not in an ontological sense (as one literally re-created as a new being), but in an
    experiential sense (as a feeling of renewal or of “starting life over”). Thus, the word
    “life,” regardless of one’s religious position, can also be used to describe a form of
    “liveliness” or energy which one feels after a positive turn of life events or
    circumstances. Both Christians and non-Christians alike use the word to describe the
    way one feels or reacts to a thing, rather than using the word to refer strictly to the
    coursing of blood through the veins or the beating of one’s heart. Likewise, the word
    “death” is commonly used to refer to the lack of invigoration which accompanies
    times of severe depression, such as that which follows the loss of a loved one, the
    dissolution of a marriage, or a prolonged state of unemployment. When a person
    embraces a form of religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, or any other
    form of religion, it is only natural that such words would be applied to the system of
    thought to which one has turned his perspective. However, in so doing, the convert
    does not change the meaning of the words; but rather, such meaning is applied to the
    newly adopted beliefs. For instance, the Christian concept of being “born again”
    does not entail the invention of a new meaning; but rather, is the application of the
    term “life” to the change that is effected in the Christian upon his conversion, by
    which he is spiritually invigorated and able to experience fellowship with God, both
    in his present existence and in the afterlife. Likewise, the concept of the second

    397
    death is the application of physical death to the punishment which the non-Christian
    experiences following the expiration of the body. While the term death is applied to a
    postmortem existence, such application does not involve an alteration of the meaning
    of the word itself. Furthermore, “truth” is used by both Christians and non-Christians
    to describe that which is real (for more on this, I will refer the reader to the
    discussion concerning Freethought, in Part two). While the perception of reality is
    different from one system of thought to the next (for instance, Christianity and
    Islam), the term “truth” is still used to define that which is perceived to be real (of
    course, what is real is not dependent on one’s perception of reality). Therefore,
    Bidstrup’s third mind game, which he terms “verbicide,” is clearly no game at all.
    The only manipulative game here is Bidstrup’s own attempt to create an illusion with
    which to give credence to his theory that Christianity’s use of words and phrases is a
    carefully constructed means by which its converts are brainwashed into believing
    and acting a certain way.

    Mind game number four of Bidstrup’s meme virus is identified as “an assault on
    ethical and moral integrity,” by persuading the Christian to hate those who stand as a
    potential threat to his Christian world view. In so doing, the Christian fails to
    respond with compassion and understanding to those who find themselves in a moral
    dilemma or are engaged in destructive behavior. The consequence of such an attitude
    is that, rather than the person in need receiving a helping hand from the Christian
    churchgoer, he is booted out the door as one less worthy than he who sits in a pew
    from one Sunday to the next. Bidstrup furthers his illusion by claiming that
    Christians conceal such a mindset through a series of code words, thus making use
    of the previous mind game, replacing the word “hate” with “righteous anger,” or,
    when the word “hate” is used, it is used to refer to the sin, rather than the sinner,
    thereby permitting the Christian to feed his animosity by disguising it as an attempt
    to reinforce certain values. For example, the Christian is encouraged to love a man
    who beats his wife, but hate his manner of conduct, thereby separating the sin from
    the sinner and covering one’s actual hatred for the sinner by his claim to merely hate
    the sin. Bidstrup goes on to portray the Christian as a person who is wrought with an
    inward struggle to both embrace and deny his hatred for sinners, and is embattled
    with doubts and attempts to justify such feelings, but to hide such attempts, lest they
    hinder the faith of other believers or prospective converts. Credit is then given to the
    “rare” Christian who is able to transcend such a struggle by dissociating himself
    from Bidstrup's so-called “obvious contradictions” which exist within the mandate
    which is to govern the Christian's social interaction. It is true that Christians are
    instructed to reject that which is named in Scripture as sin. It is also true that
    Christians are to love their neighbor and treat others as they would have others treat
    them. When asked what is the greatest of the commandments, Jesus replied that the
    greatest commandment is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and
    soul.” He then added that the second commandment, “like unto” the first, is to “love
    your neighbor as yourself.” “On these two commandments,” He said, “hangs all the
    law and the prophets.” (paraphrased from Mt 22:35-40 NASB) By referring to the
    law and prophets, Jesus was referring to the whole of Scripture, for the Jews divided
    the books known, by Christians, as the Old Testament into these two divisions. In
    other words, love for God and fellow man is the underlying principle by which the

    398
    Scripture is to be obeyed and cherished. The mandate to “love your neighbor” is
    challenged by the inward tendency to do exactly what Bidstrup describes, that is, to
    regard the sinner as a dreg of society. However, such a struggle is not due to a
    deficiency in the mandate itself, or a coded instruction to regard the sinner as such;
    but rather, is due to the natural tendency of man to take pride in oneself. It is all too
    natural to respond to someone in the depths of a certain behavior which is considered
    to be a sin as one who is beneath the Christian and to regard his behavior as that in
    which the Christian would never desire to engage himself. Such an attitude is the
    result of a failure to keep one’s sight on the grace by which a Christian’s redemption
    had been secured. Were it not for the grace of God, no one would be considered
    righteous in God's sight, and every man would have reason to cry, as did Elijah
    before the presence of the glory of God, “Woe is me, for I am undone!” When a
    Christian is declared righteous and the sacrifice of Christ, made on his account, is
    applied to him, the inward transformation that occurs within enables him to
    transcend the tendency to despise others who represent that which is abhorrent to
    Christian values, and to regard such a one as a fellow human being created in God’s
    image, to whom the Christian is to respond with compassion, gentleness, and
    meekness. This is a challenge which faced even the Apostles, as described in the
    book of Acts. Peter, regarded as the Apostle to the Jews, was rebuked by Paul, the
    Apostle to the Gentiles, for not welcoming Gentile Christians into their congregation
    and for imposing upon them Jewish practices such as circumcision or not eating
    meat offered to pagan idols. Paul’s response was that the work of Christ superseded
    the Law and transcended traditional Jewish expectations. No longer was it required
    for one to be circumcised, or to adhere to certain Jewish ceremonial practices, in
    order to be named among the people of God. The legalistic expression of faith, as
    expressed in the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, was replaced with a
    freedom by which men and women of all races are now able to enter into an eternal
    relationship with the King of the Universe, Jesus Christ Himself. However, legalism
    is the very problem facing many churches today, in that certain expectations are
    placed upon how another is to lead his or her life. This is the root by which
    judgmental frames of mind cast a shadow on those who do not meet up to a certain
    level of expectation. While certain activities are indeed forbidden in Scripture, others
    are not so much so, yet some Christians turn their own personal application of
    Scripture into Biblical mandates which they then impose upon others in their
    estimation of whether or nor someone else is either “right with God” or
    “backslidden.” The term “backslidden” is a term often used in fundamentalist
    churches operating from a legalistic frame of mind in which a proper relationship
    with God, or being “right with God,” is the product of living a good life in obedience
    to His Word. The result of such a mindset is the tendency to become prideful in one’s
    own behavior and to regard his or her adherence to a fabricated set of guidelines as a
    measure of spirituality. This further results in isolation from “the world” and
    enclosing oneself in a box filled with peers of like mind, thereby more closely
    resembling a sect rather than a body of orthodox Christians. When a person removes
    himself from a true expression of Christianity and instead embraces a form of pious
    spirituality based on self-imposed “Biblical mandates,” it is no wonder that such a
    one would be embattled by an inward struggle of emotion, and by doubts concerning
    the veracity of his faith, and even of Scripture itself. The bottom line is that the

    399
    commission Christ gave to Christians does not end with “go into all the world and
    preach the Gospel,” but also includes teaching them, admonishing them,
    encouraging them, forgiving them, and, most of all, loving them. True, Christians are
    commanded to observe the ordinances of their Heavenly Father and this obedience
    furthers one's fellowship with God and other believers within his or her community.
    However, such a disciplined manner of life is not that which makes one “right with
    God” or justified in His sight, for such a pardon from sin is granted once-for-all by
    the sacrifice of Christ, whose blood paid the penalty for the sinner's state of
    transgression. If the Christian's relationship with God is based on one's actions or
    reactions, then it must be asked how many good deeds or thoughts does one need to
    commit before one becomes right with God? Or, how many sins, great or small, does
    a pious believer need to commit before he loses his favorable status with God? The
    truth is that no one is absolutely right with God in experiential terms, that is to say, in
    one's manner of conduct. Every Christian, from the one caught in the dregs of
    addiction to the one who strives so hard to always do the right thing, is one who
    walks through this life with desires not in accordance with God's statutes, yet despite
    these desires and the sins into which they lead at times, the blessed truth is that
    nothing can ever sever the relationship formed by God, not by the believer, between
    the Great Shepherd and His sheep. Regardless of how distant the fellowship is
    between the believer and His Savior, the prodigal son will always be called back
    home and embraced with love by His Father.

    Bidstrup’s fifth mind game is that by which the Christian dissociates himself from
    the reality around him and becomes utterly shrouded within a cocoon in which he is
    able to live according to the fantasy that is provided for him by the doctrines which
    he or she holds so dear. This is closely related to Bidstrup’s previous mind game, in
    that scientific evidence and rational conclusions are rejected (or so he claims) in
    order to better cling to the illusion that is the Christian experience. This illusion, he
    says, denies that which is real in favor of that which is described in Scripture
    concerning the world in which he lives. Consequently, so-called scientific evidence
    for evolution is rejected in favor of a creationist view, and logic, reason, and open-
    mindedness is replaced with blind submission to Jesus and with a world view
    characterized by tunnel vision, in that everything is viewed through the lens of
    Scripture. Bidstrup’s analysis then assumes an even more ludicrous character when
    he suggests that the human libido is that which “drives one on to ‘higher states’ of
    ‘love’ of the gospel and one's understanding of God, even to the extent that one does
    not even have sexual temptation of a more earthly kind. This kind of tension requires
    almost constant mind control, a state few are able to achieve. But achieving it is
    considered necessary by many evangelicals for complete ‘submission’ to Jesus.”
    Concerning the relation between truth and reality, I will again refer the reader to the
    section concerning Freethought in Part two, and will here merely address the
    relationship between faith and reason, a relationship which, in Bidstrup’s analysis, is
    reduced to a fabricated means of giving validity to a faith which is nothing more
    than a human contrivance. There are many evidences for the Christian faith –
    evidences concerned with the integrity of Scripture, the historicity of Jesus, the
    existence of God, the rationality of miracles, the deity of Christ … just to name some
    of the areas of apologetics. Christianity is, first and foremost, a form of faith. Yet, it

    400
    is not a faith which is held to blindly and without reason. It is through faith alone
    that Christians are saved, but is not through faith alone that Christians live.
    Christians are called to reason together amongst themselves and to give an answer
    for the hope that is within them. (1 Pet 3:15) Following Jesus’ resurrection, when He
    appeared to Thomas, He did not merely stand before Thomas and tell him to “believe
    it or not.” Rather, He compelled Thomas to touch the wound in His side, pierced by
    a spear, and the nail prints in His hands, and to conclude, based on empirical
    evidence, that Thomas’ Master had indeed risen from the dead. (Jn 20:27) Likewise,
    the Apostles, when preaching the Gospel, did not merely deliver an evangelistic
    message then walk away if the prospective converts did not heed their words. Rather,
    they opened the Scriptures and reasoned from them that Jesus was in fact the
    Messiah sent from God. (Acts 17:2) The logic and reason by which Christianity is
    held as a valid system of belief and a proper world view is not the product of the
    mind control or brainwashing described by Bidstrup. The Christian, rather than
    walling himself up in a cocoon, in denial of so-called evidence contrary to his faith,
    is well-equipped with many infallible proofs, as were the disciples of Jesus
    following His resurrection, (Acts 1:3) concerning the veracity of his faith. I will not
    repeat myself here by discussing evidences discussed elsewhere throughout this
    book, but will simply make the claim, based on the evidences described herein (and
    others which space will not permit me to address at this juncture) that true
    Christianity represents a perspective on the world as it is, rather than a faulty
    interpretation of reality, and it is such solid proof which establishes the Christian
    faith as the one, true expression of the relationship between God and man.

    The sixth mind game of the meme virus is the “burning of bridges,” or the
    working by which the Christian is brought to the point of no return. Thus, even
    second thoughts and regrets prevent the Christian from abandoning his newfound
    faith. Bidstrup paints a biased picture of a Christian who cleverly lures converts to
    his way of thinking, through the putting on of a friendly and caring persona, and by
    pretending to listen to objections with an open ear, all the while carefully filtering
    out any idea presented by the convert which is in opposition to the evangelistic
    message. In so doing, Bidstrup explains, the Christian evangelist engages himself in
    a dishonest act, by pretending to be open-minded to objections, while really devising
    responses by which such objections will be overcome, thereby “lying for Jesus” in
    favor of “the higher good of ‘bringing in the harvest.’” Once the subject is converted
    to the Christian faith, Bidstrup says, “... the tool of fear is imposed to make the
    believer fear that if he should reject the doctrine, he would have blasphemed against
    the Holy Spirit, and in so doing would be consigned to hell forever and ever.”
    Likewise, the convert is admonished to stay away from false prophets, or those who
    would preach that which is contrary to the Gospel. In so doing, the convert is
    carefully guarded and kept inside the circle of trust, in which his faith is fueled by
    Christian mentors and elders to whom the Spirit of God has imparted better
    understanding of the Scriptures, thus keeping the convert from becoming a sheep-
    gone-astray. Bidstrup’s portrayal of the dumbed-down Christian is exactly opposite
    of the frame of mind that Scripture instructs Christians to adopt. Christians are not to
    sit idly by in a pew as a sponge which absorbs whatever is propounded from behind
    the pulpit. It is these ones who are most prone to radical fundamentalism or apostasy,

    401
    forsaking their faith in favor of another system of belief in God, even going to far as
    to embrace atheism. The Apostle Paul admonished fellow believers against this very
    mindset, when he instructed them not to be as babes, seeking mere milk, but to be
    diligent in their faith, seeking the “meat” of the Word (1 Cor 3:1-3, Heb 5:12-13).
    Christians are to be separate from the world, but not isolated from it. Non-Christian
    world views are not to be judgmentally cast aside; but rather, discussed and
    evaluated according to what the Christian knows to be true. For the critic, such a
    frame of mind is considered close-minded, when it is simply an evaluation of a
    theory against a standard of truth, a standard which is different from the opposing
    standard by which the critic draws his own conclusions. A person, regardless of his
    faith, must come to understand why it is he believes the things he does, because if he
    fails to do so, it is all too easy to distance himself from such a belief system and
    come to regard his faith as invalid. This can further lead to the individual becoming
    beset by apathy and living a life characterized by hypocrisy, in which he acts
    properly in front of fellow believers, but in secret engages himself in practices which
    are contrary to the values propounded by his faith.

    The final mind game of Bidstrup’s meme virus is, quite simply, fear. The
    Christian is taught that if he steps off the path set for him, by engaging in worldly
    practices, that he will be met with negative consequences. It is true that God
    demands His people to walk in righteousness, and it is also true that God chastises
    His people, not as an unloving tyrant, but as a father seeking to return a prodigal son
    to the safety of the home, or as a shepherd seeking to bring a wandering sheep back
    into the fold. Also, the motivation behind true Christian behavior is not fear; but
    rather, is love. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” (Jn 14:15).
    Christians are not divinely-appointed drones, sent to merely do God's bidding – or
    else! Rather, Christians are the adopted children of God, and it is this father-child
    relationship which characterizes the relationship between God and His people.

    Such is the working of Bidstrup’s meme virus. These seven mind games work
    together, according to his theorizing, to further the success of Christianity as one of
    the world’s most widely-accepted religions. The proposed results of such a meme
    virus in action is that the Christian is so assured in his faith that he sees no need to
    examine the tenants further in order to determine the veracity of his beliefs.
    However, as stated above, such a lethargic approach by a Christian to his faith is not
    at all what is expressed in Scripture. Bidstrup concludes by claiming Christianity
    was “accidentally” created by Jews who sought to protect their religion from Roman
    oppression, but such an analysis fails to consider that the person of Jesus of Nazareth
    is not the type of Messiah the Jews would have invented (for more on this point, see
    Part five), nor does it account for the success of Christianity, especially amidst
    severe persecution during its infant stage. Of course, Bidtsrup would appeal to his
    meme virus as the “clear” means of this success, but the tenants of his formula have
    been deconstructed point-by-point above and have been shown to fall under scrutiny.
    Scott Bidstrup has creatively fabricated a religious experience that is far from
    describing what it is to be a Christian. His cleverly-fashioned meme virus is based,
    through and through, on a misunderstanding of Biblical concepts. In short, he gets
    points for creativity, but his analysis leaves much to be desired.

    402
    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)

    404
    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)

    405
    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.

    406
    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)

    407
    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)

    408
    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)

    409
    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.

    410
    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.

    411
    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:

    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)

    412
    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
    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,

    413
    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
    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.

    414
    II. The Son of God possesses the essence of God
    The essence or nature of God is that which completely separates God from man. It is
    those qualities of being which find no reflection or similarity in human nature or in the
    image of God placed within mankind. As distinguished from other characteristics
    describing how He is (such as faithfulness, justice, mercy, wisdom, etc), His essential
    qualities define what He is, and what He is alone, for it is these qualities of being which
    can be said of none other but the persons of the Godhead. As the second person of the
    Trinity, the Son of God is in possession of all that is essential to the nature of God;
    therefore, all that can be said of God the Father can also be said of the Son and the Spirit.

    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; who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his
    substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made
    purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Heb
    1:1-3)

    Infinitude
    To say that God is infinite is to say that He is without limit. This limitless nature
    of God refers not just to space or His all-encompassing presence. He is without limit
    not only in terms of where He is, but also who He is. Since He is merciful, His mercy
    is without limit; since He is just, His justice is without limit; since He is love, His
    love is without limit. The infinitude of God is a trait which marks every facet of His
    being. It may be asked, if God's mercy is infinite, then why is anyone condemned?
    Why does God, in His infinite mercy, not grant His mercy to every sinner? When
    God gives mercy, He gives it infinitely, but the giving of His mercy does not extend
    to everyone – nor should it, since mercy, by definition, is given without obligation.

    Only God is infinite. In our own experience, we speak of things as being of an


    infinite nature, or without measure or limit – such as referring to the most wealthy as
    having “infinite wealth” or the most charitable as possessing “infinite compassion.”
    There is a difference between declaring a thing to be infinite as opposed to a thing
    merely possessing that which is great or large in measure. We speak of the universe
    as being without measure, yet even the cosmos cannot extend infinitely, for then the
    cosmos would be as infinite as God. Space itself is within God, rather than being that
    which God occupies. Mathematics speaks of numbers as continuing on for infinity,
    but numerology is merely a way of calculating or measuring that which is of a finite
    nature. The idea that anything other than God can be unlimited is to deny the fact
    that everything in the material world can have something more added to its measure.
    Christian churches sing songs of worship to the greatness of God, and it is this
    greatness which characterizes everything about God. He never was any less and will
    never be any more God than He is now. He is infinite in His knowledge, in His
    power, in every aspect of His Being, and so it has always been and forever more will
    be.

    415
    But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, heaven and the
    heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have
    built! (2 Chr 6:18)

    Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable.
    (Ps 145:3)

    For in him we live, and move, and have our being. (Acts 17:28)

    Immutability
    The immutability of God refers to the unchanging character of His being. As He
    was in ages past, so will He be in the ages to come. Growth and development can in
    no sense be attributed to God. He cannot be any better than He always has been, for
    any betterment of God would be His elevation to a standard higher than Himself.
    According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, change can be transitive (that being, a
    shift or exchange in movement, position, or direction) or intransitive (to become
    different or transformed either inwardly or outwardly). Since God is present
    everywhere, He cannot change in position, since His purpose and determination is
    sure, He cannot change in direction or desire; and since nothing can be added to or
    detracted from God, He cannot change in essence or being. As A. W. Tozer states,
    “Only a being composed of parts can change, for change is basically a shift in the
    relation of the parts to the whole or the admission of some foreign element into the
    original composition. Since God is self-existent, He is not composed.”1 Additionally,
    the Christian philosopher Anselm explains, “Whatever is composed of parts is not
    altogether one, but is in some sort plural. And diverse from itself; and either in fact
    or in concept is capable of dissolution. But these things are alien to Thee, than whom
    nothing better can be conceived of. Hence, there are no parts in Thee Lord, nor art
    Thou more than one. But Thou art so truly a unitary Being, and so identical with
    Thyself, that in no respect art Thou unlike Thyself; rather Thou art unity itself,
    indivisible by any conception.”2 Even the redemptive process of God did not change
    from the Old to the New Testaments. Men are justified in both ages by grace through
    faith alone, not through any keeping of Old Testament Law. The revelation of God's
    redemptive plan was increased over time, but the plan itself remained constant. The
    God known by Abraham is as gracious, as just, as loving as the God known today.
    God operates within a world full of change and history, but He has been and always
    will remain unchanged in being and purpose.

    Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the
    Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (Heb
    1:17)

    Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the
    immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable
    things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong
    consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
    Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and
    which entereth into that within the veil. (Heb 6:17-19)

    416
    But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
    Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by
    him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:24-25)

    Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Heb 13:8)

    Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the
    Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (Jas
    1:17)

    It is the immutability, or unchangeableness, of God, which secures His covenant


    with man. As God does not change in His being, neither does He change in His
    purpose; therefore, He will never renege on or alter His covenant. God’s covenant is
    between God and man, but the covenant is not with man. The covenant that God
    made was between Himself, in the Father sending the Son to pay the penalty for the
    sin of man. The book of Hebrews recounts the instance described in Genesis chapter
    fifteen where God establishes His covenant with He and Abraham. The writer of
    Hebrews describes God as swearing, or covenanting, by Himself, not by, or between,
    Abraham. Since God’s oath to redeem His people is carried out by God Himself, the
    fulfillment of that covenant is solely dependent on God’s working. Men change and
    break promises daily, yet God’s word is sure, as He never changes in His purpose
    and never speaks a word that is untrue.

    For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater,
    he swore by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I
    will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
    For men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for
    confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the
    heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath;
    that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may
    have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope
    set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and
    steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil. (Heb 6:13-19)

    Transcendence:
    The transcendence of God is that quality of His Being which exalts Him above all
    else. He is above everything, not in terms of place or location (for His presence is
    infinite), but in His quality of being. Since He is infinitely transcendent, He is as
    exalted above man as He is above even the lowest, most unintelligent of creatures,
    since the essence of His being is infinitely above any thing which is not God, be it
    man, beast, insect, or plant. Since God is transcendent above all, He is
    incomprehensible by any other being. Man cannot understand or comprehend God,
    however, God delights in making Himself known to the extent that man can
    understand Him. Hence, God has revealed Himself to man through nature, through
    the human conscience, through His written Word, and through the person of Christ,
    in whom resides the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. God cannot be
    understood, but He can be known to the extent that He is knowable by a finite mind

    417
    and by those whose existence is shaped by boundaries and limits which have no
    application to the Godhead. Any attempt to know God is a true attempt at “thinking
    outside the box” and contemplating that of which we have no points of reference. As
    stated earlier, those who seek God will find Him, but any discovery of God is an
    awakening to how much there is yet to know about Him. God will make Himself
    known to the seeker, and in the knowing will the seeker discover just how awesome
    our God really is.

    And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe,
    according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ,
    when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the
    heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion,
    and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to
    come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over
    all things to the church, Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in
    all. (Eph 1:19-23)

    One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
    (Eph 4:6)

    Self-existence
    The self-existence of God declares that He exists of His own power. He exists
    because He desires and enables Himself to exist. This is not to say that God created
    Himself, for if He had a point of beginning, then He would not be eternal. Likewise,
    He cannot cause His existence to cease. His existence is not conditioned on anything
    outside of Himself. God desires man's devotion, but He has no need for such, and the
    devotion of His elect is guaranteed by the irresistible call of His Spirit and the
    change of affection the Spirit brings about in those whom God redeems. God has no
    want that He has not willed upon Himself and that He has not of His own power
    guaranteed will be fulfilled. Even if the universe would disappear into nothingness,
    God would still exist in the same capacity as He always has existed, since His
    relationship to creation is due to His desire to have such a relationship, not a need for
    such a relationship. He does not need man's belief in Him, either as Creator or
    Redeemer, and the disbelief of the atheist does not detract from God being. As Tozer
    states, “God exists for Himself, and man for the glory of God. He alone trusts in
    Himself.”3

    As each Member of the Godhead is self-existent, this means that Christ existed
    before His human birth (His pre-existence will be dealt with later).

    For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in
    himself. (Jn 5:26)

    As the Creator, He must be uncreated. He is the uncaused First Cause.

    All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that
    hath been made. (Jn 1:3)

    418
    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)

    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. (Heb 1:2)

    For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life
    in himself: (Jn 5:26)

    Eternality
    God is eternal, without beginning or end. He always existed and He always will
    exist. He operates in time – in human history, but exists outside of time, for even
    time itself was created by God. Genesis declares that God created the heavens and
    the earth “in the beginning.” It is this beginning which set time in motion. Prior to
    this beginning there was nothing apart from God Himself, for only He is self-existent
    and without origin. Prior to the beginning of creation, there was no such thing as
    “once upon a time,” for there was not yet any time upon which a thing could rest, nor
    was there any thing which could exist outside of time, having no beginning in and of
    itself. All things apart from God have a beginning, for all things apart from God is
    eternal, and the beginning of any thing is owed to the one in whom all things began
    in the past, begins in the present, and will originate in the future. A popular image of
    God, even in Christian literature and art, is that of an elderly being with long white
    hair and a long white beard, but such image bears no relation at all to the true God,
    for He is a spirit being, who knows neither age nor maturation. God exists outside of
    time, not in the past, not in the present, and not in the future, for such an existence
    would place that which is eternal and unchanging into that which is temporal and
    successive. God exists in eternity, that which has no beginning and end. Since He is
    eternal, existing apart from time, none of His actions can properly be said to be done
    before or after another. God created time as a means by which the movements,
    activity, and processes of the created universe are measured, but God Himself did not
    enter into time and bind Himself within such an existence. As Tozer states, “God
    dwells in eternity, but time dwells in God.”4

    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. All things were made through
    him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was
    life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and
    the darkness apprehended it not. There came a man, sent from God, whose name
    was John. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light,
    that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came that he might
    bear witness of the light. There was the true light, even the light which lighteth
    every man, coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made
    through him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and they that
    were his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he
    the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who

    419
    were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but
    of 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
    1:1-14)

    He is before all things, and in him all things consist. (Col 1:17)

    … 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. (2 Tim 1:9)

    ... but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the
    scepter of uprightness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved
    righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee
    With the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning
    didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy
    hands: They shall perish; but thou continuest: And they all shall wax old as doth
    a garment; And as a mantle shalt thou roll them up, As a garment, and they shall
    be changed: But thou art the same, And thy years shall not fail. (Heb 1:8-12)

    Omnipresent (everywhere present)


    Since God is infinitely present, the presence of God is that which cannot be
    contained by any boundary or pinpointed to any location. God is “above” man, but
    He is transcendently above, not presently above. Such terms refer to His elevation of
    being, not to a place of being, such as in heaven. God is everywhere. As Hildebert of
    Lavardin (c.1055–1133 A.D.), Archbishop of Tours, declared, “God is over all
    things, under all things; outside all; within but not enclosed; without but not
    excluded; above but not raised up; below but not depressed, wholly above, presiding;
    wholly beneath, sustaining; wholly within, filling.”5 Although Scripture speaks of
    God as being near and distant to one thing or another, God cannot be properly
    thought of as being near to or distant from any thing, for His presence fills all things.
    Such depictions are ways in which God communicates Himself to man, in a similar
    fashion as someone may say that a distant loved-one is ”near” to them, in thought
    and devotion. God fills all space, but all space does not fill God, for space itself
    cannot be infinite. Space, by definition, must have boundaries, and God's presence is
    without any such bounds. He occupies all space, but extends infinitely beyond all
    space. Also, in saying that God is in all things or that He fills all things, is not to
    attribute deity to anything other than God.

    And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven,
    even the Son of man, who is in heaven. (Jn 3:13)
    Here, Jesus declares that He, the Son of Man, was in heaven at the same time
    that He was walking in bodily form on earth.

    ... and he [the Father] put all things in subjection under his [Christ's] feet, and
    gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness
    of him that filleth all in all. (Eph 1:22-23)

    420
    He [Christ] that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the
    heavens, that he might fill all things. (Eph 4:10)

    Omniscient (all-knowing)
    God knows all things. The knowledge which He has of all things is infinitely
    perfect and complete, and this knowledge has been His throughout all eternity, for
    there is not a thing which He does not know that He has not always known. God
    does not gain knowledge; but rather, it is His by virtue of His being. A thought has
    never entered into the divine mind, for each thought has been there throughout
    eternally. As there is no thought which exists outside His mind, and which has not
    eternally existed within His mind. God is not a being who is capable of learning. If
    God could learn or gain a new thought, He would not be God, as His knowledge
    would not be infinite. There is not a thing which God knows that is known by Him
    any better than He knows another thing, since His knowledge of all things is infinite.
    He knows every thing to the fullest extent that it can be known. Scripture speaks of
    the foreknowledge of God, but this is not to say that His knowledge is acquired or
    based on observation. He has no heavenly crystal ball through which He observes the
    goings-on of mankind, and His determinations are not a result of what He
    “foreknew” man would do, for no one can do anything that has not first been
    ordained by God. Mankind is not an autonomous body of creatures–we cannot
    function on our own apart from the person of Christ, in whom all things “live, move,
    and have their being.” (Acts 17:28) The foreknowledge of God is the eternal
    knowledge of God as understood by the finite mind. He knows what I will do
    tomorrow, not because He has foreseen tomorrow, but because He exists within
    tomorrow, and within the day after, and the day after that. He is eternal, His
    knowledge is eternal, and His knowledge is infinite, yet the happenings of history
    occur outside of eternity and within the succession of time as it was set in motion by
    God “in the beginning.” There are also instances in Scripture where God is described
    as asking questions to people, as in the Garden of Eden when God inquires
    concerning Adam's whereabouts following his sin. Such questions are not for lack of
    knowledge on the part of God – He knew exactly where Adam was and why he was
    hiding from God; but rather, are presented for the purpose of calling man to action.
    The questions asked by God in Scripture are not for want of knowledge, but are
    merely the manner in which He chose to conduct Himself in His dealings with man.

    He knows the thoughts of man


    And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
    (Mt 9:4)

    But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning
    who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him. (Jn
    6:64)

    And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within
    themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? (Mk
    2:8)

    421
    Nathaniel saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said
    unto him, Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw
    thee. (Jn 1:48)

    But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men, and because
    he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself
    knew what was in man. (Jn 2:24-25)

    And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men,
    show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen. (Acts 1:24)

    Wherefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who will both
    bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of
    the hearts; and then shall each man have his praise from God. (1 Cor 4:5)

    And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These things saith the Son of
    God, who hath his eyes like a flame of fire, and his feet are like unto burnished
    brass: I know thy works, and thy love and faith and ministry and patience, and
    that thy last works are more than the first. But I have this against thee, that thou
    sufferest the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth
    and seduceth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to
    idols. And I gave her time that she should repent; and she willeth not to repent of
    her fornication. Behold, I cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery
    with her into great tribulation, except they repent of her works. And I will kill
    her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he that
    searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto each one of you according to
    your works. (Rev 2:18-23)

    He knows things a finite mind cannot know


    And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall
    meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house whereinto
    he goeth. (Lk 22:10)

    The woman answered and said unto him, I have no husband. Jesus saith unto
    her, Thou saidst well, I have no husband: for thou hast had five husbands; and he
    whom thou now hast is not thy husband: this hast thou said truly. The woman
    saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. (Jn 4:17-19)

    But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning
    who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him. (Jn
    6:64)

    And when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Put out into the deep, and
    let down your nets for a draught. And Simon answered and said, Master, we
    toiled all night, and took nothing: but at thy word I will let down the nets. And
    when they had done this, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes; and their nets
    were breaking. (Lk 5:4-6)

    422
    And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and ye shall
    find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude
    of fishes. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the
    Lord. So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his coat about him
    (for he was naked), and cast himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in
    the little boat (for they were not far from the land, but about two hundred cubits
    off), dragging the net full of fishes. So when they got out upon the land, they see
    a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus saith unto them,
    Bring of the fish which ye have now taken. (Jn 21:6-10)

    But, lest we cause them to stumble, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take
    up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt
    find a shekel: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. (Mt 17:27)

    These things spake he: and after this he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus is
    fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. (Jn 11:11)

    Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon him, went forth,
    and saith unto them, Whom seek ye? (Jn 18:4)

    And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and came unto Bethphage, unto the
    mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying unto them, Go into the
    village that is over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a
    colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. (Mt 21:1-2)

    He possessed an intimate knowledge of the Godhead


    All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the
    Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to
    whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. (Mt 11:27)

    I know him; because I am from him, and he sent me. (Jn 7:29)

    Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that


    glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God; and ye have not known him:
    but I know him; and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a
    liar: but I know him, and keep his word. (Jn 8:54-55)

    I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me, even as
    the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the
    sheep (Jn 10:14-15)

    O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee; and these knew
    that thou didst send me. (Jn 17:25)

    He knows all things


    Now know we that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should
    ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. (Jn 16:30)

    423
    He saith unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord,
    thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him,
    Feed my sheep. (Jn 21:17)

    For I would have you know how greatly I strive for you, and for them at
    Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; that their hearts
    may be comforted, they being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full
    assurance of understanding, that they may know the mystery of God, even
    Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden. (Col
    2:1-3)

    Question: What of the mention in Scripture that the incarnate Son of God
    grew in wisdom?
    When Jesus was but a youth, Scripture describes Him as advancing in
    wisdom. Luke also gives an account of the twelve year-old Jesus asking
    questions of the teachers in the Temple in Jerusalem. In His adulthood, it is
    recorded that He asked questions because He lacked the answer.

    And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
    (Lk 2:52)

    And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple,
    sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them
    questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and
    answers. (Lk 2:46-47)

    He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto
    him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them
    to eat? He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And
    when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes. (Mk 6:37-38)

    And said, Where have ye laid him [Lazarus]? They said unto him, Lord,
    come and see. (Jn 11:34)

    If Jesus is the Son of God and second Person of the Godhead, then how can it
    be said that He gained or sought after knowledge? Scripture speaks of the
    incarnate Christ as being fully divine, yet fully human (The relationship between
    His two natures will be addressed under a later heading). The aspect of His
    natures with which we are here concerned is the knowledge possessed by the
    God-Man. In His divine nature, He knows all there is to know, since His
    knowledge is the knowledge of God. As the Son of God, He bears in His person
    the mind of God, but as the human son of Mary, born of a natural birth (only His
    conception was supernatural), who experienced a normal human development
    from infancy into adulthood, He needed to learn as any other boy. He had to
    learn to walk, talk, and work in the same manner as one born without a divine
    nature. It is to this end He asked questions and gained knowledge when His
    natural human mind was in want of such knowledge.

    424
    Omnipotent (all-powerful)
    God possesses infinite power and ability, and this quality of His being
    characterizes each and every of His works. One working of God is not done with
    more or less might than another, since all are done with infinite ability. Only God is
    all-powerful, for if another being or force were all powerful, then “all” power would
    not belong to God. His works are done without effort, since effort, by nature, expels
    might, and the mighty ability of God can neither increase nor diminish. When God
    “rested” following His creation of heaven and earth, His rest was not from a need for
    replenishment or a respite due to weariness of strength or energy; but rather, was a
    glorifying enjoyment and satisfaction that all He created was good. While God's
    ability is infinite, it is proper to say that He cannot do that which would detract from
    or be in contrary to His being. Thus, God cannot sin (for He is holy), God cannot
    forget (for He is all-knowing), God cannot leave (for He occupies all things), He
    cannot cease to be (for He is eternal), He cannot create a being equal to Himself or
    bring something into existence which He cannot control or move (for He is
    transcendent and sovereign over all), He cannot change (for He is unchangeable),
    and He cannot diminish in any way (for He is infinite).These things which God
    cannot accomplish, rather than placing upon Him a limit or boundary, serve as a
    surety that He is who He is. If God could do those things which He cannot do, then
    He could not be God, and nothing, either in heaven or earth, could have its being.

    Power over demons


    And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over
    unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all
    manner of sickness. (Mt 10:1)

    Power over His fate


    Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
    raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building,
    and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.
    (Jn 2:19-21)

    Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take
    it again. No man taketh it 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 have I
    received of my Father. (Jn 10:17-18)

    Power over nature


    And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, Master, master, we perish. And
    he awoke, and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water: and they ceased,
    and there was a calm. And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And being
    afraid they marveled, saying one to another, Who then is this, that he
    commandeth even the winds and the water, and they obey him? (Lk 8:24-25)

    Power over sickness


    And he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou made
    clean. And straightway his leprosy was cleansed. (Mt 8:3)

    425
    And straightway, when they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the
    house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon’s wife’s mother
    lay sick of a fever; and straightway they tell him of her: and he came and took
    her by the hand, and raised her up; and the fever left her, and she ministered unto
    them. And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were
    sick, and them that were possessed with demons. And all the city was gathered
    together at the door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases,
    and cast out many demons; and he suffered not the demons to speak, because
    they knew him. (Mk 1:29-31)

    Power over life and death


    So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I
    thank thee that thou heardest me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but
    because of the multitude that standeth around I said it, that they may believe that
    thou didst send me. And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud voice,
    Lazarus, come forth. He that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with
    grave-clothes; and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto
    them, Loose him, and let him go. (Jn 11:41-44)

    Power over all things


    And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been
    given unto me in heaven and on earth. (Mt 28:18)

    All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that
    hath been made. (Jn 1:3)

    [God] 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; (Heb 1:2)

    ... and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. (Col 1:17)

    ... who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed
    to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to
    subject all things unto himself. (Phil 3:21)

    ... who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance,
    and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made
    purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Heb 1:3)

    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: even as thou gavest
    him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should
    give eternal life. (Jn 17:1-2)

    426
    Sovereignty
    Sovereignty refers to the supreme, absolute authority over which a ruler governs a
    territory. Within that territory, there exists no other authority which is legally able to
    challenge the ruling might. When applied of God, sovereignty also entails the idea of
    omnipotence. God cannot be truly sovereign if He is not all powerful. Whereas an
    earthly monarch's sovereign rule is temporal and able to be ended by invasion,
    uprising, or assassination, God's sovereignty is eternal and guarantees His every
    determination will surely come to pass without deterrence, hesitation, or challenge,
    not having to contend with any power equal to or all-encompassing as His, thus
    effectually accomplishing every initiation and succeeding means toward His perfect
    intended end for all things. God's sovereignty encompasses the following four
    characteristics:

    As wholly authoritative, He possesses the judicial right to do what He pleases


    As wholly powerful, He possesses the means to do as He pleases
    As wholly transcendent, He holds the surety that these means will not be
    challenged
    As wholly righteous, He provides the guarantee that His purpose is good

    The legal right to do what He pleases


    Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole
    heaven is mine. (Job 41:11)

    The earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell
    therein. (Ps 24:1)

    Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I
    am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that
    spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. (Isa 44:24)

    The means to do as He pleases


    For with God nothing shall be impossible. (Lk 1:37)

    The surety that these means will not be challenged


    I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden
    from thee. (Job 42:2)

    The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it
    come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: That I will break the
    Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall
    his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.
    This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand
    that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the LORD of hosts hath purposed,
    and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it
    back? (Isa 14:24-27)

    427
    Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are
    not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. (Isa
    46:10)

    In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to


    the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.
    (Eph 1:11)

    For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every
    tongue shall confess to God. (Rom 14:11)

    The guarantee that His purpose is good


    And now, O Lord GOD, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast
    promised this goodness unto thy servant: (2 Sam 7:28)

    For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. (Ps 33:4)

    But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me,
    that I am the LORD which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and
    righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. (Jer
    9:24)

    The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning
    doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no
    shame. (Zeph 3:5)

    Question: If God is sovereign, how can man have a free will?


    In the Garden of Eden, Adam freely made his choice to commit sin. He was
    not deceived, as was Eve, or coerced into the act. Although Adam was created
    innocent, he was not perfect. He was able to both sin and not sin, and in the end,
    he chose the former. As a result of Adam’s transgression, he became, by nature,
    spiritually dead, a death which passed upon all men through Adam. The
    unregenerate man, he who has not placed his faith in Christ, is enslaved to this
    sinful nature which is at enmity with God. As a result of being spiritually dead,
    men are naturally closed to spiritual truth. Their minds are darkened by sin; their
    hearts are corrupt and evil.

    But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:
    for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen 2:17)

    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. (Rom 5:12)

    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they
    are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
    spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14)

    428
    This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as
    other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding
    darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is
    in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Eph 4:17-18)

    Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and
    unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
    (Titus 1:15)

    The unregenerate man’s thoughts of God do not arise from a sincere desire to
    unite with Him and embrace the virtues in which God’s people are to delight.
    The thoughts which such a man does have of God are so clouded that his
    understanding of the divine majesty is severely distorted. Scripture portrays the
    natural man as being incapable of comprehending God or His ways, or of even
    possessing a desire for fellowship with Him, since such a relationship stands
    contrary to the fleshly nature in which the natural man takes pleasure. Being
    unable to rid themselves of their natural sinful condition, men are slaves to sin;
    all men are under its power; consequently, none is righteous–not even one.

    Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth
    sin is the servant of sin. (Jn 8:34)

    For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
    (Eccl 7:20)

    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)

    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)

    If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
    us. (I Jn 1:8)

    Men, being unrighteous by nature, are unable to repent, believe the Gospel of
    Christ, or come to Christ in faith. They have no power within themselves to
    change their nature or to prepare themselves to salvation.

    Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. (Job 14:4)

    Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye
    also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. (Jer 13:23)

    429
    Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
    bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can
    a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. (Mt 7:17-18)

    No man can [denoting ability, as opposed to may, denoting permission]


    come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will
    raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:44)

    Therefore, the desire for fellowship with God is placed within unregenerate men
    by the Holy Spirit. Men come to God by faith, but even that faith is given as a
    gift of God.

    It is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good
    pleasure. (Phil 2:13)

    Although that desire is not inherent within the unregenerate individual, once it is
    placed there by God, it is nonetheless a desire to which the individual does
    choose to respond in the positive. Therefore, the absolute sovereignty of God is
    maintained, while also recognizing that men come to God freely and from a
    desire within them to act in such a way. The fact that the desire itself was placed
    there is an act of grace and mercy. When a man makes a choice towards a certain
    direction, he does so out of a desire to go in that direction. Every decision made
    by man is a product of a desire to make such a decision - a decision which is
    based on his strongest inclination at the time. As Thomas Aquinas stated in his
    massive work Summa Theologica:

    “Now two things concur in choice: one on the part of the cognitive power,
    the other on the part of the appetitive power. On the part of the cognitive
    power, counsel is required, by which we judge one thing to be preferred to
    another: and on the part of the appetitive power, it is required that the
    appetite should accept the judgment of counsel. … choice is principally an
    act of the appetitive power. And thus free-will is an appetitive power.”6

    What does it mean for the human will to be free? The freedom of the will is
    the ability to choose what it desires – the ability to decide on that which is most
    desirable. A choice is an action proceeding from a desire. The choice to accept
    Christ as Savior is the product of a desire to have the atonement by Christ
    applied to one’s account for remission of sin. Yes, that desire is placed in the
    heart by God, but it is, nonetheless, a desire from which men willingly respond.
    They do not come under lock and key, nor are they blindly led or mechanically
    controlled to partake in the blessings of Christ. They come because they want so
    very much to come, driven by the compulsion that God has graciously placed it
    in their hearts to do so. Thus, whosoever will may come to Christ, but
    whosoever will, wills because God has delighted in enabling him to will.

    Some may ask, “Why should God impose such a desire on man? Is that not a
    violation of man’s affection?” The placement of such desire by God is an act of

    430
    mercy, for without that desire, no one would come to Him, and all would perish
    in their sin, condemned to an eternal damnation. The error in such a question is
    in perceiving an act of mercy and grace as an invasion of the human affection. In
    placing right desires in man, God enables man to choose beyond what he would
    be able to choose from on his own, thereby providing man with true freedom
    and liberty. Whereas before, man was only able to choose that from which he
    would receive no eternal benefit, now he is able to make a choice in favor of
    either his doom or delight.

    The following passage has been used as proof that any man, whether or not
    has been so moved by God, has the inherent ability to come to God within his
    own means.

    Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open
    the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Rev
    3:20)

    This passage is not to be understood as a plea for evangelism; but rather, is


    addressed to Christians in the church of Laodicea, to those who already have
    come to Christ in faith. The church here was guilty of apathy and indifference in
    their faith. The call is not for repentance unto salvation, or a call to the
    unregenerate man to come to Christ for the cleansing of sin; but rather, is a call
    to “lukewarm” Christians for repentance unto zealous service in their exercise of
    faith.

    Question: If God is sovereign, why is there evil?

    What is evil?
    Why does God allow bad things to happen? Why do hurricanes and tsunamis
    rise up and claim both life and property? Why are planes flown into buildings
    for the sake of religious zeal? Why do unborn human beings die due to either
    slaughter or miscarriage? Is God just standing by as an impartial observer? Does
    He even have the power to prevent such tragedy – and, if so, then why does He
    not intervene for the sake of the good? Throughout human history, the “problem
    of evil” has been a stumbling block to faith. Before addressing the issue, it must
    be stated that by “evil” we do not refer exclusively to acts of malicious intent.
    Rather, that which is evil extends beyond that which is morally wicked to
    include that which is depraved, destructive, horrible, or foul. In short, evil
    entails anything which displays a lack of that which is good and that which
    “should be.” Hence, evil may constitute murder, being the absence of life;
    blindness, being the absence of sight; sickness, the absence of health, etc. Also,
    what meaning is not intended, either expressly or implied, is that the form of evil
    made manifest in any one individual is not a divine punishment for one’s sin. In
    some cases, however, such evil may come as a direct result of sin. For instance,
    a person who engages in certain sexual sin or substance abuse may contract
    disease as a result of his or her actions. However, generally speaking, one’s
    personal affliction, be it handicap, deformity, or personal distress, is not a

    431
    reflection of his or her moral character. Orthodox Christianity recognizes two
    kinds of evil: natural evil (such as being struck by lightning) and moral evil
    (such as being harmed by another person).

    Statement of the case


    Essentially, the problem is how Adam, who was not created with an
    inclination to evil, could in fact sin. How can a man, created in such a fashion,
    posses sinful desires? Where did these desires come from? Were they part of the
    constituent elements of his original makeup or did they originate elsewhere?
    Since God is the one who fashioned the constituent elements which made up the
    first man, did He then place the desire for sin within that constitution? How can
    a created being act in a way that is seemingly contrary to the nature with which
    he was created except that his Creator first instilled within him the necessary
    prerequisites for such an action? Would this not make God the Author of sin?

    However one approaches this problem, if he is to acknowledge that God is


    sovereign, must acknowledge that 1) God and sin are not equal entities at
    opposite ends of a seesaw with the balance being weighted in favor of the
    stronger side, and 2) sin was not a renegade entity in the universe which rose up
    against God’s original intent and caused it to fall to ruin, so as to reduce God’s
    plan of redemption to “Plan B.”

    The problem of translation


    The following passages have commonly been misunderstood by a casual
    reading of Scripture. In the passages below, the “problem of evil” is easily
    resolved with an understanding of the problem of translation.

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

    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 Hebrew word translated “evil” in these passages is a word which means
    “calamity” or “distress,” rather than, say, moral corruption. The use of the word
    “evil” here is an example of the sometimes archaic nature of the Old English
    used in the King James Version of the Bible. The original Hebrew has been more
    accurately translated in modern versions, as shown below:

    Lam 3:38
    Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go
    forth? (NASB)
    Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good
    things come? (NIV)

    432
    Isa 45:7
    The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and
    creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. (NASB)
    I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create
    disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (NIV)

    Amos 3:6
    If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity
    occurs in a city has not the LORD done it? (NASB)
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When
    disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? (NIV)

    This mistranslation into the word “evil” is particularly evident in the Isaiah
    passage, in which opposites are brought into contrast. The first part of the verse
    contrasts light and darkness, then peace and evil. Darkness is no doubt the
    opposite of light, but wickedness is not the opposite of peace. Here, evil refers to
    that which not peaceful, such as war, natural disaster, and distress. As “light” is
    seen as a parallel to “peace,” so should “evil,” be seen as a parallel to
    “darkness.” In Scripture, darkness is often used as an allusion to that which is
    lacking peace or order, as illustrated below.

    ... and they shall look unto the earth, and behold, distress and darkness,
    the gloom of anguish; and into thick darkness they shall be driven
    away. (Isa 8.22)

    It must also be recognized that calamities and disasters do not constitute that
    which is morally wicked. Calamities, disasters, tragedies, and the like are a part
    of the curse mankind brought upon itself by rebelling against God and entering
    into a state of sin. At times, God uses these events as His judgment in direct
    response to sin on either a personal or national scale. God is a just God, and by
    virtue of His justice, He must deliver blessings and cursing according to one’s
    merit, and so “from God” comes both times of prosperity and blessing as well as
    times of hardship and grief. God is not just a good God – He is goodness itself.
    As such, His goodness is judged according to His own being, rather than
    according to a standard separate from Himself. Thus, all that is good comes from
    Him. His judgments are equally good in that they are delivered according to –
    not against – merit, and are delivered non-arbitrarily.

    The Rock, his work is perfect; For all his ways are justice: A God of
    faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is he. (Deut 32:4)

    For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: Evil shall not
    sojourn with thee. (Ps 5:4)

    Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God


    cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. (Jas 1:13)

    433
    The cause of evil
    This still leaves the question: If God created all things, then did He not create
    evil? The truth is, that neither God nor man “creates” moral evil, since moral
    evil does not exist as a created thing, but exists as a consequence of the choices
    of a created being – specifically, man. Man, not animal, bird, or fish, is the only
    created being which can bring into reality a thought, word, or deed which is
    morally wicked. As stated previously, evil, rather than being a thing, exists as
    the absence of a thing. As a void is not a thing, since it is the absence of matter,
    evil is not a thing, since it is the absence of that which is good. A light bulb does
    not create darkness, but when the bulb ceases to give light, darkness is the
    inevitable result. Likewise, moral evil results when God withholds His goodness
    from man, thus leaving exposed, as an open wound, the wickedness of man.
    God cannot cause moral evil to occur, but He does allow it to occur. The
    cause of evil is the choice of man. In his choice to disobey God, man caused
    moral evil to enter the world. God created the possibility for evil, in giving man
    free choice. Man, by making the wrong choice, turned that possibility into a
    reality. As Thomas Aquinas explains, “God is the cause of all effects and acts.
    Evil comes from the condition of secondary causes, which themselves may be
    defective, it is obvious that evil actions, understood as defective, do not
    originate from God but from their defective proximate causes.”7 In other words,
    God is not the author of sin, but is “the author of the author of sin.”8 God does
    not desire evil, but He does desire to permit evil by giving man freedom of
    choice. God created all things good, but not perfect; therefore, Adam was
    created as a good being, yet with the ability to cease that goodness through a
    wrong desire and choice. It is commonly stated that Adam was created with the
    ability to sin and not to sin. Once he did sin, he destroyed his ability not to sin.
    When Isaiah states that God “creates” calamity, he is asserting the sovereign
    right of God to execute judgment upon man.

    The necessity of ultimate good


    What is evil? Evil is that which is devoid of all things good. Thus, evil, moral
    or otherwise, has a direct relationship to goodness. Without goodness, there can
    be no standard by which things are judged to be evil. Without goodness, evil has
    no meaning. In human history, events happen which are said to be ultimately
    evil in nature; however, ultimate evil cannot exist without ultimate good. On the
    other hand, ultimate good can exist without ultimate evil, since the only being
    who is ultimately good is God, who exists self-sufficiently. Prior to the creation
    of the cosmos, ultimate good was all that existed, in the person of the Godhead.
    Whereas the atheist may claim that the presence of evil is an argument against
    the existence of God, the fact is that the very presence of evil logically proves
    the existence of God, the personification and source of absolute good and the
    standard by which things are judged to be evil. Without such a standard,
    absolute evil cannot be explained. As Dr. R. C. Sproul states, “You are [then] left
    either with the reality of God or the denial of ultimate evil.”9

    434
    A look at suggested alternatives
    God does not cause evil, but why then does He allow evil? Why would He
    not just rid the world of evil? Epicurus, a Greek philosopher writing during the
    early part of the third century B.C. stated the problem of evil as follows: “Either
    God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to, or he
    cannot and does not want to, or lastly he can and wants to. If he wants to remove
    evil, and cannot, he is not omnipotent; If he can, but does not want to, he is not
    benevolent; If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither omnipotent nor
    benevolent; But if God can abolish evil and wants to, how does evil exist?”10 In
    his effort to resolve the problem of evil, man has asked why God does not
    govern the world under one of the following conditions:

    Why did God not create man with the incapacity for evil?
    If God made man in a state such that he was only able not to sin, rather
    than being able to sin or not to sin, then man would be a creature with no
    will of his own. If Adam could only choose the good, then any devotion to
    God would have been a result of a love forced upon him by his Creator,
    since all man could do is love God. The very nature of free will is the
    ability to choose between good or evil. If the ability to choose evil is
    removed, then so is removed the ability to choose at all. Thus, a life of
    morality would be a life which man could not live freely, but forcedly.

    Why does God not intervene and prevent evil from occurring?
    The previous question dealt with the removal of moral evil (that is, the
    removal of man’s capacity for evil), whereas this question deals with the
    removal of natural evil (that is, calamities which occur in nature, not from
    the workings of man). Why does God allow natural disasters to occur,
    claiming human life? This question presupposes that good cannot arise from
    evil. Natural evil is a means by which God shows His grace and mercy. God
    also uses natural evil to chastise or judge man. The greatest example of
    natural evil was the flood of Noah, which claimed all but eight human lives.
    Yet, even in the account of Noah, the grace of God was displayed in a very
    powerful manner. Regardless of the type or severity of natural evil which
    one may endure, there is always an ark, a shelter in the time of trouble, in
    which grace, mercy, and peace may be evident. This peace may not come in
    the form of deliverance from trouble, but may rather come in the form of
    grace which enables the sufferer to endure and persevere, despite seemingly
    overwhelming odds. That is peace – not peace as man can give, but the
    peace of God which transcends understanding and reason, the peace which
    comes not because of deliverance, but in spite of deliverance.

    Why does God not remove all evildoers from the world?
    If God were to rid the earth of anyone who is capable of evil thoughts,
    words, or deeds, the earth would be barren of human life. As Paul states in
    his letter to the Roman Christians, “There is none righteous, no, not one; …
    for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:10, 23)

    435
    Why does God not limit the amount of evil which occurs in the world?
    If I were to fill a jar with mud, how much mud would I need to remove
    from the jar before it would be considered clean? Likewise, how much evil
    would God need to remove from the world before the amount of evil would
    be reduced to an acceptable level? How many fewer murders would there
    need to be each day, how many fewer unborn humans killed in the womb,
    how many fewer children abused by those who should rather love and
    nurture them, how many fewer deaths by natural disasters? Since the first
    man and woman sinned in Eden, evil has been a part of human existence,
    yet even the earliest man attributed his existence to a Creator. God reveals
    Himself in pain and suffering, even during the worst of times and events,
    and such evil is only seen as a stumbling block to faith to the person who
    has already determined in his heart that there is no God. For those who look
    beyond the evil and suffering, there is in view an all-powerful, gracious God
    whose ways and thoughts are infinitely higher than those of man. C.S.
    Lewis once said, “If the universe is so bad … how on earth did human
    beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good
    Creator?”11

    God’s response to evil


    God uses evil, both moral and natural, when judging or chastising man for
    sin. If God ceased to allow such evil upon man, then He would make void the
    consequences for sin. If sin had no negative consequence, then man’s sense of
    responsibility would be greatly diminished, and reward for good behavior would
    become meaningless. Besides, the present state of man is one which man has
    imposed upon himself. We chose to sin. Sin was not placed upon us. Even when
    bad things happen to seemingly good people, it may not be the result of a
    personal act of sin. Rather, such is part of the universal curse for sin, a curse
    which all mankind is under. Why doesn’t God prevent evil, you ask? The answer
    is: Why should He? God is a just God. If He did not punish sin, He would be
    devoid of such justice.

    The truth of the matter is that God did respond to evil. He established law and
    government as a provision by which man is restrained from absolute evil
    continually. What more, He responded to evil by taking upon Himself the
    penalty for sin, so that those who place their faith in His sacrifice would never
    need endure the final judgment on man for sin. When Jesus died on the cross, He
    bore His own wrath against sin, the just being punished for the unjust, so that the
    unjust may be found not guilty in the sight of God. In His death, He endured the
    penalty for sin, and in His resurrection, He overcame the ultimate curse of sin,
    the curse of death itself. It is this victory which passes onto everyone who places
    his or her trust in the one who shattered the chains of death in an everlasting
    triumph over the grave.

    436
    III. Two natures, one person
    Jesus Christ is God. As God, He, along with the Father and the Spirit, shares in the
    divine nature and possesses the fullness of attributes essential to that nature. When He
    became born of Mary and took upon Himself a fully human nature, what happened to
    those attributes essential to divinity, yet contrary to human nature? Did the Son of God
    shed His divine nature when He became man? An entire volume could be written on this
    subject, and even after the final word was placed on the final page, there would still be so
    much more the author could say on the subject. My intention here is not to provide the
    final word or the best understanding of the issue at hand; but rather, to present the issue in
    accordance with the highest measure of wisdom granted to me by God and with the
    utmost humility and confidence that the final word and the solution to the “mystery,” as
    the apostle Paul phrased it, lies well beyond these pages. What I present here is, I believe,
    a reasonable understanding of the union of the divine and human natures in the person of
    the Son of God, and it is my hope that the reader utilizes this presentation as a
    springboard for further and, perhaps, a more reasonable understanding of the subject
    matter. However, in the final analysis, God's ways are not our ways. His thoughts are not
    our thoughts. As a toddler cannot solve an algebra problem, so can man not fully
    comprehend the ways of God. Yet, we are to pursue such knowledge knowing that the
    fullness of that knowledge lies beyond our grasp and will never be comprehended, but
    that in the pursuit, we, as Christians, may come into a more intimate and loving
    relationship with the God who purchased us by His own blood. The true mystery is not
    that God became man, but why did He ever condescend to such humiliation on our behalf
    and to His shame? Why did the King of the universe descend from His throne and give
    His own life so that the peasants of His kingdom would become His sons and daughters?
    That is the love which mankind cannot comprehend, and it is because of that love that
    those named among the sons and daughters of God will never be plucked from His tender
    care.

    Statement of the case


    The apostle Paul states that the incarnate Christ possessed “the fullness of
    Godhead in bodily form.” (Col 2.9) By “fullness” is meant the totality of the divine
    essence and character; that is, all that is essential to God’s being was included in the
    person of Jesus while He walked among man and was in possession of mortal human
    flesh and blood. Even as the son of Mary, the person of Christ retained all that is
    essential, or natural, to His deity.

    And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. (Jn 1:14)

    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; who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his
    substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made
    purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Heb
    1:1-3)

    437
    Yet, elsewhere in Scripture, Paul states that Christ “emptied” Himself when He took
    on a human nature.

    [Christ], existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with
    God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,
    being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he
    humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the
    cross. (Phil 2:6-8)

    Theologians refer to Christ’s taking on a human nature as the “kenosis” of Christ,


    from on the Greek word translated as “emptied” in Paul’s letter. Here is the central
    point of debate concerning the incarnation of Christ – of what did He empty Himself
    when God became man?

    Setting boundaries
    When discussing the union of the two natures in Christ, there are points of
    consideration within which the discussion must be framed in order to come to a
    conclusion which is reasonable and logical.

    Defining ontological terms - What is meant by nature, being, and person?

    The Hypostatic Union is the term used by theologians to refer to the


    union of the human and divine natures in Christ. The word hypostasis refers
    to one’s substance or that which is essential to the nature of an individual.
    Thus, the Hypostatic Union is the union of the human and the divine natures
    within the person of Christ, with each nature retaining the qualities essential
    to that nature.

    Nature, when used of living things, denotes the sum of the unchangeable
    characteristics which make up a person or creature. If one aspect of a
    thing’s nature is stripped away or added onto, then that thing would cease to
    be the thing that it was before the transformation, as in the case of a larva's
    transformation into a butterfly. A man’s nature also involves that which he is
    capable of doing, either actually or potentially. For instance, the strength of
    a child is potentially capable of maturing into the strength of a grown man,
    provided that he undergoes normal development; however, he will always
    be incapable of leaping tall buildings with a single bound, as such is beyond
    what a man is even potentially capable of accomplishing. Applying the
    definition of nature to the person of Christ, having two natures, the term
    refers to that which characterizes and constitutes each nature, with each
    nature being distinct from the other. Thus, the nature of His humanity
    involves all that which is essential to mankind, while the nature of His
    divinity involves all that which is essential to deity. For example, a man’s
    nature is his need for nourishment, rest, relationship, and desire, yet none of
    these are essential, and therefore not natural, to deity. On the other hand,
    that which is essential to the divine nature includes such characteristics as

    438
    its eternality, self-existence, sovereignty, supremacy, and infinite knowledge
    and power, all of which cannot be said of the nature of man.

    The word “being” is a word which is used to denote a real existence,


    occurring in the present time and continuing until such existence can no
    longer be a functional reality. Applying the definition to Christ’s humanity,
    being involves that which is common in any human individual – that a man
    has being for as long as he is alive; that is, until such a time as he is no
    longer able to perform or function. Applying the definition to Christ’s
    divinity, being involves that which is true only of God – that His being is
    eternal, having neither beginning nor end.

    The term “person” denotes individuality, whereas “personality” involves


    the various traits and characteristics (such as reason, emotion, and choice)
    that are inherent within each person, yet specifically tailored to the
    individual.

    Merging the above definitions, a human being is a real, living person


    who shares a nature universal with all people, and possessing common
    traits, called personality, which manifest themselves in ways unique to the
    individual.

    What is meant by “emptied?” The word translated “emptied” in the English


    Bible is the Greek word “kenosis,” derived from “keno,” and is used to refer to
    that which has been made “vain, void, of no reputation, or of no effect.”1 Briefly
    stated, when used in the context of Christ’s “emptying” of Himself, the concept
    involves the pouring one content into another form, yet without changing the
    original constituent. The idea involved not a surrender of one thing for another,
    but a veiling or suppression of a thing.

    God is immutable – He never changes. In taking upon Himself a human


    form, the second person of the Trinity could not change at all in His divine
    nature, being, or person. Not one aspect of His deity could have been removed
    from His person when He became man.

    In order for Christ to possess a human nature, His humanity could not be in
    possession of any attribute uncommon to man. Therefore, His human nature
    could not know the things that only God could know. His human nature could
    not be eternal or infinitely present. His human nature could not be self-existent.
    His human nature could not be sovereign. Likewise, His divinity could not be
    limited in knowledge or power, or be subject to any being or law outside of
    itself. In the incarnation, for Christ’s humanity to be truly human, such humanity
    necessarily could not include anything uncommon to human nature. Likewise,
    His divinity necessarily could not include anything which would detract from it
    in any fashion.

    439
    Such is the problem at hand. How is it that the two natures can be merged without
    one or the other, or both, ceasing to be what it is in essence, thereby becoming
    something it is not? Although any contemplation of Christ’s two natures involves
    considering that for which we have no point of reference apart from Christ, if the
    above definitions and guidelines are kept in view during such consideration, then
    reasonable conclusions may be drawn as a result.

    Christ possessed a fully human nature

    Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like
    manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him
    that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all them who
    through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily not
    to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham. (Heb
    2.14-16)

    As God, Christ is eternally self-sufficient, but as a man, He had human needs. As


    God, Christ is present everywhere, but as a man, He was localized to wherever His
    human body was present at the time. As God, Christ is infinite, but as a man, He had
    human limitations. As God, Christ is all-knowing, but as a man, His knowledge was
    limited. Although more will be said later on this merging of natures within Christ, it
    should be at least stated at the outset that when Christ became man, divinity did not
    become human, neither did humanity become divine. The human nature that Christ
    assumed was a perfect and obedient human nature, but not a divine human nature.
    While the person of Jesus was divine, the human nature which He added to His pre-
    existent divine nature was as human a nature as is that which belongs to any man.
    Trees did not bow to Him, nor did flowers bloom as He passed by.

    Scriptures that show Jesus had needs and emotions which were distinctly
    human.

    The need for food – Now in the morning as he returned to the city, he
    hungered. (Mt 21:18)

    The need for drink – There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus
    saith unto her, Give me to drink. (Jn 4:7)

    The need for rest – Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus
    by the well. It was about the sixth hour. (Jn 4:6)

    He experienced distress – Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say?


    Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour. (Jn
    12:27)

    He experienced loneliness – Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding


    sorrowful, even unto death: abide ye here, and watch with me. (Mt 26:38)

    440
    He experienced surprise and astonishment – And when Jesus heard it, he
    marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not
    found so great faith, no, not in Israel. (Mt 8:10)

    He learned – And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the
    temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them, and asking
    them questions: and all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and
    his answers. … And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with
    God and men. (Lk 2:46-47, 52)

    The perceptions of those around Jesus reveal that there was not anything different
    about Him prior to the performance of His first miracle as an adult. Although He was
    virgin-born, that fact would not be common knowledge, for Mary kept such things
    secret (Lk 2:19). Mary may have told those closest to her – her parents and her
    cousin Elizabeth (the mother of John the Baptist), but for Jesus’ safety they would
    not have shared this information with anyone. In fact, as Matthew indicates, either
    Mary did not tell Joseph of her virginal conception or he did not believe her (Mt
    1:19-20). The natural assumption of Jesus’ contemporaries would be, as the Gospels
    indicate, that Jesus was the natural-born son of Joseph and Mary. Even the
    shepherds, magi, and the inhabitants of Bethlehem would not have known Jesus was
    conceived prior to Joseph taking Mary as his wife, for upon their arrival at the inn,
    they were already married and she already pregnant. They had no reason to believe
    His conception was supernatural and that He was nothing more than a baby destined
    for a divinely-appointed purpose. Concerning the residents of Nazareth, the
    hometown of Joseph and Mary, Mary’s premarital conception would have been a
    thing of public knowledge, but they would have known nothing of the manner of
    Jesus’ conception, except that such a thing were specifically made known to them.
    The implication in the Gospels is that Joseph and Mary had a pure and respectable
    reputation; therefore, it is likely that the natural assumption of those who personally
    knew her was that she was raped, possibly by a Roman soldier. Luke states that the
    shepherds spread the news of the arrival of the Messiah (Lk 2:17-18), but does not
    indicate that the identity of the child was made known. Even after Joseph and Mary
    returned to Nazareth, perhaps news arrived of a Messiah born in Bethlehem, but
    none would know that this Messiah was a young boy living right in their midst,
    especially given the prevailing prejudice that nothing good can come from Nazareth
    (Jn 1:46), a town known for its vices and corruption.

    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)

    For even his brethren did not believe on him. (Jn 7:5)

    441
    As man, He possessed all the limitations of a man. The Father prepared a body for
    the Son (Heb 10:5), the Son agreed to take on the nature of that body (Phil 2:5-7),
    and the Spirit caused Mary to conceive the embryonic Jesus without human seed (Mt
    1:20, Lk 2:35). The body prepared for Christ was a normal human body. Although
    His conception was supernatural, the body formed as a result of the divine
    intervention within the womb of Mary was a normal human embryo. Scripture
    neither states nor implies that Mary had an otherwise normal pregnancy and delivery,
    complete with the pains of giving birth. Jesus was born one hundred percent human,
    not “X” percent human and “Y” percent superhuman.

    He had a human body

    The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other
    that was crucified with him: but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he
    was dead already, they brake not his legs: howbeit one of the soldiers with a
    spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water. And
    he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he
    knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe. For these things came
    to pass, that the scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be
    broken. (Jn 19:32-36)

    [Following His resurrection, Jesus appeared to His disciples, saying,] See


    my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit
    hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having. (Lk 23:39)

    Peter affirmed Jesus’ humanity


    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; him, being delivered
    up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of
    lawless men did crucify and slay. (Acts 2:22-23)

    Paul affirmed Jesus’ humanity


    For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself
    man, Christ Jesus. (I Tim 2:5)

    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. (Heb 2:14)

    Jesus did not just walk among men as the appearance of a man, as He did to
    Abraham and others in ages past. Rather, Jesus had a real human body, with
    flesh, blood, bones, and all its internal parts. In John’s Gospel, he stated that the
    eternal Word of God “was made” flesh. As observed by Robert G. Gromacki, the
    meaning is that He “came to be” flesh, and not just in reference to the body, but
    that He became all that man is, with all his limitations and vulnerabilities.2 In his
    letter to the Roman church, Paul states that Jesus was made in the “likeness of

    442
    sinful flesh.” (Rom 8.3) The likeness which He assumed was that of sinful flesh,
    while still becoming real human flesh.

    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)

    When commenting on this passage, the early church father John Chrysostom
    stated the following:

    … when [Paul] says, “In the likeness of sinful flesh,” he says not that He
    had not flesh, but that that flesh sinned not, but was like to sinful flesh.
    Like in what? in nature, not in sin, therefore was His like a sinful soul. As
    then in the former case the term similarity was used, because He was not
    equal in everything, so here also there is similarity, because He is not equal
    in everything, as His not being born of wedlock, His being without sin, His
    being not a mere man. And he well said “as a man,” for He was not one of
    the many, but “as” one of the many. The Word who was God did not
    degenerate into man, nor was His substance changed, but he appeared as a
    man; not to delude us with a phantom, but to instruct us in humility.3

    Jesus had the same needs as any other person, such as the need for food,
    drink, and rest. He had a normal immune system which gave into viruses and
    illness just as it would for any other person. He was able to stub His toe or get a
    splinter while working as a carpenter. He experienced all the growing pains of
    childhood. He was prone to frostbite in cold weather and heatstroke in hot
    weather. When He got a cut or a burn, it hurt as it would anyone else. Were He
    not capable of succumbing to these vulnerabilities, He would not have had a
    normal human experience. Any harm could come to Him that would not prevent
    His pending crucifixion. As a man, He was capable of suffering any type of fatal
    blow, but as God, He was incapable of allowing any such thing to occur, for
    such would be against that accomplishment which He promised the Father.

    He had a human mind


    The knowledge of God has already been addressed and will here only be
    summed up by stating that, simply put, God infinitely knows everything. But,
    the human mind of Jesus knew only that which was observed, learned, or
    revealed, as is the case with any man. As a baby, Jesus’ human mind would not
    have known of His divine identity unless it was revealed to Him by His divine
    knowledge. Scripture does not indicate at what age the boy Jesus became aware
    of His union with deity, but it was at some point prior to His twelfth year (Lk
    2:42-49), and likely at a young age, for it is said that as a child He was “filled
    with wisdom.” (Lk 2:40) Yet, as a child, He needed to learn to walk, talk, read,
    and conceptualize as a normal child would do, for such is the normal human
    development that Jesus came to live. Even at age twelve, when He was aware of
    His relation to deity, He still asked questions of the teachers in the Temple in

    443
    Jerusalem. While the teachers marveled at His understanding and responses, it is
    clear He was still a boy who was not in possession of infinite knowledge, as is
    the divine mind. As Gromacki surmises, Jesus’ expert use of the Scriptures
    stemmed from His growth in wisdom as He studied them while growing up (ibid
    p 103). His knowledge and application of the Old Testament texts to real
    situations stemmed not from His divine omniscience but from His keen intellect
    and desire to learn. He was not born wise. He had to grow in wisdom. It was in
    His humanity that He became strong, grew, and was filled with wisdom. During
    the Middle Ages, theologians viewed three levels in the human knowledge of
    Christ: 1) the acquired knowledge which every man possesses, 2) the knowledge
    which the angels and the elect in heaven possess, and 3) the “beatific vision,”
    being able to see the face of God (Jn 6:46,8:38).4 The knowledge of Christ’s
    human mind was an infused type of that revelation which was made known to
    the prophets through angels, the Word of God, dreams, visions, and theophanies
    (physical manifestations of the pre-incarnate Christ). That which the prophets
    knew by revelation became inherent in the human mind of Jesus, through the
    revelation of His own divine knowledge. It was this fusion of the human and
    divine mind which was the source of the wisdom in which Jesus’ grew as a
    child. Even as an adult the human mind of Christ did not possess infinite
    knowledge, for He asked questions in order to obtain knowledge of that which
    He did not know (see the passages below). He also expressed amazement or
    surprise at the faith had by a certain man with whom He came in contact (Mt
    8.10, above).

    And a woman, who had an issue of blood twelve years, and had suffered
    many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was
    nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, having heard the things concerning
    Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. For she said, If I
    touch but his garments, I shall be made whole. And straightway the fountain
    of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of
    her plague. And straightway Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power
    proceeding from him had gone forth, turned him about in the crowd, and
    said, Who touched my garments? (Mk 5:25-30)

    [Jesus] said, Where have ye laid [Lazarus]? They say unto him, Lord, come
    and see. (Jn 11:34)

    Paul provides some insight into the merging of the human and divine knowledge
    in the God-Man when he exhorts believers to have the same mind as Christ.

    Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. (Phil 2:5)

    The implication is that we are not to have a divine mind, with the infinite
    character of the divine mind, but to have the mind of Jesus of Nazareth, which
    was a human mind fully subject and obedient to God.

    444
    He had human emotions and a human will
    Jesus experienced all the disappointments and let-downs offered by those
    around Him, and all the sorrows and joys which accompany human
    relationships. He felt joy, peace, grief, loneliness, anxiety, and friendship. The
    anxiety He felt in the garden of Gethsemane was His natural human response to
    the knowledge that He was about to endure torture at the hands of the Romans.
    Yet, being perfectly obedient to all that God ordained, His human will submitted
    to the will of the Father and endured the cross, as His divine will agreed to do in
    eternity past. As voluntariness is essential to both deity and humanity, Jesus had
    both a human and a divine will, the former always being obedient and
    subservient to the latter, and it is in that frame of mind that He walked the Via
    Dolorosa, the way to the cross. His humanity did not seek to avoid the cross
    only to be driven to it by His divinity. Rather, His humanity acted in voluntary
    surrender to that which His person agreed to do before He took on His human
    nature. Thus, with anxiety expected of any man knowing he would soon suffer
    inexplicable agony, He “fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible,
    the hour might pass away from Him. And He said, ’Abba, Father, all things are
    possible unto thee; remove this cup from me,’“ but, being perfectly obedient to
    the Father’s will, He then prayed, “not what I will, but what thou will.” (Mk
    14:35-36) Again, later He prayed, “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son,
    that the son may glorify thee.” (Jn 17:1)

    The union of the human and divine wills in Christ can be likened to the two
    natures present within a Christian, which Paul describes in his letter to the
    Roman church. (Rom 7:15-25) When a person is declared just in the sight of
    God, He is given a new nature, one which desires to please God (hence, it is
    said, “by their fruits you shall know them.” Mt 7:16), yet still present in his
    person is his old, sinful nature which wars with the new infused nature to desire
    and choose that which is contrary to the commandments of God. The acquisition
    of this second righteous nature within the believer does not make him a second
    person; rather, is a will added to that sinful nature with which he was born. In
    the incarnation, the human nature of Jesus possessed a human will, and this
    nature, with its human will, was that which the person of Christ “took upon” His
    person, which already existed having a divine will. As Gromacki explains,
    “[Jesus] never had this conflict of wills [as present in the Christian]. They were
    in perfect harmony. One will submits and co-acts with the one first enacting. If
    the human will acts, the divine co-acts. … He performed divine and human
    actions, as the case may be, although each action is wrought with the distinctive
    qualities of the will that corresponds with it, and takes the lead in it. Thus,
    although there are two wills concerned, there is but one resulting action. He
    always willed to do the Father’s will.”5

    He had a truly moral human conscience


    Jesus was fully human, but not fully human in the present state in which
    humanity exist, that being, a state if sin and enmity against God. The Son of God
    took upon a human nature, but not a sinful human nature. The state of man is
    commonly expressed as follows: Man was originally able to sin and able not to

    445
    sin; after he sinned, man was only able to sin. Jesus, being God in the flesh, was
    not able to sin. Adam was created in a state of innocence, not perfection;
    otherwise, he would not have been able to sin. Jesus, in His humanity, was
    created in a state of perfection, not mere innocence, in that He could not sin.
    Adam was created sinless, but his continuing sinlessness was dependent on a
    continued obedience to God’s will, which, if course, he did not keep – he was
    sinless because of what he did or did not do. Jesus’ sinlessness, on the other
    hand, was grounded in His person – He was sinless because of who He is.
    Adam had the potential to act as a perfect man, whereas Jesus was the perfect
    man, yet both Adam and Christ were fully human. Christ’s lack of a sinful nature
    does not make Him less than fully human; rather, it makes Him uniquely human.
    The moral character of Jesus must be considered in light on His single will and
    person, rather than His two natures. His person is divine, His person is the holy
    and unchanging second person of the Godhead who desires to do the will of the
    Father and, as such cannot do anything which would violate His holiness nor
    effect a change in His essence, as would occur if such a person committed sin.
    His moral character was guided by His divine nature, and His human nature
    lived a life of obedience to the decrees of His divine nature.

    Although fully human, Christ made use of His divine abilities


    The Gospels mention numerous times when Jesus performed acts which defied
    the laws of nature, such as walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, and
    many other such things. He also expressed knowledge which no human mind would
    be able to acquire, as shown in passages such as those below.

    But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men, and
    because he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man;
    for he himself knew what was in man. (Jn 2:24- 25)

    And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your
    hearts? (Mt 9:4)

    But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the
    beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should
    betray him. (Jn 6:64)

    All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth
    the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son,
    and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. (Mt 11:27)

    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)

    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)

    446
    Any such supernatural performance or knowledge of Christ was due to the
    intervention of His divine nature in the direction of His human action and the
    level of His human knowledge. Christ, in His humanity, could not feed a
    multitude of people nor turn water into wine. Additionally, any expression of
    knowledge not gained according to a normal mode of understanding or learning
    was due to a revelation of the divine mind to the human mind of that which the
    human mind could otherwise not know. In any such instance, Jesus was not
    acting in and of His humanity; rather, He was acting in His humanity but of His
    divinity.

    The union of the two natures


    Jesus acted within two spheres of activity (His human and His divine natures), but
    all of His actions were the actions of one person, not two separate and distinct
    people. The body of man is part of the nature of man, and it is this nature which
    Christ put upon Himself. In taking on a human body, Christ did not take on a
    separate person, since a body is part of human nature (as opposed to Christ's Divine
    nature, which is spirit), but not essential to a divine nature. Christ did take on a
    separate person, but a separate nature, which included a physical body. The human
    and the divine natures of Christ were more than intimate and related – they were
    inseparable both in being and purpose. The eternal Son of God and the virgin-born
    son of Mary always acted in perfect harmony, not as two people, but as two natures
    united in one person. The humanity of Christ did not will what the divinity of Christ
    did not will, nor could the humanity of Christ do that which would violate His
    divinity, such as commit sin.

    During His life, Jesus acted in the power of either of His two natures; however, at
    select times, these two natures interacted with each other in Jesus’ thoughts or
    actions. For instance, at times Jesus acted in His humanity and expressed knowledge
    common to the level of normal human comprehension, while at other times He knew
    that which is impossible to know in the normal human experience. As Ron Rhodes
    states, “[Jesus] operated at different times under the influence of one or the other
    nature. He operated in the human sphere to the extent that it was necessary for him to
    accomplish His earthly purpose as determined in the eternal plan of salvation. At the
    same time, He operated in the divine sphere to the extent it was possible in the period
    of his humiliation.”6 Since Christ is one person having two natures, anything He did
    or said could rightly be attributed to the person of Christ, being both the eternal Son
    of God and the virgin-born son of Mary, rather than His words or deeds being solely
    attributed to one of His two natures. Therefore, when He walked on water, it is right
    to say that the human Jesus walked on water as well as the Son of God. When He
    died on the cross, it is right to say that the eternal Son of God, as well as the human
    body of Jesus, died and shed His blood without His being ever ceasing to exist. The
    human nature of the person of Christ died, while the divine nature of the same person
    did not die (for it is eternal), yet He who died was still the second person of the
    divine Trinity, rather than a separate being, and such is expressed by Paul in his
    second letter to the church at Corinth.

    447
    But we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been
    hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: Which
    none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they
    would not have crucified the Lord of glory: (1 Cor 2:7-8)

    As it is right to say that the divine Son of God died on the cross, it is likewise
    right to say that the human son of Mary secured the redemption of God’s people,
    since both the human and divine natures belong to the same person. As Gromacki
    notes, “it is proper to say Jesus is the Redeemer, even though Jesus was His human
    name. It is also correct to say the Son of God suffered … [since] human attributes
    were attributed to Him under Divine titles.”7

    And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is
    he [the human incarnation of the eternal Son of God] that shall save his
    people from their sins. (Mt 1:21)

    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 1:35)

    Additionally, there were times in which the union of the human and the divine
    were evident within a single instance in the life of Jesus. Such dual manifestation is
    seen in the instance of the cursing of the fig tree, in which Jesus displayed hunger
    and power over nature (Mt 21:19), and also in Jesus’ reference to Himself being
    present in heaven, while on earth and in a localized human body (Jn 3:11-13).
    Likewise, in the account of Lazarus’ resurrection, Jesus knew Lazarus had died,
    despite being informed of such, yet when He arrived at the scene, He inquired
    concerning the location of the tomb (Jn 11:11, 34). Jesus also professed lack of
    knowledge concerning the Father’s future timetable (Mk 13:30-32). As the Son of
    God, He would certainly know such things, but He chose, in His humanity, to limit
    the use of His divine abilities. This choice was not made by His human nature, but by
    His divine nature, for a human being cannot chose to be anything more or less than
    human. Although born as God incarnate, Jesus was born as a normal human being
    with all the natural limitations imposed upon such a being. Yet, these limitations are
    ones which He agreed to assume prior to His becoming human. Therefore, while the
    person of Christ chose a limited human nature, the human nature which He took
    upon was not limited so by its own choosing; but rather, by the choosing of the
    divine nature which existed prior to the addition of the human nature to the person of
    Christ. In other words, the choice was made by the pre-existent divine Son, that the
    human nature which He took on would be a nature equal to the nature of other men,
    with all the limitations natural to humanity.

    And seeing a fig tree by the way side, he came to it, and found nothing
    thereon, but leaves only; and he saith unto it, Let there be no fruit from thee
    henceforward for ever. And immediately the fig tree withered away. (Mt
    21:19)

    448
    And after this [Jesus] saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep;
    but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. … and [Jesus] said, Where have
    ye laid him? They say unto him, Lord, come and see. (Jn 11:11, 34)

    Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, until all these
    things be accomplished. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words
    shall not pass away. But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even
    the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mk 13:30-32)

    Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that which we know, and bear
    witness of that which we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 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. (Jn
    3:11-13)

    The belief of the early church concerning Christ’s dual natures


    Ignatius defended the dual nature of Christ against the Docetists, who denied that
    Jesus had a real human body. According to Docetic doctrine, Jesus only appeared as
    a man, but not really as flesh and blood. Aristides defended the dual nature of Christ
    in his apology the Roman emperor. Other early church writers who defended Christ's
    two natures include Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew and Apology),
    Tatian (Diatessaron), Melito of Sardis (Discourses on the Cross, Discourses on the
    on Soul and Body), Iraeneus (Against Heresies), Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus
    (Refutation on All Heresies, Treaties on Christ and Anti-Christ, On Proverbs 24, and
    Against Beron and Helix), Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ, Prescription Against
    Heretics, Against Praxeas, and Against Marcion) and Origen (Against Celsus). In
    addition, the early baptismal confession of Hippolytus and the Apostles' Creed
    contain statements of faith in Christ's dual nature.

    The controversy surrounding the merging of the human and the divine in the
    person of Christ culminated in the fifth century with the Definition of Chalcedon
    (451 A.D.), also known as the "Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union" or the "Two-
    Nature Doctrine,” a creed resulting from a controversy between the western and
    eastern churches concerning the incarnation of the Son of God in the flesh. Below is
    the creed which arose out of that controversy:

    “Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess
    the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect
    both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and
    actually man, with a rational soul and a body. He is of the same reality as
    God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves
    as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only
    excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his
    deity, and now in these last days, for us and behalf of our salvation, this
    selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of
    his humanness. We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-

    449
    Son, Lord, only-begotten — in two natures; and we do this without
    confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other,
    without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting
    them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not
    nullified by the union. Instead, the properties of each nature are conserved
    and both natures concur in one person and in one reality. They are not
    divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-
    begotten Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old
    testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of
    Fathers has handed down to us.”8

    The self-emptying of the Son of God in taking on a human nature


    In his letter to the church at Philippi, Paul discusses the incarnation of the second
    person of the Trinity in human flesh and blood.

    [Christ], existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality
    with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a
    servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a
    man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the
    death of the cross. (Phil 2:6-8 NASB)

    Parallel translations

    He stripped Himself of His glory, and took on Him the nature of a


    bondservant by becoming a man like other men. (The New Testament in
    Modern Speech)

    but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of
    men having been made. (Young's Literal Translation)

    But made himself of no reputation and emptied himself of the divine form
    and glory, and took the form of a servant, of our own race, a race whose
    duty it is to serve God. The divine glory was exchanged for human
    lowliness. (People's New Testament)

    Exegesis of Philippians 2:6-8


    In understanding the emptying of Christ, a look at the original Greek
    language in the text serves to elaborate on the English meaning (Greek
    references taken from Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon).
    The context of the passage is an exhortation to believers to have the mind of
    Christ (v 5). Paul then gives the following example of the character of Christ’s
    mind. The passage may be divided into two parts, each a reference to one of
    Christ’s two natures.

    450
    Part one – referencing the Deity of Christ

    “Who, existing in the form of God”


    morphē - that which contains the appearance, essence, and the nature of a
    thing.
    Elsewhere, Paul states Christ exists as the “express image” or “exact
    representation” of God. (Heb 1:3) As Rhodes notes, “the phrase 'exact
    representation' was used among the ancients of an engraving tool or stamp,
    often in ref to the minting of coins. In common usage, however, it came to
    refer to the actual mark engraved or the impression made by the tool itself.
    The word thus indicates an 'exact expression'. … Christ is the 'exact
    representation' of God’s real being, and all the essential characteristics of
    God are brought into clear focus in Him.”9 As John wrote in his Gospel,
    “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.” The
    “who” of this passage refers to the pre-incarnate Christ, who was and will
    always be God.

    Part two – referencing the humanity of Christ

    “counted not “
    hegeomai - to consider or deem
    “the being on an equality with God”
    isos - equal, in quantity or quality
    “a thing to be grasped”
    harpagmos - to seize upon and retain a prize
    Here, the passage switches from referring to the pre-incarnate Christ,
    who was already equal with God, to the incarnate Christ – the man Jesus,
    who was unequal with God in His humanity.
    The KJV translates this portion as “[Christ] thought it not robbery to be
    equal with God.” His equality with deity was His by right and by nature. It
    was not a thing which he seized as if it were a thing which He did not earn
    or deserve. His equality with God belonged to Him and was so essential to
    His person that it was not something of which He could rid Himself.
    Rodney Decker adds that “there is an idiom involved … The ‘-mo’
    ending [of the Greek word harpagmos] is a rare form (not used in LXX [the
    Septuagint] and only here in NT); ‘-ma’ is the more common form … [this
    factor results] in the following idiomatic translation of Phil. 2:6, ‘he did not
    regard being equal with God as something to use for his own advantage.’”10
    “but emptied himself”
    kenoō - to empty, to make void, deprive of force, render vain or useless, of
    no effect.
    From the root word kenos – denotes empty-handedness, without a gift,
    destitute, of no effect or purpose.
    Translated as “vain” in 2 Cor 15:14 “And if Christ be not risen, then is
    our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain,” and also Eph 5:6 “Let no

    451
    man deceive you with vain words.” Other uses - Gal 2:2, Phl 2:16, Col 2:8,
    I Thess 2:1, I Thess 3:5, and Jas 2:20.
    Still referring to Christ’s humanity, Paul states the human nature of
    Christ was empty, or void of deity (otherwise, His human nature would not
    be fully human, but more akin to the titans of Greek myth).
    Decker observes the two ways which the word kenoō is be used in
    Scripture:
    1) to empty or pour out (as a glass of water would be poured out,
    making the glass empty). This is used in the following passages in
    Scripture:
    Gen 24:20 … she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough
    2 Chr 24:11 … and when they saw that there was much money, the
    king’s scribe and the chief priest’s officer came and emptied the
    chest, and took it
    2) to make ineffectual or useless (as a flashlight with no battery).
    Rom 4:14 … For if they that are of the law are heirs, faith is made
    void, and the promise is made of none effect
    1 Cor 1:17 … For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the
    gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be
    made void.
    1 Cor 9:15 … But I have used none of these things: and I write not
    these things that it may be so done in my case; for it were good for
    me rather to die, than that any man should make my glorifying
    void.
    2 Cor 9:3 … But I have sent the brethren, that our glorying on your
    behalf may not be made void in this respect.
    The passages in the latter usage are all from Pauline letters; therefore, it
    follows that he would be using the word in the same sense in the Philippian
    text – that his meaning is Christ, in His human nature, made Himself of no
    effect, rather than “pouring” His deity into humanity, thereby ceasing to be
    fully divine.
    “taking“
    lambanō - to lay hold of a thing in order to use it; to take upon or
    appropriate to one's self, to make one's own.
    ”the form of “
    (as above) morphē - that which contains the appearance and the nature of a
    thing.
    “a servant”
    doulos - one in a state of servitude, one who gives himself up to another's
    will to the disregard of his own interests.
    John Chrysostom comments that the form of a servant does not
    constitute a manner of service, as when Jesus washed His disciples’ feet,
    for such is the work, not the form, of a servant. The form of the servant
    which Christ assumed is that body with which he performed His service.11
    “being made in”
    ginomai - to become, to begin to be; to appear in history, to come upon
    the stage

    452
    Paul uses a different Greek verb to describe the births of Isaac and
    Ishmael in Galatians 4:23, 29. Paul saw a difference between the births of
    these two and the birth of Jesus.
    “the likeness of men”
    homoiōma - the image, resemblance, or representation of a thing, in near
    equality or identity
    Paul states that “God [sent] his own Son in the likeness of sinful
    flesh.” (Rom 8.3) The word “likeness” describes the state of the flesh, not
    the flesh itself. Jesus possessed real human flesh, rather than merely the
    appearance of such. As one commentator explained, “He took 'the form
    of a servant,' and in order to explain how He took 'the form of a servant,'
    there is added, by 'being made in the likeness of men.' His subjection to
    the law (Lk 2:21; Gal 4:4) and to His parents (Lk 2:51), His low state as a
    carpenter, and carpenter's reputed son (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3), His betrayal
    for the price of a bond-servant (Ex 21:32), and slave-like death to relieve
    us from the slavery of sin and death, finally and chiefly, His servant-like
    dependence as man on God, while His divinity was not outwardly
    manifested (Isa 49:3, 7), are all marks of His 'form as a servant.'
    This proves:
    (1) He was in the form of a servant as soon as He was made man.
    (2) He was “in the form of God” before He was “in the form of a
    servant.”
    (3) He did as really subsist in the divine nature, as in the form of a
    servant, or in the nature of man.
    For He was as much 'in the form of God' as 'in the form of a servant,'
    and was so in the form of God as 'to be on an equality with God,' ... His
    emptying Himself presupposes His previous plenitude of Godhead (Jn
    1:14; Col 1:19; 2:9). He remained full of this; yet He bore Himself as if
    He were empty.”12
    “And being found”
    heuriskō - to be seen, discovered, recognized, or detected; to present one's
    self out; one's state of being as perceived by others.
    There was nothing about His appearance which would cause anyone to
    assume He was not the natural-born son of Joseph.
    “in fashion”
    schēma - that which comprises everything in a person which strikes the
    senses. In commenting on this verse, John Wesley wrote, “The form of a
    servant - the form, the likeness, the fashion, though not exactly the same,
    are yet nearly related to each other. The form expresses something
    absolute; the likeness refers to other things of the same kind; the fashion
    respects what appears to sight and sense. Being made in the likeness of
    men - A real man, like other men.”13
    “as “
    hos - in like manner
    Christ possessed a physical, but not morally corrupt, nature common to
    all men.

    453
    “a man“
    anthropos - a human being, whether male or female, with reference to the
    two-fold nature of man: body and soul
    “he humbled himself”
    tapeinoō - to make low or reduce to meaner circumstances; to assign a
    lower rank or place to; to abase or humble
    Christ's humiliation was the Son of God taking on the form of one in
    service to God.

    Given the above meanings, the passage may be paraphrased as follows:


    “Who, being in possession of the very essence of God, and not vain in such
    nature, took upon (or in addition to) Himself a form void of that nature,
    acting as one in self-sacrificing service to another, and began to be equal to
    man in all respects, save sin. And in so doing, presenting Himself as one
    recognized by men as a man, He abased Himself to their lowly estate.”

    Of what did Christ empty Himself?


    Below is a brief overview of various ways in which theologians have
    interpreted and explained the incarnation of Christ.

    Theory 1: He emptied Himself of His divinity


    Some believe that when God became man, He laid aside His deity in
    order to become fully human, then He later regained that deity when He
    ascended to the Father. The problem with this view is that if Christ laid
    aside His deity, even for a moment, then He would no longer be God, for
    God cannot change or be anything less than God. Were that the case, there
    would be no difference between Jesus and any other man. If Christ laid
    aside His deity, then He would be laying aside that which is essential to the
    nature of God. He could not have existed as God without His deity any
    more than He could have existed as a man without a human body. For that
    reason, some have dubbed this view as "incarnation by divine suicide." If
    the Son of God emptied Himself of His divinity during the incarnation, then
    Jesus died as a man and His death would serve no greater purpose. It is
    because the person who was crucified was not only the virgin-born son of
    Mary, but also, the second person of the Trinity, that His death has infinite
    value. If His divinity was removed from His person, then the man who died
    on the cross was just an innocent man who died for a worthless cause. As
    John states, the Word became flesh, but He was still the Word, the eternal
    Son of God, who took on a human nature. The incarnation did not involve a
    detraction of deity; but rather, the addition of humanity.

    454
    Theory 2: He emptied Himself of His glory
    Being similar to that above, this view claims that Jesus retained His
    deity, but laid aside His glory, the outward manifestation on His deity. In
    support of this view, the following passage from John’s Gospel has been
    employed:

    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.
    (Jn 17:1)

    It has been asked, “If Christ retained His glory during the incarnation,
    why did He pray to the Father that He might be glorified?” The Gospels
    give only one account in the pre-resurrection life of Christ where Jesus
    revealed His glory (Mt 17:1-6, Mk 9:1-8, and Lk 9:28-36), an event referred
    to as the Transfiguration. At all other times, He walked among men having
    no physical distinction from them. He did not have a halo floating above
    His head, nor did he shine like the sun as He preached to the multitudes. In
    His flesh He possessed no glory, which is the reason for His prayer above.
    As shown above, there were times when Jesus spoke as a man, while at
    other times He spoke as directed by His divine nature. As a man, Jesus
    needed to be glorified, but, as God, He already was glorified, for God does
    not change in His essence, to which glory is essential. Also, Jesus stated that
    while He walked among man as God veiled in the flesh, He was also in
    heaven in His divine nature (Jn 3:11-13). In the Old Testament, Jesus
    appeared to man on numerous occasions as the Angel of the Lord and
    various other theophanies, or physical manifestations of God. In each of
    these instances, as was true during the incarnation, His glory was hidden
    from man, for no man can see God and live – yet the angels in heaven still
    beheld Him in full glory even as He walked among man with a fully human
    nature. The book of Hebrews describes the flesh of Jesus as a veil (Heb
    10:20), and it was under this veil that the glory of God shone in all its
    brilliance. However, the glory was still present, for a veil placed over a
    thing does not eradicate that which it covers, but merely hides it from view,
    as a pearl lay concealed within the shell of a mollusk, yet still present within
    the shell despite its lack of visibility.

    Theory 3: He emptied Himself of some of His divine attributes


    Another view of the incarnation concerns a partial eradication of divine
    properties in the person of Jesus during the incarnation. According to this
    view, Jesus retained His divinity and glory, although veiled to man, but
    emptied Himself of qualities such as His infinite knowledge, power, and
    presence in order to walk among men as their brother, not their God. This
    view is no more plausible than is the first view mentioned above. It is
    equally impossible for God to rid Himself of one or a few of His attributes
    as it is for Him to rid Himself of them all. In the words of T.D. Shedd,
    “Each nature [the human and divine], in order to be whole and entire, must
    have all its essential elements.”14 Also, as shown previously, there were

    455
    times when Jesus displayed such divine knowledge and power, for He knew
    things that no man could know (such as the time and manner of His death
    and resurrection) and displayed power over nature, power which no man
    could display (such as calming the storm). The title Son of God, a title by
    which Jesus was known, denotes oneness or sameness with God, rather than
    generational descent. In the ancient Jewish mind, to be the “son of” another
    was to possess the very essence of another, as is said of the “sons of the
    prophets.” His sonship is not due to His birth, but to His inseparable
    participation in the Godhead. Thus, the Son of God has always been God’s
    Son, even prior to Jesus being born of Mary. As F.F. Bruce stated, “In
    becoming human, the Word [of God] did not cease to be what it was, rather
    it became what it was not.”15 The apostle John states, “In the beginning was
    the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … And the
    Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,” (Jn 1:1, 14) but the Word, in
    becoming flesh, did not cease to be the Word of God. Paul states that Jesus
    was the “fullness of the Godhead, bodily,” (Col 2:9) which could not be true
    if He did not possess the fullness of divine attributes. If Christ was limited
    in His possession of divine qualities, then He was not sovereign. If He was
    not sovereign, He was not God. If He was not God, then the Word of God
    never “became flesh and dwelt among us.” Were that the case, then the great
    I AM, who spoke to Moses from the burning bush, became the I WAS, in
    the incarnation of Christ. Gromacki explains, “Christ is one person;
    therefore, a discussion on the incarnation of Christ must be in reference to
    the modification of Him as a single person, not a split of one person into a
    second person. That being the case, either He exchanged one nature for
    another, or the two were co-existent within His person.”16 Finally, if Christ
    emptied Himself of some of His attributes, then such would effect a change
    of nature within the Godhead, and the immutability of God is part of that
    which is essential to His being. As the author of Hebrews said, “Jesus Christ
    is the same yesterday and today, yea and for ever.” (Heb 13:8)

    Theory 4: He limited the use of His divine attributes


    Some say that Christ retained the fullness of His deity, including all that
    which is essential to God’s divine nature, but chose to act as if He were just
    a man, limiting Himself to the voluntary non-use of His divine attributes.
    Anselm expressed that Jesus, for the most part, acted as if He did not
    possess abilities exclusive to His divine nature, while at times drawing upon
    these abilities to perform that which a human nature could not perform.
    While this view bears closeness to the truth, it must be borne in mind with
    the following consideration: the human nature of Jesus was just that –
    human. The humanity of Jesus was not human plus that-which-is-not-
    human. As a man, He was capable of no feat which could not be performed
    by another man. The incarnation of God was that the Word became flesh,
    not that flesh became the Word. The Son of God took upon Himself a
    human nature, but did not impart divinity to that nature. That which was
    divine remained divine and that which was made human did not have
    divinity imparted to it. When Jesus performed miracles and exercised

    456
    abilities exclusive to His divine nature, it was a result of the divine nature of
    Christ working within the human nature of Christ to effect that which the
    human nature could not do in and of itself. In other words, rather than
    speaking of His divine attributes being limited within His humanity (as if
    the ability was there, but the use of that ability was self-restricted), it is
    proper to say that His divine nature worked through His human nature to
    manifest wondrous works within that nature. Such was the case when God
    worked through the prophets and apostles to perform miracles, including
    raising the dead. These ones performed marvelous acts, but such was not
    done in their own power; but rather, by the power of God working through
    them. The difference between God working through these men and His
    working through Jesus is that God and Elijah, for instance, were not one and
    the same. The person of God worked through the person of Elijah to work
    wonders through him. In the case of Jesus, the divine nature of the person of
    Christ worked through His human nature to do that which He, in His
    humanity, could not perform by virtue of its human limitations. The
    limitations of His human nature were such as were required for true
    humanity. These limitations were not self-imposed by His human nature;
    but rather, were placed upon that nature when it was first conceived within
    Mary’s womb. When Jesus was hungry, His human nature did not have the
    ability to turn stones into bread, for such a thing would only have been
    possible of His divine nature. Yet, His divine nature did not cater to His
    human nature in order to provide for Jesus a life of luxury. The
    manifestations of His divine abilities were never used for Jesus’ own
    benefit. Such manifestations were done so that His people would believe
    that He is the Son of God, who alone has the words of life.

    Theory 5: He emptied Himself of the independent use of His divine


    attributes
    This position on the incarnation states that Christ retained His divine
    attributes, but surrendered the independent exercise of these attributes to the
    Father. In so doing, He submitted to the Father and looked to the Spirit to
    empower Him in carrying out the Father's will. By analogy, the bulb was
    still in the socket, but it was the Father, not the Son, who turned on the
    switch. In looking at this position, it must be remembered in what sense the
    Son is subject to the Father. As stated earlier, all three persons of the
    Godhead are equal in being and nature. The Father is not any more God
    than is the Son. The Son’s subordination to the Father rests not in who He
    is; but rather, what He does. The Son subjected Himself to the will of the
    Father in agreeing to take on a human nature by which He would suffer for
    the sin of God’s elect. As a man, Christ’s human nature was subject to the
    same divine authority as any other man. As a Jew born under the Law, He
    would have been required to perform all that which the Law requires,
    including sacrifices and offerings. Such was the nature of His duty as a
    man, that He keep the Law of God in perfect obedience, as only He could,
    so that the blood He shed was not blood shed as atonement for His own
    disobedience; but rather, for the disobedience of others. (Rom 5:19) Jesus'

    457
    human nature was not a deified human nature and did not possess equality
    with God. Rather, the human nature of Jesus was equal to that of any other
    man, and in this nature was Jesus subject to God – to Himself, or to His
    divine nature. The human nature of Jesus was a created entity, fashioned in
    the image of God and subject to the Law of God. However, His divine
    nature, being uncreated and equal with the Father, is a divine nature to
    whom His human nature was subject, by virtue of the human nature's
    inferiority as a created thing. As a man, Jesus was unable to work miracles,
    and His human nature relied on the power of the Spirit of God, as did the
    apostles when they raised the dead and healed the sick. It is in this human
    dependence upon God that Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,”
    yet it was in the power of His own divine nature that He healed the
    brokenhearted, gave sight to the blind, and set at liberty those who were in
    spiritual bondage. (Lk 4:18; cf Isa 61:1) During the incarnation, it was still
    the Son of God who was upholding all things, and by whom all things
    consist. (Col 1:17)

    The person of Christ, in taking on a human nature, did not become


    devoid of His deity or any ability to do the work of God. Self-sufficiency is
    essential to the Godhood – and not to the Father alone, but also to the Son
    and the Spirit. If Jesus had relinquished His ability to do the work of God in
    and of Himself, then He relinquished a portion of that which makes Him
    God. During the incarnation, the Son of God did not become God-minus-
    something. Were that the case, a rift would have been created within the
    Trinity, for one of the three Divine Persons would then be unequal with the
    others, and what was once triune would then be transformed into a duality
    of deity: the Father and Spirit being equal, with the Son in possession of a
    lesser form of deity.

    Theory 6: The Christ was a spirit imparted to the human Jesus


    This view, not held among orthodox Christianity, states that Jesus had a
    human soul, and that, at His baptism, the eternal Word of God “descended
    upon” (as it is translated in the King James Version of the English Bible), or
    was imparted to, that soul. The theory goes that prior to His baptism, Jesus
    was fully human, but was not God in the flesh. Rather, such divinity was
    imparted to Him when the Spirit of God descended like a dove upon him at
    His baptism. (Mt 3:16) Such a view is all too similar to the reasoning of
    secular philosophy, which claims that Jesus was a man who achieved a
    higher state of consciousness, which they term the Christ Consciousness. As
    the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher stated, Jesus was a man
    who came into an awareness of what he called a “supreme God
    consciousness.”17 The truth is that no such view is expressed in Scripture.
    Jesus was not just a man living in the deepest of communion with God.
    Jesus knew His divine status prior to His baptism, as revealed when He said
    at age twelve that He was about His Father's business. (Lk 2:49)

    458
    The incarnation of God was neither a diminishing of deity into humanity,
    nor was it an elevation of a normal human being to divine status. Jesus was
    not a deified form of humanity, nor was He a human god. As a man, Jesus
    did not possess infinite knowledge, but as God, no thought was hidden from
    Him. As a man, Jesus' power was equal to power common to humanity, but
    as God, He held the cosmos together. Jesus was fully human and incapable
    of divine action in its own power as a man, but as God, no power could
    hold Him down, not even death. As a man, Jesus was still the Word made
    flesh and His human nature was as much a part of the person of Christ as
    was His divine nature. Since the moment Jesus was conceived in Mary's
    womb, He became the God-Man, and so was that the angel Gabriel said to
    Mary, “... that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son
    of God.” (Lk 1:35) Even in the womb, the person of Christ was holy. It was
    not to His human nature that holiness belonged; but rather, such holiness
    belongs to the Son of God, of whom that human nature became a part.
    Neither did Jesus become God's Son at the moment of conception. His
    divine Sonship is due to His oneness with the Father, rather than to an
    ontological procession (or a coming into existence) from the Father.

    The Spirit of God descending on Jesus as His baptism was a fulfillment of


    Isaiah's prophecy.

    And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom
    and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of
    knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. (Isa 11:2)
    The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath
    anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to
    bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the
    opening of the prison to them that are bound. (Isa 61:1)
    The descent of the Spirit is likened to the anointing by which a Levite was
    inaugurated as a priest in the sight of God and the people of Israel.

    “Then [Moses] shall take the anointing oil, and pour it on [Aaron's]
    head and anoint him. (Ex 29:7)

    As the High Priest for God's people, it is fitting that He should receive an
    anointing, not with oil, as were the priests of old, but with a better anointing
    – the anointing of the Spirit, of which the anointing by oil was but a
    foreshadow.

    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 2:17)

    459
    Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such
    an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty
    in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle,
    which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained
    to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man
    have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a
    priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
    Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses
    was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle:
    for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern
    shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more
    excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better
    covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Heb 8:1-6)
    Also, the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus as His baptism was not the
    source of His sinlessness. Jesus did not become sinless. Rather, He was
    conceived without sin. His sinlessness rested in His identity as the Son of
    God. His human nature, being one with His divine nature, was free from
    sin. As stated previously, Jesus had a fully human nature; however,
    Scripture repeatedly states that humanity is sinful by nature, not by
    experience. The human nature which Christ assumed was not the fallen
    human nature which all men now inherit from Adam. Rather, Jesus' human
    nature was the sinless nature of Adam, the nature with which humanity was
    created and later lost due to disobedience. Why, then, was Jesus baptized?
    Even John the Baptist was confounded by Jesus' submission to baptism, as
    expressed when he asked, “I have need to be baptized of you, and you come
    to me?” (Mt 3:14) The life of Jesus is a life which was lived in perfect
    obedience and submission to the Law and will of God. It was in this spirit
    of obedience that Jesus submitted himself to John's baptism, not that He
    needed cleansing from sin; but rather, that He should “fulfill all
    righteousness,” as was His reply to John, so that by Jesus' obedience many
    shall be made righteous, as it was by Adam's disobedience many were made
    sinners. (Rom 5:19)

    For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might
    be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor 5:21)
    As Matthew Henry states, “Therefore, this act of baptism was a necessary
    part of the righteousness He secured for sinners. His was a perfect
    righteousness in that He fulfilled all the requirements of the Law which we,
    for whose sin He would exchange His righteousness, are not capable of
    fulfilling. He is our perfect substitute.”18

    Christ is one Person having two natures


    While the Son of God had two natures, divine and human, He still remained
    one person. The incarnation did not result in a split of persons, one divine and
    one human, nor did He live two separate lives during the incarnation: one life as
    the eternal Son of God, and the other as the virgin-born son of Mary. If one

    460
    looks closely, the “kenosis” passage which describes the emptying of Christ in
    the incarnation contains a strong indication of what Christ emptied Himself of
    when He took upon Himself a human nature.

    [Christ], existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality
    with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a
    servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a
    man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the
    death of the cross. Phil 2:6-8 (NASB)

    That of which Christ emptied Himself was His equality with God. It is this
    equality which he disregarded, or did not reckon a thing to be grasped or held
    onto; however, such disregard does not involve a surrender of such equality. As
    a man, He could not be equal to God, and it was to this end that His human
    nature did not retain that deity which was retained by His divinity in the
    incarnation. When Christ took upon a human nature, He added to that which He
    already was, without detracting from His deity, for God cannot ever be any less
    God than He always has been. Augustine stated that the incarnation involved
    Christ “taking [upon Himself] that which He was not, not by losing that which
    He had.”19 Therefore, His relinquishment of equality with the Godhead was not
    due to a change in His divine nature, but in adding to His person a human
    nature. During the incarnation, He continued to be the second person of the
    Trinity, and as such He maintained His equality with God; however, as man, He
    became lower than the angels (Heb 2:6), being made in fashion as a man and in
    the likeness of sinful flesh. It was in His humanity that He was humbled in the
    sight of God, or in His own sight. As John Wesley stated, “Though he remained
    full, yet he appeared as if he had been empty; for he veiled his fullness from the
    sight of men and angels.”20

    When the Son of God took on a human nature, He took on a human body,
    according to the nature of man. However, when He took on a human body, He
    did not become a separate person. Prior to the incarnation, the Son of God
    already possessed being and was already a person. The conception of Jesus,
    although being a natural birth (through supernatural conception), did not bring
    into existence a new being, as is the case with any other person. Prior to being
    conceived, a man does not have being; but rather, is brought into existence
    through sexual union between a man and a woman. His conception gives him
    his being, since pre-existence is not an element of human nature. However, the
    Son of God, being eternal, did not receive His being at the moment the human
    body was placed in Mary’s womb. At Jesus’ conception He added to His pre-
    existent person a human nature, of which a human body is a part. Without flesh
    and blood, He would have been devoid of humanity and the incarnation would
    have been merely a theophany – an appearance of God as a man, as He was
    when He appeared to Abraham, without appearing in actual flesh and blood.

    Jesus always referred to Himself through the use of singular personal


    pronouns: “I, my, me,” etc. The union of the divine and the human in the person

    461
    of Christ is not likened to the union of the divine persons within the Trinity. The
    Triune God is three separate persons, having one being and sharing in the same
    nature, and, at times, refers to His Triune self through the use of plural pronouns,
    as in Genesis when He said, “Let us make man in our image.” (Gen 1:26) In
    contrast, the incarnation of God as man was the union of two different natures
    within one person, therefore, Jesus never refers to Himself in the plural sense. In
    His humanity, He did not live a life separate from His deity; but rather,
    functioned as a single person within two spheres: the physical and the spiritual.
    By analogy, when a man dies, his body is placed in the grave, whereas his spirit
    is separated from his body. In so doing, his spirit does not become a person
    separate from the body; but rather, continues his personal existence in a different
    sphere of reality. At that point, the man exists as one person within two spheres,
    with his body lying dead in the grave, and his spirit existing in the spiritual
    realm, either as one redeemed from sin or as one condemned for his trespasses.
    Ron Rhodes states, “… the eternal God - Who, prior to the incarnation, was one
    in person and nature (wholly divine) – became, in the incarnation, two in nature
    (divine and human) while remaining one person. The Son, who had already been
    a person in all eternity past, joined Himself not with a human person but with a
    human nature at the incarnation.”21 Furthermore, the Creed of Athenasius reads,
    “As a rational soul and flesh are one man, so God and man are one Christ.”22 As
    God, the person of Christ held all things together, while, as a man, He would at
    times be asleep, being unaware of the goings-on around Him. As a man, the
    person of Christ could hunger, while as God, He is the Bread of Life. When He
    said, “I and my Father are one,” (Jn 10:3) He was not referring to His divine
    nature alone, but that His person, having both a divine and a human nature, is
    one with the Father.

    Since Christ remained a single person throughout the incarnation, His work
    either as a man or as God must be attributed to His person, rather than to one of
    His two natures. Therefore, when He walked on water, He did it in His body, or
    in His human nature, but did so through the power of His divine nature. When
    He suffered on the cross, His human body died, but His person suffered for the
    sins of God’s people. In His human nature, He bled and died, but the person of
    Christ, consisting of both natures, bore the fullness of the penalty for sin. Had
    He only suffered in His human nature, then His suffering would have had no
    eternal value, for the suffering of a man, even an obedient man, is not sufficient
    as atonement for the sin of others. It was because the person of Christ retained
    His deity that such suffering was sufficient to redeem His sheep. Therefore, it is
    proper to say that the Son of God suffered for sin, not just that the man Jesus
    bore such suffering as one separate from the Son of God. In his first letter to the
    church at Corinth, Paul states the ”Lord of glory” was crucified (1 Cor 2:8), not
    just that Jesus, the name given to Christ’s human nature (Lk 1:31), suffered for
    sin. Likewise, it is proper to attribute divine titles to Jesus’ humanity, and to
    refer to Him by such a title as “Jesus Christ, our Lord,” as Paul does on
    numerous occasions and in various fashion throughout his letters. Although He
    was Jesus, the son of Mary, He is also the Lord, the Son of God. It is in this
    spirit that Paul states Jesus was “born of the seed of David according to the

    462
    flesh,” while still being “declared [as] the Son of God with power.” (Rom 1:3-4)
    Gromacki explains, “Christ is one person; therefore, a discussion on the
    incarnation of Christ must be in reference to the modification of Him as a single
    person, not a split of one person into a second person. That being the case, either
    He exchanged one nature for another, or the two were co-existent within His
    person.”23

    A union of two full and distinct natures


    The incarnation resulted in the person of the Son of God being fully God and
    fully man at the same time. When the Word was made flesh, nothing was
    detracted from His divinity, nor was anything added to what is typical of
    humanity, for, if either had been true, then He would have been neither divine
    nor human. Prior to the incarnation, the person of Christ was wholly divine.
    When He became flesh, His divinity was not imparted to a human nature, nor
    was humanity imparted to His divinity. Rather, the person of Christ took part in
    the two distinct natures, assuming for Himself a second temporal nature separate
    from His eternal nature, and adding that second nature to His person, who has
    previously existed with a divine nature throughout all eternity. When He took
    part in His human nature, that nature became one with God, not by virtue of
    being equal in nature with God, but because the one to whom that nature
    belonged was the Son of God, who is equal, in His divine nature, with God. In
    His human nature, He was flesh and blood, but in His divine nature, His
    existence constituted a spiritual nature, yet both natures belonged to the same
    person, with each nature retaining the properties essential to that nature. Such a
    union of the two natures, each in its fullness, within the person of Christ is
    referred to as the Hypostatic Union, which states that when the Word was made
    flesh, the Son of God came into possession of two natures, yet remained one in
    substance or being.

    As the incarnation did not result in an exchange of natures, nor did it result in
    the creation of a third nature, being a hybrid of the two, consisting of parts of
    each nature. At the moment the body of Jesus was conceived, the Son of God,
    who already existed with the fullness of deity, became fully man. As Paul states,
    Christ “took on” the form of man, but in so doing did not put off the form of
    God. The Son of God gained human attributes without setting aside any of those
    attributes which belongs to His deity. In other words, He did not cease to be
    God; but rather, He began to also be a man. Even today, the Son of God works in
    both natures. In His human nature, He prays for man, and in His divine nature,
    He reconciles man to God. It was in His human nature that He prayed for man
    (Jn 17), as the one and only Mediator between God and man, yet it is in His
    divine nature, having been slain before the foundation of the world, that He ever
    lives to make intercession for man. In the incarnation, the divine remained
    divine, and the human was made human.

    Conclusion
    John Gill expertly summed up the union of the human and Divine within the
    Person of Christ when he said it was necessary that the Redeemer of man be one

    463
    in person, but two in nature, so that “the human nature should be taken up, and
    united to, and subsist in the person of the Son of God; for the human nature, as it
    has no personality of itself, it adds none to the Son of God; it is no constituent
    part of his person; he was a divine person before his assumption of human
    nature; and what he assumed was not a person, but a nature, and is called a
    ‘thing, nature, seed,’ (Luke 1:35; Heb. 2:16) had it been a person, there would be
    two persons in Christ.”24

    Addendum one: What happened to the union of the two natures when the body
    of Christ died and was later resurrected?

    The body of Jesus experienced a normal state of death for three days
    As stated above, the Son of God took upon Himself a nature which was fully
    human and subject to entering a state of death. Prior to his crucifixion, He also
    said that He would lie in the grave for three days before His resurrection. 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, as stated in Scripture.

    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 [the body which
    was dead in the grave] Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are
    witnesses. (Acts 2:31-32)

    Additionally, being the voluntary sacrifice for sin, and agreeing to partake in
    the nature of man, death was a necessity, since death is the natural consequence
    of the curse of sin. However, as God, who is self-existent, the person of Christ
    did not cease to exist while His human body lay in the tomb – only His human
    body lay dead in the grave. Upon His resurrection, it was this same body which
    was raised from the dead, not as one bearing the marks of a corpse, but in a
    glorified, yet physical, body. Some skeptics have proposed that Jesus only rose
    from the dead in a spiritual sense, while His body remained dead in the tomb,
    however such a premise violates both Scripture and reason, as will be shown
    under a later heading.

    Jesus' human soul was separated from His body during death
    Scripture teaches that upon death, the soul of man leaves the body (2 Cor
    5:1-10), and so it was with Christ, having not only a human body, but a human

    464
    spirit. At that point, the human spirit of Jesus was separated from His body, but
    was not separated from His divine nature. When the divine nature of Christ
    raised His human body from death to life, both the divine and human spirit of
    Jesus were reunited with the body of Jesus. As Gromacki explains, “what
    occurred was the separation of the divine person with His divine nature and His
    human immaterial nature (soul and spirit) from the human body. There was no
    separation of the divine nature from the human nature at the crucifixion. He was
    no less human after His death than any human is after death. Although His body
    was in the ground, His human person awaited resurrection elsewhere. At the
    resurrection, His real self, including His divine nature and His immaterial
    human nature, were forever joined to a new immortal, incorruptible body. At this
    time, His human nature did not gain the attributes of the divine nature. Just as
    we will not gain divine qualities after death, neither did the attributes of His
    divine nature transfer to His human nature at His resurrection.”25

    Jesus effected the resurrection of His own body


    Jesus' resurrection was done in His own power. He did not sit idly by while
    the Father raised His body for Him. Puritan theologian John Gill (1697 – 1771)
    describes the relationship between the human and divine natures of Christ in His
    resurrection from the dead:

    “In the act of laying down his life for men, both natures appear; the human
    nature, which is passive in it, and is the life laid down; the divine nature, or
    the divine Person of Christ, who is active in it, and laid down his life of
    himself, he having such a power over his life as man, and that at his dispose,
    as no mere creature ever had; and both are to be observed in his taking of it
    up again; his human nature, in his body being raised from the dead; his
    divine nature or person, in raising it up of himself, whereby he was declared
    to be the Son of God with power: He was put to death in the flesh, in human
    nature, and quickened in the Spirit, or by his divine nature; the sacrifice of
    himself, was his own act, as Mediator; what was offered up were his soul
    and body, his whole human nature; this was offered by his eternal Spirit, or
    divine nature, which gave virtue to it, and made it a proper atoning sacrifice
    for sin.”26

    Christ's human nature is everlasting


    The spirit of man continues to exist following the death of the body. After
    death, the man is judged and received either blessing or curse in accordance with
    His words and deeds. Likewise, the human nature of Christ was not abandoned
    or obliterated following His securing the salvation of God's people. If Christ's
    human nature is not everlasting, then it would be a nature not fully human. The
    union of His two natures is a relationship which will continue throughout all
    eternity. A while after His bodily resurrection, Jesus ascended to the Father in
    bodily form, where He remains today and forevermore, in possession of His dual
    natures.

    465
    Addendum two: The result of the incarnation

    Christ revealed the glory of God


    In the incarnation, Jesus became the visible revelation of the glory of God.

    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 NASB)

    The glory of Christ was a glory inherent within Him (Heb 1:3). It was not a
    glory placed on Him by the Father.

    Christ became the High Priest and Mediator for man


    Now having in His Person both the nature of God and man, Christ assumes
    His role as High Priest and Mediator between the two parties in that He lives to
    make intercession for man and forever reconcile man to God, in an eternal
    relationship, made possible by His redemptive sacrifice of Himself.

    For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
    made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Cor 5:21)

    Christ's role as High Priest and Mediator will be further discussed later in this
    book. Here it only needs be stated that in order to perform such a role, He
    needed to become man, so that He might first die, then stand as man's
    representative in their salvation, as a kinsman-redeemer served as a
    representative in the buying back of one sold to slavery.

    And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth
    by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or
    to the stock of the stranger’s family: After that he is sold he may be
    redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him. (Lev 25.47-48)

    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. (Heb 2:14-16)

    Such a representative also needed to be God Himself, so that the sacrifice made
    was of a manner and worth so as to provide an acceptable sacrifice for sin and
    appeasement of God's own justice.

    Christ fulfilled the Old Testament ceremonial and sacrificial system


    The apostle John states that Jesus “made His dwelling among us.” (Jn 1:1)
    The literal translation is that Jesus “pitched His tent” or “tabernacled” among
    man. In the days of Moses, God instituted a set of laws and rituals by which

    466
    sacrifices for sin and other purposes were performed by priests on behalf of the
    people. He commanded a tabernacle, a large tent-like structure, to be built, in
    which would be placed the Ark of the Covenant, the physical representation of
    the presence of Yahweh. When the Son of God became flesh, He made the
    former symbol of God's presence a reality. No longer did the people of God need
    to present their sacrifices and offerings in a Temple, for the true glory of God
    resided within the person of Jesus, the only true sacrificial Lamb of God.
    Although His glory was veiled by His flesh, as the Ark in the Temple rested
    behind a veil, Jesus possessed within Him the fullness of deity.

    IV. The Son of God bears the name of God


    These next few headings will look at some of the names, titles, and offices of God in
    the Old Testament and show how they were attributed to Christ in the New Testament.

    Yahweh; I AM
    Old Testament
    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 3.14)

    New Testament
    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 8:58-59)

    Yahweh is the vocalized form of the name “YHVH,” the divine name of God, a
    name which means “to be.” Thus, it is the name God used to identify Himself to
    Moses when He told Moses to tell Pharaoh that “I AM” sent him. The name
    identifies God as a real being, distinct from the derived deities of the pagans.
    Jesus’ declaration that, “Before Abraham was born, I am,” was a declaration of
    His deity. He was identifying Himself as YHVH, the I AM of the Old Testament.
    The Jews’ response to His confession displays their recognition of this statement
    as a declaration of His deity, as they prepared to exact upon Him the legal
    penalty for blasphemy: death by stoning (a penalty prescribed in Lev 24.16).

    V. The Son of God bears the titles of God

    God
    Old Testament
    Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah: and thou shalt love Jehovah thy
    God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (Deut 6:4-5)

    New Testament
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
    God. (Jn 1:1, 14)

    467
    Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (Jn 20.28)

    Alpha and Omega


    Old Testament
    Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I,
    Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he. (Isa 41:4)

    New Testament
    And when I [John] saw him [Jesus], I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his
    right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the Living
    one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of
    death and of Hades. (Rev 1:17-18)

    Light
    Old Testament
    I, Jehovah, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy hand, and will
    keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.
    (Isa 42:6)

    New Testament
    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 3:30-32)
    Spoken by Simeon, as he looked upon the infant Christ.

    Rock
    Old Testament
    For who is God, save Jehovah? And who is a rock, save our God? (2 Sam 22:32)

    New Testament
    even as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of
    offence: And he that believeth on him [Christ; the “stone” and “rock”] shall not
    be put to shame. (Rom 9:33)

    Shepherd
    Old Testament
    Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want. (Ps 23:1)

    New Testament
    I [Jesus] am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the
    sheep. (Jn 10:11)

    468
    VI. The Son of God holds the authority of God
    “Thus saith the Lord” was the commonly-used prefatory statement of the prophets.
    They declared their oracles not of their own authority, but as a representative of the Lord
    and ones under His authority. In contrast, Jesus referred to no earthly authority higher
    than Himself. Even the greatest of the scholars and rabbis fell back on the authority of
    Scripture when teaching the masses, however, Jesus often made declarations on His own
    authority, rather than the authority of Scripture. Whereas the highest of earthly authorities
    delivered the word of the Lord by saying, “as it is written,” Jesus, by virtue of His deity,
    was able to deliver the word of the Lord by declaring, “I say unto you.”

    The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto
    them, Why did ye not bring him? The officers answered, Never man so spake. (Jn
    7:45-46)

    And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given
    unto me in heaven and on earth. (Mt 28.18)

    Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above
    every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven
    and things on 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)

    Authority over disease


    And behold, there came to him a leper and worshiped him, saying, Lord, if thou
    wilt, thou canst make me clean. And he stretched forth his hand, and touched
    him, saying, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway his leprosy was
    cleansed (Mt 8.2-3)

    Authority over men and angels


    For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and
    then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds. (Mt 16 27)

    Authority over demons


    And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over
    unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all
    manner of sickness (Mt 10.1)

    And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves,
    saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority
    commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. (Mk 1:27)

    Authority over the Law


    Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine
    enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
    good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
    persecute you. (Mt 5:43-44)

    469
    A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved
    you, that ye also love one another. (Jn 13:34)

    For this man [Jesus] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as
    he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house. (Heb 3:3)

    Moses was considered the greatest legal authority in Judaism, for it was
    through Moses that God gave the Law to Israel. During the life of Christ, there
    was a moment when several of His disciples saw Him, with His divine glory
    revealed, conversing with Moses and Elijah. As Moses was the greatest legal
    authority for the Jews, Elijah was considered the greatest of the Old Testament
    prophets. Together, Moses and Elijah represented the whole of the Old
    Testament Scriptures. The Jews did not divide the Old Testament in the same
    manner in which they are divided in the English Bible (books of history, poetry,
    and major and minor prophets). The Jews only recognized two divisions: the
    Law and the Prophets. In their giving honor to the glorified Christ, Moses and
    Elijah were declaring the God-Man as one greater than they, who were
    considered greatest among all men.

    Authority over the Temple


    The Temple was referred to in Scripture as the house of Jehovah.
    even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my
    house of prayer: their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted
    upon mine altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all
    peoples. (Isa 56:7)

    Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and
    the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the
    messenger of the covenant, whom ye desire, behold, he cometh, saith
    Jehovah of hosts. (Mal 3:1)

    Jesus claimed the Temple was His house.


    And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and
    bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and
    the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My
    house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of
    thieves. (Mt 21:12-13)

    Authority over the destiny of man


    Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before
    my Father which is in heaven. (Mt 10:32)

    470
    VII. The Son of God performs the work of God

    As Redeemer
    Old Testament
    For thy Maker is thy husband; Jehovah of hosts is his name: and the Holy One
    of Israel is thy Redeemer; the God of the whole earth shall he be called. (Isa
    54:5)

    New Testament
    in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our
    trespasses, according to the riches of his grace. (Eph 1:7)

    As Creator
    Old Testament
    In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1)

    The Spirit of God hath made me, And the breath of the Almighty giveth me life.
    (Job 33:4)

    New Testament
    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. All things were made by him;
    and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... 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. John bare witness of him,
    and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is
    preferred before me: for he was before me. (Jn 1:1-3, 14-15)

    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 1:16-18)

    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. (Heb
    1:1-2)

    Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God, to receive the glory and the honor and
    the power: for thou didst create all things, and because of thy will they were, and
    were created. (Rev 4:11)

    As Savior
    Old Testament
    For he said, Surely, they are my people, children that will not deal falsely: so he
    was their Savior. (Isa 63:8)

    471
    New Testament
    for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the
    Lord. (Lk 2:11)

    And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under
    heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

    As Judge
    Old Testament
    Before Jehovah; For he cometh, For he cometh to judge the earth: He will judge
    the world with righteousness, And the peoples with his truth. (Ps 96:13)

    New Testament
    in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by
    Jesus Christ. (Rom 2:16)

    But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at
    nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.
    (Rom 14:10)

    For we must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each
    one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done,
    whether it be good or bad. (2 Cor 5:10)

    As Forgiver of Sin
    And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him
    began to say within themselves, Who is this that even forgiveth sins? And he
    said unto the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. (Lk 7:48-50)

    Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give
    repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. (Acts 5:31)

    As Healer
    And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching
    the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of
    sickness among the people. And the report of him went forth into all Syria: and
    they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers diseases and
    torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed
    them. (Mt 4:23-24)

    And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy:
    who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt,
    thou canst make me clean. And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I
    will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. (Lk
    5:12-13)

    472
    And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him,
    and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And being moved
    with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto
    him, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway the leprosy departed from him,
    and he was made clean. And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him
    out, and saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to
    the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a
    testimony unto them. But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to
    spread abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a
    city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.
    (Mk 1:40-45)

    And there came unto him great multitudes, having with them the lame, blind,
    dumb, maimed, and many others, and they cast them down at this feet; and he
    healed them. (Mt 15:30)

    And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto
    the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis. And they bring
    unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they
    beseech him to lay his hand upon him. And he took him aside from the multitude
    privately, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat, and touched his tongue;
    and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be
    opened. And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and
    he spake plain. And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more
    he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it. And they were
    beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well; he maketh
    even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak. (Mk 7:31-37)

    And it came to pass, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the
    Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching him. And behold,
    there was before him a certain man that had the dropsy. And Jesus answering
    spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath,
    or not? But they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him
    go. And he said unto them, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a
    well, and will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day? And they could
    not answer again unto these things. (Lk 14:1-6)

    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 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 22:49-51)

    As Giver of Life
    Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man
    carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people
    of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her,
    and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that

    473
    bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that
    was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. (Lk
    7:12-15)

    Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And
    Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
    And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand
    by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had
    spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead
    came forth, bound hand and foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound
    about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. (Jn
    11:41-44)

    As Giver of Knowledge
    Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.
    (Lk 24:45)

    And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go
    before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation
    unto his people by the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our
    God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them
    that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of
    peace. (Lk 1:76-79)

    VIII. 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.

    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,”

    474
    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)

    [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

    475
    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)

    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

    476
    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
    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

    477
    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
    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)

    478
    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.

    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,

    479
    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)

    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)

    480
    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)

    IX. The Son of God possesses the character of God


    The character of God manifests how He relates to His creation. These expressions of
    His character are governed by His nature; therefore, it is not enough to merely state that
    God is good, faithful, just, etc., as if to say that any of these qualities are to be understood
    in the same manner in which they would be understood regarding mankind. For instance,
    since God is infinite by nature, the qualities which make up the character of God are
    likewise found to be without limit – He is infinitely good, infinitely just, etc. Since God is
    unchangeable by nature, He cannot be anything but good, faithful, or just. Since God is
    transcendent by nature, the qualities which make up the character of God are infinitely
    higher than any mortal expression of similar qualities.

    God is good
    The goodness of God is the kind and generous manner in which He expresses
    Himself to creation. He is good to both man and beast. He is good to those who love
    Him and those who despise Him. Since every good expression of God is infinitely
    good, there is no expression of God that can be any better or more generous than it is
    already. The goodness of God which extends to all creation is that benevolent
    governing by which life and the cosmos is maintained. It is according to His good
    will and pleasure that God keeps the earth rotating on its axis, gives man his breath,
    causes change in the seasons, gives nature and instinct to the beasts of the earth, and
    provides blessing and joy of innumerable sort.

    481
    In His goodness, God not only provides for His elect, but provides for both the
    just and the unjust. While every expression of God is infinitely good, the goodness
    which He extends to His elect goes beyond that which He extends to all mankind.
    The goodness which extends to all creation is a providential goodness by which all
    things are maintained and kept in order. The goodness which extends to God’s elect
    is a redemptive grace, or unmerited favor, by which guilt for sin is removed. Both the
    providential and redemptive goodness of God are infinite in that each provides the
    ultimate expression of goodness toward its intended end. Not everyone receives His
    redemptive goodness, but those who do, receive it infinitely.

    God’s goodness, whether providential or redemptive, is never extended to its


    object by virtue of any obligation or need on the part of God. God is good because it
    pleases Him to act in such manner, and the good manner in which He relates to His
    creation is not dependent on any act of man. When God gives a thing, He gives it to
    those undeserving, for none can merit the goodness of God. Even those whom God
    redeems from the guilt of sin receive such redemption through faith, but it is always
    by grace. Faith is the means, not the reason, by which such grace is applied to one’s
    account. The reason for such application of grace is the good pleasure of God, who
    chose His elect before the foundation of the world. Even faith itself is of the
    goodness of God, for were it not for the grace of God in removing the scales from
    the eyes and softening a hardened heart, the grace of God would be rejected at every
    turn by those whom He calls to be His children.

    The goodness of God is seen in all His works, whether such work is applying the
    righteousness of Christ to a sinner by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice for his sins or
    condemning the guilty to everlasting doom. In the case of the former, the goodness
    of God is evident without further discussion. In the case of the latter, the goodness of
    God is evident in that He has properly responded to that which He must condemn,
    being a just, righteous, and holy God. God cannot reward sin. God cannot permit the
    guilty to enter into His holy sanctuary. In His judgment of the guilty, He is doing that
    which is good by condemning that which is evil. If He did otherwise, He would not
    only be doing that which is not infinitely good, He would be doing that which is not
    good at all.

    That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his
    sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the
    unjust. (Mt 5:45)

    God is wise
    The knowledge of God has been previously discussed, but knowledge and
    wisdom are not one and the same. Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. One can be
    most knowledgeable, yet lack wisdom if he does not use that knowledge properly.
    On the other hand, one can be most wise, yet lack much knowledge, if he makes
    right use of the measure knowledge of which he is in possession. The wisdom of
    God is that which characterizes God’s purpose for all things. As He is infinitely wise,
    there is no greater plan or purpose than that which He has not already set in motion.
    He could create no greater world for man in which to live. He could provide no

    482
    greater means by which men are saved from sin. He chooses the best means by
    which the best end is achieved. He does not merely choose the best possible means
    or the best possible end, for if there were possible alternatives, then that which He set
    in motion would not certainly be executed with infinite wisdom.

    O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how
    unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! (Rom 11:33)

    For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at
    Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; That their
    hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the
    full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God,
    and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and
    knowledge. (Col 2:1-3)

    Jesus is wisdom personified in the writings of Paul when he identified the person
    of Christ as the “Wisdom of God.”

    but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles
    foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the
    power of God, and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor 1:24)

    Also, there is a parallel passage in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels concerning one of
    Jesus’ statements, in which His identification as Wisdom is evident. In the Matthean
    passage the words are attributed to Jesus, but in the Lucan passage, the words are
    attributed to Wisdom.

    Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, “... Wherefore, behold, I
    send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall
    kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and
    persecute them from city to city. (Mt 23:1, 34)

    Therefore also said the wisdom of God, “I will send unto them prophets and
    apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute.” (Lk 11:49)

    Scripture declares all things were created by Wisdom, who is Christ.

    Jehovah by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding he established the


    heavens. (Prov 3:19)

    For by him [Christ] 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: And he is
    before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col 1:16-17)

    483
    The early Christian apologist Justin Martyr serves as a testament to the belief in the
    early church that Jesus is Wisdom personified, when he declares, “[Christ] is
    addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom.”1

    The eighth chapter of Proverbs is a chapter devoted to the praise of wisdom, in


    which wisdom is personified in ways which foreshadow Christ. Since the early days
    of the church, this chapter of Proverbs has been understood as a personified
    description of the coming Messiah. Such interpretation is particularly evident in the
    following sections:

    I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions. The
    fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogance, and the evil way, and the
    froward mouth, do I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am
    understanding; I have strength. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
    By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth. I love them that
    love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honor are with
    me; yea, durable riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yea, than
    fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver. I lead in the way of righteousness,
    in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to
    inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. (Prov 8:12-21)

    Following this section of the chapter, Wisdom is described as existing prior to


    creation, when there was ever only God Himself. While the passage does speak of
    Wisdom as being “brought forth,” as Christ was “begotten” of God and “firstborn”
    of creation (the meanings of which having been previously discussed), it does not
    denote a time when Wisdom, the Son of God, did not exist. Wisdom is said to have
    been “from everlasting,” before creation, as one “by” and “with” God, as it was also
    said of John that the Word was not only “with God,” but “was God,” and later
    “became flesh.” (Jn 1:1-14). Moreover, Wisdom is here said to have been God's
    “daily delight, rejoicing always before him” before anything was created.

    The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I
    was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When
    there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains
    abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I
    brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the
    highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there:
    when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the
    clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to
    the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he
    appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up
    with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him. (Prov
    8:22-30)

    Finally, Scripture declares that it is through Wisdom, the Son of God, that men are
    loved by God and given spiritual life and salvation from sin.

    484
    For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he
    that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.
    (Prov 8:35-36)

    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. 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath
    everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath
    of God abideth on him. (Jn 3:16-18)

    For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed
    that I came out from God. (Jn 16:27)

    God is just

    The rule of God’s justice


    In the judicial system, judgment is pronounced and sentence is delivered
    according to a set code of legal principles, which we call law. Likewise, when
    God executes justice He does so according to law. Since there is no authority
    higher than God, the law by which He judges is His own. Since God is infinitely
    wise and good, His judgments are always executed in righteousness; that is,
    when He pronounces judgment, His judgment is always the right judgment. As
    there is no higher authority than God, His judgments cannot be subject to
    appeal. His rule is final. As the Great Judge of all, He is bound by His own
    nature to reward that which is good and punish that which is evil. The
    determination of what is good and what is evil is done according to how a thing
    conforms to the moral principles God has established, and these principles are
    established in accordance with His being.

    He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of
    truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deut 32:4)

    Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall
    go before thy face. (Ps 89:14)

    Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.


    (Ps 119:142)

    The longsuffering of God


    God’s judgments are not always swift. At times, He chooses to delay
    judgment when doing so is suited to His purpose, such as when God endures the
    wickedness of man in order to bring him to repentance. In the end, however,
    justice will be satisfied. Any such delay of God’s judgment is due to the
    outpouring of His goodness in spite of the wickedness of man, as it was in the

    485
    days of Jonah when God endured the wickedness of Nineveh so that He might
    send His prophet Jonah to call the people of Nineveh to repentance.

    By what are men judged?


    As stated above, God judges mankind according to His own law, but what
    exactly is that which is brought into evidence either for or against man?
    Scripture teaches that man is judged according to his works. These works will be
    judged according to their nature, whether or not they are in conformity with
    God’s law, and according to the truth which has been revealed to man. All men
    have some awareness of a Higher Being, even if only by virtue of creation and
    the contemplation of the origin of all things. Beyond such a natural revelation of
    God, truth has also been revealed to mankind in varying degrees, from person to
    person. One’s judgment will be according to not only whether his works
    conform to God’s law, but also according to how much of God’s law was made
    known to the man. In short, the verdict is pronounced according to works, while
    the severity of the sentence is according to the amount of truth made known to
    the accused. In the final analysis, all men get what they deserve, for God
    rewards and punishes not arbitrarily, but according to the merit of individuals as
    evidenced by their conduct, a reflection of that which is in the heart.

    But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall
    give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be
    justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Mt 12.36-37)

    For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one
    may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done,
    whether it be good or bad. (2 Cor 5.10)

    And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the
    earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And
    I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were
    opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the
    dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books,
    according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it;
    and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were
    judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast
    into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found
    written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Rev 20.11-15)

    Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones,
    wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day
    shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try
    every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath
    built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be
    burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
    (1 Cor 3.12-15)

    486
    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on
    him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
    condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (Jn 5.24)

    But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be
    beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall
    be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they
    will ask the more. (Lk 12.48)

    God’s righteous anger


    The apostle John states that “God is love,” yet in so doing, he is not defining
    what God is entirely. Yes, God is love, but He is not only love, for He is also full
    of wrath in His stance against sin. It must be remembered that John’s letter was
    written to Christians – those whom God has called into a loving relationship
    with Him; therefore, to John’s readership, love is that emotion which governed
    God’s relationship to them. However, concerning the remainder of humanity,
    God responds with vehement hatred – and so should He, for the nature of these
    ones is contrary to the very nature of God’s being. Anyone whose sins have not
    been paid for by the blood of Christ remains at enmity with God, as adversaries
    hostile to a king. Such hostility may not be readily evident in their thoughts,
    words, or deeds, but the state of the heart reveals their true disposition. Scripture
    speaks of the unregenerate man as a “natural man,” (1 Cor 2:14) with a heart of
    “stone,” (Ez 36:26) and, as such, is “dead” to God (Eph 2:1) and in “bondage to
    sin.” (Rom 6:6) It is this state of being which God despises, not because the
    “natural man” has committed heinous, gross sins, but because he is sin himself.
    In other words, he is sinful because of what he is, not because of what he does. It
    is this state of being which God must hate, being a holy God who loves
    righteousness. Scripture is not gentle when describing God’s wrath against the
    sinner. Since God is eternal, His wrath can go on forever – it is an eternal,
    inescapable consuming rage. God delivers a harsh blow in His response to sin,
    yet His hand never delivers punishment which is “cruel and unusual.” The
    recipients of His wrath is deserving of their affliction. Neither God’s love nor
    His wrath is universal or arbitrary. He gives to each man according to what he
    deserves, and in so doing, God remains just in every judgment which He
    pronounces.

    God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is
    furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth
    wrath for his enemies. The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and
    will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind
    and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. He rebuketh the sea,
    and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Bashan languisheth, and
    Carmel, and the flower of Lebanon languisheth. The mountains quake at
    him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the
    world, and all that dwell therein. Who can stand before his indignation?
    and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like
    fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. The LORD is good, a strong

    487
    hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him. But with
    an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and
    darkness shall pursue his enemies. (Nahum 1.2-8)

    Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity. (Heb 1:9)

    Jesus is the Judge


    The apostle John identifies Jesus, not the Father or Spirit, as the great Judge
    of all man. This is not because of any inadequacy in either the Father or Spirit to
    pronounce judgments that are right and good; but rather, the Father pleases to
    relinquish all judgment to the Son, whom the Father has appointed to a position
    above all things.

    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 honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
    (Jn 5.22-23)

    The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, … raised him from the dead, and made
    him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule, and
    authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only
    in this world, but also in that which is to come: and he put all things in
    subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the
    church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. (Eph
    1:17, 20-23)

    who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and
    authorities and powers being made subject unto him. (I Pet 3:22)

    For he hath been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by so much as
    he that built the house hath more honor than the house. (Heb 3:3)

    Justice and Mercy


    In order for God to be truly just, His justice must always be satisfied and sin
    must always be punished. So how is it that guilty men can be redeemed? Does
    not the mercy of God negate the justice of God if the guilty are proclaimed
    righteous? When God forgives a sinner, He does so not because the sinner’s
    guilt has been abolished without the penalty for sin being satisfied; but rather,
    because the penalty for sin has been satisfied by the one who has no guilt – Jesus
    Christ. The work of Christ provided atonement for sin; that is to say, through His
    sacrifice He took upon Himself the penalty for sin, so that by virtue of His
    sacrifice those who would otherwise be punished can now be adopted by God as
    sons. In His acceptance of the penalty for sin, Christ did not intrinsically take
    upon Himself the guilt of sin, for there could be no sin in Him. Had sin entered
    into His being, He would have been inadequate of providing atonement for the
    sin of others, since He would then become a sinner in need of a savior of His
    own. In Christ’s acceptance of the penalty for sin, the just was punished unjustly,

    488
    yet willingly, so that God Himself did not become unjust in placing upon
    Himself the penalty of sin. On the cross, God the Son took upon Himself His
    own wrath for sin, so that the guilty would be spared from such terrible a fate. In
    so doing, He was charged with man’s guilt – He received what His people
    deserved to that they would never pay the ultimate penalty for their offense. The
    eleventh century philosopher Anselm asked how a just God can spare the
    wicked. In conclusion, he stated, “God’s being is unitary; it is not composed of a
    number of parts working harmoniously, but simply one. There is nothing in His
    justice which forbids the exercise of his mercy. … God is never at cross-
    purposes with Himself. No attribute of God is in conflict with another. God’s
    compassion flows out of His goodness, and goodness without justice is not
    goodness. God spares us because He is good, but He could not be good if He
    were not just. When God punishes the wicked, … it is just because it is
    consistent with their deserts; and when He spares the wicked it is just because it
    is compatible with His goodness; so God does what becomes Him as the
    supremely good God.”2

    There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.


    (Rom 8.1)

    If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to
    cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (I Jn 1.9)

    So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the


    rudiments of the world: 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.
    And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our
    hearts, crying, Abba, Father. So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a
    son; and if a son, then an heir through God. (Gal 4:3-7)

    God is truthful and faithful


    The truthfulness of God guarantees that all He has said and revealed can be
    trusted implicitly. The faithfulness of God guarantees that His promises are sure
    because He will forever remain true to them.

    Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his
    great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
    from the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth
    not away, reserved in heaven for you, who by the power of God are guarded
    through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (I Pet 1:5)

    God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should
    repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not
    make it good? (Num 23:19)

    Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. (I Thess 5:24)

    489
    When God instituted His covenant with Abraham, that through his seed, the future
    Messiah, shall people of all nations be blessed, Abraham asked for a sign of the
    surety of the covenant, a sign which God gave by making use of a custom familiar to
    Abraham. In antiquity, when two parties made an oath, or “cut” a covenant, it was
    common practice to slay an animal, divide it in half, and lay the two pieces of flesh
    on the ground, with a space separating the two. Then, those who were to make the
    covenant together would walk between the pieces in a solemn oath that neither
    would break the bonds of the covenant. In so doing, they were signifying the
    solemnity of the oath in stating that the life of one would be forfeit were he to break
    the covenant. In essence, they were saying, “As it was for this animal, so be it done
    to me if I break this covenant.”3 In His vision to Abraham, God manifested Himself
    in visual form passing alone through the pieces of flesh. In providing such a sign to
    Abraham, was stating the absolute veracity of His covenant by stating that it is He
    alone who keeps His covenant. Only God, not God and Abraham, passed through the
    pieces of flesh. The keeping of God’s promise is not dependent on the will or
    working of anyone other than Himself. Since God is unchanging, He will never
    renege on that which He has promised, thus, those whom He redeems are redeemed
    forever – no one will ever be plucked out of His hand. Those who have been
    forgiven will surely remain forgiven; those who remain guilty will surely be judged
    and condemned for their sin.

    And he said unto him, I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees,
    to give thee this land to inherit it. And he said, O Lord Jehovah, whereby shall I
    know that I shall inherit it? And he said unto him, Take me a heifer three years
    old, and a she-goat three years old, and a ram three years old, and a turtle-dove,
    and a young pigeon. And he took him all these, and divided them in the midst,
    and laid each half over against the other: but the birds divided he not. … And it
    came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a smoking
    furnace, and a flaming torch that passed between these pieces. In that day
    Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this
    land. … And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed
    after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God
    unto thee and to thy seed after thee. (Gen 15: 7-10, 17-18, 17:7)

    For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater,
    he swore by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I
    will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
    For men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for
    confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the
    heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath;
    that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may
    have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope
    set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and
    steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil. (Heb 6:13-19)

    God not only speaks the truth, He is the source of truth. Apart from Christ, there
    is no other true path to God. All religions do not lead to God, for each religion states

    490
    something different about who or what God is. Speaking of Christ, Peter preached,
    “in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven,
    that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) Elsewhere, the
    same disciple confessed to Christ, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words
    of eternal life.” (Jn 6:68) Peter recognized the reality of Christ – the truth that it is in
    His name alone and by His sacrifice alone that men receive the redemptive blessing
    of the Father.

    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh
    unto the Father, but by me. (Jn 14:6)

    God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should
    repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not
    make it good? (Num 23:19)

    If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim 2:13)

    Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for he is faithful
    that promised. (Heb 10.23)

    God is loving
    The apostle John states, “God is love.” (I Jn 4:8) Here, the apostle is making
    distinctions between those who teach truth and those who teach falsehood. In so
    doing, he declares, “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” John is not
    defining what is God – that is, he is not stating “love is God,” for in so doing he
    would be robbing God of His being and reducing the concept of God to a mere
    abstract, such as the emotion of love. In fact, the very same writer, and in the same
    letter, states, “love is of God.” (v 7) Were God a mere abstract emotion, He would not
    have the ability to cause any flow of love into or from another being. Also, to reiterate
    what has been previously mentioned, in stating “God is love,” John is not defining
    what God is entirely, for God also delivers terrible judgments and punishment for sin.

    The nature of God’s love

    God’s love is specific


    J.I. Packer stated, “God's love is an exercise of His goodness toward
    individual sinners whereby, having identified Himself with their welfare, He
    has given His Son to be their Savior, and now brings them to know Him and
    enjoy Him in a covenant relation.”4 God loves individuals. Prior to creation,
    He chose certain ones from the pool of humanity, as yet uncreated, whom
    He would redeem and call to Him in an everlasting relationship. The objects
    of His choice were those ones to whom He would reveal the truth of the
    Gospel. The reason for His selection of these individuals is simply that it
    pleased Him to do so, for nothing within any of these ones urged or
    compelled God to love them. The result of His choice was that these ones
    would receive salvation from sin. God is infinite in His grace, but His

    491
    saving grace is infinitely given only to those whom He has chosen;
    therefore, the recipients of such grace receive it without measure.

    All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the
    Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,
    and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Mt 11:27)

    For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our
    Lord Jesus Christ. (I Thess 5:9)

    Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ


    to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. (Eph. 1:5)

    The subject of election and predestination has been a topic of heated


    debate within Christian circles since the days of the apostles. While a full
    treatment of God’s election is outside the bounds of this work, a brief
    address is in order when discussing the character of God. The common
    question posed usually assumes the following form: “How can a loving,
    good, and just God choose not to redeem everyone, when He certainly has
    the ability to do so?” This sort of objection involves two presuppositions: 1)
    that God should save everyone, as if He is under obligation to do so, and 2)
    that man is in some sense deserving of such salvation. Neither of the two
    presuppositions is correct. God’s salvation is by grace, which is given
    unworthily (otherwise the giving of salvation would not be of grace, but of
    reward). If God chose no one for salvation, He would still be a just God,
    since in so doing, He would be dealing to every man the right consequence
    for his sin. Rather than the Christian asking, “Why does God not redeem
    everyone,” he should really ask, “Why does He redeem anyone at all,” or
    fall in humble reverence at the feet of the Savior and ask, “Why did You
    redeem me?” The fact that anyone receives salvation is the cause for awe
    and wonder. The object of God’s choice is individuals. The result of God’s
    choice is that these ones receive salvation and are adopted as sons. The
    cause of God’s choice was solely His good pleasure, not foreseen faith or
    good works.

    God’s love is voluntary and according to His good pleasure


    God does not need to love anyone, yet, in His grace and goodness, He
    chooses to love sinners. His love for sinners is not due to anything in the
    sinner that is worthy of His love, nor is His choice a response to the call of
    man. Man does come to God freely, but, all the while, it is God doing the
    calling. Even the ability to come to Him in faith is an act of God’s grace, for
    without the moving of the Spirit of God, no one would possess the ability to
    even have the faith to come, for faith itself is a gift of God (Eph 2:8). Faith
    and good works are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Rather,
    sinners are only worthy of His wrath. If every man got what he deserved, no
    one would be loved by God, for all are by nature children of wrath (Eph
    2:3). God loves whom He will. Likewise, He abhors whom he will. Man, in

    492
    his natural sinful state of being, is an abomination to God, being so far
    removed from that which is in conformity to the divine nature. These ones,
    being worthy of God’s contempt, receive their just recompense for their sin.
    God’s hatred for the sinner is not an unjust hatred, for by His nature, He
    must abhor sinners – anything else would be a violation of His justice. The
    reason that the redeemed can be loved by God is because He took upon
    Himself the consequence for their sin. Therefore, there is no injustice in
    either His love for the saints or His hatred for the sinner. In both cases,
    justice is satisfied. Concerning the sinner, justice is satisfied by their
    condemnation, according to God’s wrath. Concerning the saint, justice is
    satisfied by God taking upon Himself, and on their behalf and in their stead,
    His own wrath for sin.

    And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will
    proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to
    whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show
    mercy. (Ex 33:19)

    (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or
    evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of
    works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall
    serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I
    hated. (Rom 9:11-13)

    Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity (Heb 1:9)

    God’s love is eternal and unchanging


    Those whom God loves have the benefit of that love for all eternity. .
    The love He has for His elect is an eternal love. He chose the object of His
    love before that object was even created. He loved them before the
    beginning of the world, He loves them now, and He will love them forever.
    Because He is true and faithful, He can never turn from love to wrath in His
    disposition to these ones. He does chastise and punish, but such does not
    negate the Father-son relationship that God has fashioned between He and
    His people. Man, by nature, is at war with God. God, by grace, has made
    peace with those whom He has chosen. As His wrath is an eternal wrath, so
    is His peace an eternal peace.

    According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the


    world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.
    (Eph 1:4)

    But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren
    beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you
    to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
    (2 Thess 2:13)

    493
    Jehovah 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)

    God’s love is infinite and transcendent


    In declaring His love for His elect, God is announcing a love towards
    them which pales in comparison to the love given by any other person. The
    love of God is infinite and given without condition or respect to merit. His
    love is self-sacrificial, given at the cost of His own life in the person of
    Jesus, and this life He gave so that He could love His elect, for without the
    ridding of guilt, the fatherly love of God could extend to no one. The love
    of God for His people is infinite; that is, the love which He has for His
    people is a love which knows no end. All that He does in the lives of those
    whom He has redeemed is done because of His infinite love for these ones.

    For I am persuaded, 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 creature, shall be able to separate us
    from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:38-39)

    The testimony of the apostle Paul


    The following passage is Paul’s classic treatise on election (verse divisions
    have been included for further discussion).

    10 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by
    our father Isaac — 11 for the children being not yet born, neither
    having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according
    to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, 12 it was
    said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 Even as it is written,
    Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there
    unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will
    have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on
    whom I have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor
    of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. 17 For the scripture
    saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I
    might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published
    abroad in all the earth. 18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and
    whom he will be hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth
    he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? 20 Nay but, O man,
    who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to
    him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? 21 Or hath not the
    potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a
    vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? 22 What if God, willing
    to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much
    longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: 23 and that he
    might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which

    494
    he afore prepared unto glory, 24 even us, whom he also called, not from
    the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:10-24)

    Some things worthy of note in this passage:


    God loved Jacob (Isaac’s son) before he was born. (v 10)
    God’s love for Jacob was according to His purpose of election, not
    according to any work of Jacob. (v 10)
    God did not love Esau (Jacob’s brother). (v 13)
    In choosing to love one and hate another, God is not acting unrighteously. (v
    14)
    God extends mercy to those He chooses according to His will. (v 15)
    God raised Pharaoh and hardened his heart according to His purpose. (v
    17-18)
    Man cannot resist the will of God, as clay cannot resist the will of the potter.
    (v 20-21)
    Every man is chosen to be either a vessel of wrath or a vessel of mercy. (v
    21)
    Those chosen as vessels of mercy were chosen as such before they came
    into being. (v 23)

    The jealousy of God


    His relationship with His people is of supreme value to Him, and this He has
    secured with the most costly of all means – the shed blood of His own Son, who is
    the very essence of God Himself. Man could not save himself, for he could not
    perform any work which would rid himself of his guilt. No man becomes sinful
    due to actions committed in his lifetime. Likewise, no man becomes righteous by
    performing good actions. Scripture is very clear that man is born into a state of sin
    (Rom ch 3). Man is sinful not because of what he does, but because of what he is.
    As a leopard cannot change his spots, so can a man not change his nature. He
    cannot make himself free of sin. Therefore, his redemption must of necessity come
    from without, the work of redemption being done by another who does not share
    the same guilt of sin. This relationship God has with His people is one which He is
    very earnest to protect, and He does so by guaranteeing that the keeping of His
    covenant is dependent solely on His own doing, rather than man having to do a
    part in the keeping thereof. It is this earnest zeal that Scripture refers to when
    speaking of the jealousy of God – not a jealousy that is envious or covetous of
    another thing, but a jealousy which cherishes that of which one is already in
    possession. As a husband, faithful and true to his wife, cherishes his marital bond
    and will act in earnest to safeguard it, so is God earnest to safeguard the covenant
    He made between Himself and man. It is in this spirit of jealousy that God
    chastises His people when they go astray, as a shepherd returns wandering sheep to
    the fold.

    And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are
    judged; and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy. And I will also give
    thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and
    shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes,

    495
    and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare. They shall also
    bring up a company against thee, and they shall stone thee with stones, and
    thrust thee through with their swords. And they shall burn thine houses with
    fire, and execute judgments upon thee in the sight of many women: and I
    will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no
    hire any more. So will I make my fury toward thee to rest, and my jealousy
    shall depart from thee, and I will be quiet, and will be no more angry. (Ez
    16.38-42)

    And he spake unto them this parable, saying, What man of you, having a
    hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and
    nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And
    when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he
    cometh home, he calleth together his friends and his neighbors, saying unto
    them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost. (Mk
    15:3-6)

    Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin: and ye have
    forgotten the exhortation which reasoneth with you as with sons, My son,
    regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord, Nor faint when thou art
    reproved of him; For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, And scourgeth
    every son whom he receiveth. It is for chastening that ye endure; God
    dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father
    chasteneth not? (Heb 12:4-7)

    The greatest love


    Self-sacrifice is the greatest expression of love. Such love places the welfare of
    another above one’s own, regardless of cost. It is this love with which God loves
    His elect.

    Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
    friends. (Jn 15:13)

    Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to
    lay down our lives for the brethren. (1 Jn 3:16)

    God is gracious and merciful


    Grace is that unmerited favor which God extends to all mankind, although grace
    does not always have a redemptive purpose in view. Because God is a good God, He
    extends a common grace to all men by which they live and breathe, and by which all
    life and order is maintained and governed. Beyond this common grace, He also extends
    a redemptive grace by which men are freed from the guilt of sin. Thus, men are
    redeemed by grace because of the mercy of God. The following excerpt from the
    apostle Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus richly describes the blessings which God
    has bestowed on His people.

    496
    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, to
    the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the
    Beloved: in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of
    our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace. (Eph 1:3-7)

    And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
    … and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: — but God, being rich
    in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead
    through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye
    been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the
    heavenly places, in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might show the
    exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus: for by grace
    have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of
    God; not of works, that no man should glory. (Eph 2:1, 4-9)

    By the grace of God, believers are:


    Chosen before creation
    Declared holy and blameless
    Predestined unto adoption
    Redeemed from sin
    Forgiven of trespasses
    Raised from spiritual death to spiritual life
    Changed from children of wrath to sons of God
    Loved by God
    Saved by the grace of God, not by the works of man

    There has only ever been one means by which men are saved from sin, and that is
    by grace. Even in the days of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets of old, with such an
    emphasis on law and the observance of a sacrificial system, it was still by grace that
    anyone was redeemed. The laws and ceremonies were a mere shadow of a
    redemption which would be accomplished in the future with the sacrifice of Christ.
    The blood sacrifices of the Old Testament times were not the means by which
    atonement for sin was made, but were merely an expression or foreshadow of the
    redemption decreed before creation and fulfilled in a later time in human history with
    the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

    God’s grace and mercy are always given unworthily. If anyone ever deserved
    such benefit, then the application of such benefit would be God’s response to man’s
    worth, and grace would be a reward, not a gift. Grace is never given because it is
    deserved. Rather, grace is given to those who are blind to the light of truth and deaf
    to the words of God. It is by grace that the scales are removed from the eyes, and by
    grace that the ears are opened to the word of truth. Likewise, mercy can only be
    shown to those in need of mercy. However, while man, steeped in sin, is in dire need

    497
    of the grace and mercy of God, God does not need to move as such toward anyone,
    but because He is good, He delights in being gracious and merciful to those whom
    He will.

    God is holy
    What does it mean to be holy? Holiness involves purity and separation – thus, to be
    holy is to be set apart from that which is impure. The holiness of God is that which
    guarantees His eternal sinlessness and incorruptibility. He is holy not because He has
    separated Himself unto purity, but because He is purity itself. His holiness is not
    imparted due to any action or inaction on the part of God. Rather, God is holy because
    of who He is. His holiness is original, intrinsic holiness – that which is essential and
    natural to His existence. Since God is holy, His holiness characterizes all that He does.
    He loves with a holy love and He judges with a holy justice.

    And the angel answered and said unto her [Mary, the mother of Jesus], 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 1:35)

    For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from
    sinners, and made higher than the heavens; (Heb 7:26)

    But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One [Jesus], and asked for a murderer
    [Barabbas] to be granted unto you. (Acts 3:14; cf. Mt 27:17-22)

    The power of God’s holiness


    It is the holiness of God which moves men to repentance and reveals to them
    their sin. When faced with the reality of God’s holiness, man cannot but be
    brought trembling to his knees. Those who despise God will bow the knee in fear
    and dread, as ones unworthy and unable to stand on holy ground, while those
    whom God has called according to His grace will bow in awe and reverence, as
    ones made worthy and able to stand in the presence of the divine majesty.

    The holiness of the saints


    In Scripture, believers are often referred to as saints. Today, sainthood has taken
    an entirely new and heretical meaning in that men and women are declared saints
    who are able to receive the prayers of believers, yet no such concept is found in
    Scripture. The word “saint” simply means “holy one;” that is, one who is separated
    unto God. God calls Christians to “be holy, as [He] is holy.” (I Pet 1:16) and “to
    present [their] bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.” (Rom 12:1) The
    Old Testament saints lived under a rigid sacrificial system in which the flesh and
    blood of animals was offered to God. When Christ came, the sacrificial system
    became obsolete, as the true sacrificial Lamb of God, of whom all previous
    sacrificial lambs were but a foreshadow, gave His own blood for the sin of God’s
    people. Since then, the saints of God are not required to offer animal sacrifices, but
    to be the sacrifice themselves, not as ones placed on the altar of sacrifice, but as
    ones living a life of sacrifice, consecrated and separated unto God. This living

    498
    sacrifice is not the sacrifice by which sin is forgiven (even in Old Testament times,
    salvation came by faith in God, not through the sacrificial system itself), but is a
    sacrifice of thanks, offered to the one who gave Himself for their sins. The
    righteousness of the saints of God is the righteousness of Christ, which is
    bestowed upon them. As He took on our flesh, His righteousness is placed upon
    them. Christians share in His nature and are able to stand in God’s presence not
    because of any righteousness of their own, but because they stand clothed in the
    righteousness of Christ Himself. Moreover, the saints of God are not just seen as if
    they are righteous in God’s sight, as if righteousness is merely reckoned to their
    account; but rather, saints are seen as righteous in His sight. It is a transfer of the
    righteousness of Christ onto their persons.

    The tri-fold declaration


    In John’s vision, the following anthem is declared of Christ:

    Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is
    to come. (Rev 4:8)

    The use of repetition was a Hebrew expression to denote emphasis, much like
    modern writers would use bold or italic type. Jesus used the same expression in
    many of His discourses when he prefaced His teaching by saying, “Truly, truly, I
    say until you.” (the KJV renders it as “verily, verily”) When the Jews heard this,
    they would recognize that His words were of such import that they should be heard
    with attentive ears. Likewise, John makes use of the same expression to draw
    attention to a particular aspect of deity – the holiness of God. The expression was
    typically employed by use of a two-fold repetition, such as that which Christ
    employed in His teaching. Yet, John placed an even greater emphasis on holiness
    by using not merely a two-fold repetition, but a three-fold repetition. In essence,
    John was stating not just what was best about God, but what was the best of the
    best.

    X. 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
    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)

    499
    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)

    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)

    500
    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)

    XI. 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
    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)

    501
    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)

    XII. 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)

    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)

    502
    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)

    XIII. 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
    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-

    503
    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
    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

    504
    XIV. 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)

    XV. 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,
    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

    505
    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)

    XVI. Jesus' resurrection compared to other resurrections


    found in the Bible
    The Bible contains several other resurrections besides that of Jesus Christ. These
    accounts are cited in the passages below:

    Elijah raises a woman’s son


    And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the
    house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him.
    And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? art thou
    come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son? And he said unto
    her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a
    loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed. And he cried unto the LORD,
    and said, O LORD my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I
    sojourn, by slaying her son? And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and
    cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul
    come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the
    child came into him again, and he revived. And Elijah took the child, and brought
    him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and
    Elijah said, See, thy son liveth. And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know
    that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth. (1
    Kings 17:17-24)

    Elisha raises a woman’s son


    And the woman conceived, and bare a son at that season that Elisha had said unto
    her, according to the time of life. And when the child was grown, it fell on a day, that
    he went out to his father to the reapers. And he said unto his father, My head, my
    head. And he said to a lad, Carry him to his mother. And when he had taken him, and
    brought him to his mother, he sat on her knees till noon, and then died. … And when
    Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed.
    He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the
    LORD. And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth,
    and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands: and stretched himself upon
    the child; and the flesh of the child waxed warm. Then he returned, and walked in the

    506
    house to and fro; and went up, and stretched himself upon him: and the child sneezed
    seven times, and the child opened his eyes. And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this
    Shunammite. So he called her. And when she was come in unto him, he said, Take up
    thy son. Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground, and
    took up her son, and went out. (2 Kings 4:17-36)

    Jesus raises a woman’s son


    Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried
    out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city
    was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto
    her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still.
    And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and
    began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. (Luke 7:12-15)

    Jesus raises Lazarus


    Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus
    lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew
    that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that
    they may believe that thou hast sent me. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with
    a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and
    foot with grave clothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto
    them, Loose him, and let him go. (John 11:41-44)

    Each of these accounts is unlike the resurrection of Jesus in that these ones were raised
    to their previous state of existence and still subject to the eventual law of death, whereas
    Jesus was raised in the same body, but in a glorified state which would never again see
    death. Additionally, there is a distinction relating to the power by which these individuals
    were brought back to life. In the cases of Elijah and Elisha, the prophets called on the
    power of the Lord to raise the dead, whereas in the accounts in which Jesus raised the
    dead, He did so in His own power. In other words, Elijah and Elisha had to pray for the
    power of God to act. Jesus simply commanded the dead to “arise” and “come forth.” In
    both cases involving Jesus, the dead did not rise because He prayed to God, but because
    He said, “I say unto thee, Arise.” He raised the dead on His own authority, not on a power
    greater than His own.

    XVII. 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)

    507
    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).

    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

    508
    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
    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)

    509
    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:
    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.

    510
    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
    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.

    511
    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)

    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

    512
    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)

    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)

    XVIII. 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.

    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

    513
    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
    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

    514
    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
    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 1: 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.

    515
    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 2: 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
    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)

    516
    Theory 3: 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)

    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

    517
    women of faith throughout every generation, will endue for all eternity, being upheld
    and maintained by the power of God alone.

    Theory 4: 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.

    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.

    518
    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)

    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)

    519
    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)

    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)

    520
    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.

    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

    521
    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


    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 (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.

    “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.”3

    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.

    522
    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...”4

    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.’”5

    “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
    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

    523
    an animal possessed of shape, because their nature is in itself
    simple.”6

    “… 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.”7

    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.”8

    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
    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

    524
    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.”9

    “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.”10

    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.”11

    “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.”12

    525
    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.”13

    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.

    “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.”14

    526
    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
    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

    527
    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.17

    XIX. Jesus' sacrifice was once for all


    Pagan deities who are said to have been resurrected are merely personifying the
    annual cycle of vegetation, thus these deities are said to be killed and resurrected on
    an annual basis. The Christian faith is vastly different from this type of reoccurring
    naturalist symbolism. The nature of Jesus’ work was that it satisfied the justice of
    God on a once-for-all basis. Never again will there need to be a sacrifice for sin, for
    the one and only Lamb of God was slain once for sin, the just being sacrificed for the
    unjust, so that they shall forever be rid of the guilt of sin.

    A Tale of Two Adams


    The New Testament contrasts Adam and Christ as the head of mankind.

    Wherefore, as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
    and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin
    was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death
    reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the
    similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
    But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one
    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. And not as it was by one that
    sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free
    gift is of many offenses unto justification. 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 [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so
    by the righteousness of one [Christ] 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 5:12-19)

    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. … And so it is
    written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a
    quickening spirit. (1 Cor 15:21-22, 45)

    Adam, the first man, became corrupted by sin and passed that corruption, along
    with its accompanying curse of death, onto all men. Christ is referred to as the
    second Adam, in that through Him man receives salvation from the sin passed on

    528
    through the first Adam. So it is said that in Adam all die, but in Christ all shall be
    made alive. The relationship of Adam and Christ to mankind is one of representation.
    Those who are “in” Adam are represented by him and therefore inherit the same
    curse which he received for his transgression. Likewise, those who are “in” Christ
    are represented by Him and therefore inherit the same reward which He receives by
    virtue of His righteousness. Those represented by Adam stand as those guilty of
    offense, whereas those represented by Christ stand as those who are justified from all
    offense. In Adam, man stands as disobedient and sinful; in Christ, man stands as
    obedient and righteous. Also, as the curse came through Adam by one act of
    disobedience, so does salvation come through Christ by His one sacrificial act. The
    question then becomes: If all men are represented by Adam, in what way are “all”
    men represented by Christ, since not all mankind is justified in the sight of God? The
    answer to this question is understood through the following syllogism:

    1. Adam is the representative of his seed (his seed being those who are born
    according to the flesh) and every member of his seed inevitably receives the
    judgment due to Adam: death and condemnation. Thus, in Adam all those who
    are represented by him, perish.

    2. Christ is the representative of His seed (His seed being those who are born
    according to the Spirit) and every member of His seed inevitably receives the
    judgment due to Christ: righteousness and blessing. Thus, in Christ all those
    who are represented by Him, live.

    3. Therefore, all who are represented by Adam (any member of the human race),
    suffer death, but all who are represented by Christ (any member of God’s elect
    race), shall receive the the righteousness of Christ.

    The doctrine of limited atonement is that Christ died for God’s elect, not for the
    whole of humanity. He gave His blood to save “those whom the Father had given
    Him,” His “sheep,” none of whom “would be lost.”

    These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the
    hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast
    given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as
    thou hast given him. … I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou
    gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they
    have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast
    given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest
    me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from
    thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not
    for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. (Jn
    17:1-2, 6-9)

    Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us
    with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath
    chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and

    529
    without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption
    of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.
    (Eph 1:3-5)

    The fact of the matter is that every Christian believes in the doctrine of limited
    atonement. One either believes the atonement is limited in who it redeems, or it is
    limited in how it provides redemption. The former relates to the object of the
    redemption – God’s elect; the latter, to the effect of redemption – whether or not the
    work on the cross actually redeems sinners. Christ did not just provide a way that
    man might be redeemed. Rather, He effectually secured the redemption of those
    whom who He did redeem. When He cried, “It is finished,” He declared that those
    for whose sins He paid were actually justified and free from their former guilt. Those
    who believe that Christ did not secure redemption for God’s elect; but rather, made a
    way for all men to be redeemed, should they place their faith in Christ. The truth is
    that Christ said, “It is finished,” not, “It is possible.”

    XX. Jesus is the High Priest for His people and the
    Mediator of the covenant God made with man
    The writer of the book of Hebrews, using language rich in flavor and description, lays
    out the work of Christ as the Mediator of a new covenant made with God and man.

    Christ was made flesh so that He might partake in our nature and trials
    In the incarnation, Christ took upon Himself mortal flesh and blood. In His
    humanity, He experienced a normal human development and felt man’s ailments and
    pain. When the sinner is declared just in the sight of God, upon him is placed the
    righteousness of Christ, so that he may now and forever experience the favor of God
    and partake in the blessings rightfully belonging to the one eternal Son of God.

    Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like
    manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him
    that had the power of death, that is, the devil; … Wherefore it behooved him in
    all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and
    faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins
    of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to
    succor them that are tempted. (Heb 2:14, 17-18)

    Christ was made High Priest by virtue of having shared in our nature
    It is in His sharing of man’s nature and experience, and by virtue of the blood He
    shed for sin, that the Father has made Christ a High Priest for His people. As Christ
    took upon Himself our position, so do believers share in His position as justified
    before God. As He was clothed in our flesh, so now are Christians clothed in His
    righteousness in an everlasting sharing of position. In ancient times when two men
    formed a covenant between themselves, they would often exchange some of their
    possessions, including their robes, as a token that they became inseparably united as
    one entity under the terms of the covenant. Such an instance is found in the first book

    530
    of Samuel where it is said that Jonathan, Saul’s son, gave his robe to David as a
    token of the covenant between them (I Sam 18:3-4). We see a modern-day reflection
    of this in the institution of marriage where the bride takes for herself the family name
    of her groom, and the two become one. In so doing, they were essentially saying, “I
    am putting you onto myself. We now become one.” When the Word of God became
    flesh and took His dwelling among man, He “took upon” Himself human flesh (Phil
    2:5) and was made in the “likeness of sinful flesh.” (Rom 8:3) Likewise, those who
    have been justified through the shed blood of Christ are described in Scripture as
    ones who have been clothed with righteousness, as well as ones who have “put on
    Christ.” (Gal 3:27) A person who has “put on” Christ is one who is then represented
    by Christ; henceforth, he no longer stands before God in his own righteousness,
    which is as filthy rags, but in the righteousness of Christ, who is eternally without
    blemish. To the ancient mind, one’s robe symbolized his status and value. Such is
    illustrated in the life of Joseph, the youngest male child of Jacob, yet it was this
    child, not the eldest, to whom was given the coat of many colors, an article of
    clothing which conveyed a great honor upon the wearer. So it is with the
    righteousness of Christ, put onto every believer. The Christian, clothed in Christ’s
    righteousness, stands before God not as a sinner worthy of condemnation, but as a
    son, beloved by God throughout all eternity.

    Having then a great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the
    Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest that
    cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in
    all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near
    with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find
    grace to help us in time of need. (Heb 4:14-16)

    Christ is not a Priest who needs to offer sacrifice for His own sin
    During the time of Moses God established a priesthood within the Hebrew
    people. From then until the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., priests offered
    sacrifices for the sins of the people, as well as for their own sin. Christ, having no sin
    in Him and being shameless and pure in His humanity, did not need to make sacrifice
    for any iniquity of His own. Unlike earthly priests, the priesthood of Christ is
    performed solely with the iniquity of others in view.

    For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in
    things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: who
    can bear gently with the ignorant and erring, for that he himself also is
    compassed with infirmity; and by reason thereof is bound, as for the people, so
    also for himself, to offer for sins. (Heb 5:1-3)

    The surety of God’s covenant between Himself and man


    When God established His covenant to Abraham in Genesis chapter fifteen, He
    required nothing of Abraham in the keeping of this covenant. The covenant rite was
    performed by God alone, with Abraham present as a witness, not a participant. Since
    God is unchanging in His determination or purpose, His promises will forever

    531
    remain true, and since the covenant is maintained by the power and word of God
    alone, those who benefit from it have the surety it will never be broken.

    For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater,
    he swore by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I
    will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
    For men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for
    confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the
    heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath;
    that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may
    have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope
    set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and
    steadfast. (Heb 6:13-19)

    The surety of the new covenant is greater than the old covenant, having a High
    Priest who presides forever
    Christ, being the eternal Son of God, will forever serve as a High Priest for His
    people. His office will never cease, as does any office held by man. Neither will
    Christ ever become apathetic nor lethargic in His priestly duty, and this function will
    He forever perform with the utmost zeal and devotion to those for whom He makes
    intercession.

    By so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant. And they
    indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are
    hindered from continuing: but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his
    priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore also he 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 7:22-25)

    The superiority of Christ’s priesthood


    Christ’s priesthood is superior than its prefigurements in that His priesthood is
    conducted by one who is greater than those before Him, and also that the sacrifice
    made by Christ is effectual, rather than typical, as were the sacrifices of old, of a
    greater sacrifice. Whereas earthly priests offered sacrifices regularly, the sacrifice
    offered by Christ was once for all. The sacrifices of man must of necessity be
    continual, as these sacrifices are offered by those who themselves were in need of
    redemption. Christ, having no guilt in Him, needed not to make a continual sacrifice.
    Also, the sacrifices which earthly priests offered were but foreshadows of the
    sacrifice of Christ in that the earthly sacrifices prefigured the cleansing of sin,
    whereas the sacrifice of Christ made such cleansing a reality.

    For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from
    sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like those
    high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of
    the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself. For the law
    appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which
    was after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore. (Heb 7:26-28)

    532
    Christ’s priesthood is a fulfillment of the old priesthood
    Here, the writer of Hebrews arrives at his “chief point:” that the priesthood
    established with Moses was but a shadow of a much greater reality which was
    realized in the priesthood of Christ. Christ, the great High Priest, is described as
    having “sat down” by the Father, thereby signifying His sacrificial act was done for
    all eternity. On the cross, Christ satisfied once for all the wrath of God against the sin
    of His people. Therefore, having declared, “It is finished,” He sat down at the
    Father’s side, His work done and His people redeemed by virtue of His having paid
    the penalty for their sin.

    Now in the things which we are saying the chief point is this: We have such a
    high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
    heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord
    pitched, not man. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing
    there are those who offer the gifts according to the law; who serve that which is
    a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses is warned of God
    when he is about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all
    things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount. (Heb 8:1-5)

    Having finished the work of redemption, Christ became the Mediator of the
    new covenant

    Christ as the Prince of Peace


    A mediator serves as a middle person between two disagreeing parties.
    Christ’s work as Mediator is two-fold in that He both reconciles man to God as
    well as makes intercession to the Father on man’s behalf. Adam, the first man,
    was created in a state of innocence, but upon choosing to sin, that innocence was
    shattered and the friendship with God broken. It is this broken friendship that
    Christ reconciles in His role as Mediator, and He does so through the blood He
    shed in order to satisfy His own wrath against sin. Without such sacrifice, God’s
    people would still be at enmity with God and still be sentenced to pay the just
    price for such enmity. It is for this reason that Isaiah referred to the coming
    Messiah as the Prince of Peace, having brought together in loving union two
    parties who would otherwise forever remain in opposition to one another. In His
    role as Mediator, Christ directs His attention to the Father in that He presented
    Himself a living sacrifice for sin and henceforth lives to nurture and forever
    maintain the peace secured by His sacrifice. He also directs His attention toward
    man in that through Him was revealed the fullness of the Godhead in bodily
    form, and following His departure from this world, He sent the Spirit of God to
    move man according to the Father’s will.

    His fitness as the one and only Mediator between God and man
    As “a mediator is not of one,” (Gal 3:20) that is to say, not of one of the two
    divided parties, so is Christ’s role a Mediator performed as one who is a bridge
    between both God and man, a function which He assumed when He took on a
    human nature. At the incarnation, the humanity of Jesus was neither deity nor
    sinful flesh. As the God-Man, He retained His divine nature, yet added to that a

    533
    human nature which knew no sin; therefore, making Him, in His humanity, the
    perfect man, capable of experiencing an unbroken fellowship with His Creator.
    That is why He can serve as Mediator, in that He, as the created, virgin-born son
    of Mary, lived the life that man would live were it not for sin – a life of perfect
    obedience to all that God has decreed. For that reason, He kept the Law of
    Moses during His time on earth, with all its ceremonies and practices. As the
    God-Man, Christ became neither the sinner nor the one who was offended by
    virtue of man’s sin. Therefore, He can act as a Mediator between these two
    parties, reconciling that which no one else can. For this reason, He said, “No one
    can [not “may” – as denoting permission, rather than ability] come to the Father
    but by Me.” (Jn 14:4)

    And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name
    under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved. (Acts
    4:12; cf Jn 6:68)

    The Mediator between God and man must be a man


    Christ’s role as Mediator is likened to the role of the kinsman-redeemer, a
    role established during Israel’s exodus from Egypt.

    And if a stranger or sojourner with thee be waxed rich, and thy brother be
    waxed poor beside him, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner with
    thee, or to the stock of the stranger’s family; after that he is sold he may be
    redeemed: one of his brethren may redeem him; or his uncle, or his uncle’s
    son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may
    redeem him; or if he be waxed rich, he may redeem himself. (Lev 25:47-49)

    According the Levitical law, a slave could be redeemed, or bought back, from
    bondage if one of his kin paid the required ransom. The New Testament speaks
    of man as being a slave and in bondage to sin. Since man is unable to redeem
    himself, Christ became like him, sharing in his nature so that man could be
    redeemed by one among his own kin. In taking human nature, Christ claimed the
    legal right, according to Levitical Law, to redeem His own, being one in
    possession of the likeness of that very same nature which transgressed the Law
    of God, yet being the only one with that nature now capable of keeping the Law.
    Since the ransom for man required the shedding of blood, the Messiah needed to
    take upon Himself a human nature, with all the limitations of that nature,
    including the capability to bleed and to die. This is the superiority of the
    sacrifice over and against the sacrifices of the Old Testament, in that He, being
    made into a perfectly obedient man, offered His body itself as the sacrifice for
    sin.

    The Mediator between God and man must also be God


    No man can stand in the presence of God, until the end of days when all sin
    will be wiped away and God’s people will see Him face to face. For that reason,
    the Mediator between God and man needed to be one from among the Holy
    Trinity, one who can be in the presence of the Father, able to present to Him the

    534
    sacrifice necessary for man’s salvation, and also make intercession to the Father
    in the keeping of that salvation. The kinsman-redeemers of old presented the
    required ransom, thereby freeing their brothers, for only family could free
    family. So does the Messiah offer a sacrifice worthy of man’s redemption, by
    virtue of His supremacy as the Son of God. The Messiah needed to be more than
    man in order to avoid the curse of sin placed upon all humanity. Were He an
    ordinary man – fully human, but without a second divine nature, the shedding of
    His blood would pay only for His sin. His death, as such, would have no value
    to anyone.

    “… if the human nature was a person, as it must be a finite one, what was
    done and suffered by it, must be finite also, and of no use but to that person,
    and could have no sufficient virtue and value in them to justify men, and
    atone for sin; but these two natures being in personal union, the works and
    actions of either, though distinct and peculiar to each, yet belong to the
    whole Person, and are predicated of it; and so those of the human nature
    have virtue and efficacy in them, from the personal union, to make them
    effectual to the purposes for which they were designed, without which they
    would be ineffectual. … The advantage of this personal union is, that the
    divine nature has an influence upon, and gives virtue and dignity to
    whatsoever is done or suffered in the human nature.”1

    However, as God, holy and blameless, He is capable of saving, to the uttermost,


    those who come to Him. The Mediator, in taking on a human nature, became
    one having two natures, human and divine, yet He remains one person. It was
    this person, the God-Man, who died on the cross for sin, and it the value of His
    blood, the blood of the God-Man, that is a sufficient ransom for sin.

    Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath
    made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with
    his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

    Because the Mediator between God and man is the God-Man Himself, those
    for whom He has made reconciliation, and for whom He ever lives to make
    intercession, can rest assured that such reconciliation will never be broken and
    that the Father will always heed the Son’s intercession.

    But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is


    also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better
    promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place
    have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold,
    the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the
    house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant
    that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand to lead
    them forth out of the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant,
    And I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will
    make with the house of Israel After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my

    535
    laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be
    to them a God, And they shall be to me a people: For I will be merciful to
    their iniquities, And their sins will I remember no more. (Heb 8:6-12)

    A recapitulation of the first priesthood


    From the time of Moses until the time when Jerusalem was destroyed by the
    Babylonians, the Jews had in their presence the Ark of the Covenant, the sacred chest
    housed within the Holy of Holies, the innermost room of the Temple. It was in this
    room where the physical representation of God’s presence, the ark itself, rested
    behind a thick veil, and where only the high priest would enter once a year to make
    the most solemn of sacrifices, made for the sin of the people. This he did by
    sprinkling blood on the mercy seat, the golden covering on the Ark of the Covenant.

    Now even a first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and its sanctuary, a
    sanctuary of this world. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the first, wherein
    were the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the Holy
    place. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holy of
    holies; having a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid
    round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and
    Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and above it cherubim
    of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat; of which things we cannot now speak
    severally. Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests go in
    continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services; but into the
    second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he
    offereth for himself, and for the errors of the people. (Heb 9:1-7)

    The inferiority of the first priesthood


    The presence of the veil separating the Holy of Holies, the most sacred of the
    Temple rooms, from the rest of the Temple symbolized that access to God had not
    yet been made a possibility. When Christ died for sin, He made such access a reality.

    536
    Although the sacrificial work of Christ was accomplished before creation (in that He
    was slain “from the foundation of the world”), the fulfillment of that accomplishment
    was not realized, or “made manifest,” in history until Jesus died on the cross. Since
    the sacrifices made in the earthly Temple did not actually pay for sin, the way into
    the innermost room remained closed to all but the high priest, and even he exempted
    just once a year.

    The Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the holy place hath not yet
    been made manifest, while the first tabernacle is yet standing; which is a figure
    for the time present; according to which are offered both gifts and sacrifices that
    cannot, as touching the conscience, make the worshiper perfect, being only (with
    meats and drinks and divers washings) carnal ordinances, imposed until a time
    of reformation. (Heb 9:8-10)

    The effectualness of Christ’s priesthood


    The earthly sacrifices, made with the hands of those who were in need of
    forgiveness themselves, did not effect forgiveness of sin, but merely typified the
    actual forgiveness given by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice, mankind remained in need of
    a greater sacrifice by which he would actually be cleansed from sin. By virtue of the
    earthly sacrifices, men were legally cleansed; however, by virtue of Christ’s
    sacrifice, man is effectually cleansed of sin.

    But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the
    greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of
    this creation, nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own
    blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal
    redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer
    sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh:
    how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered
    himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to
    serve the living God? (Heb 9:11-14)

    The new covenant is sealed with the blood of Christ, the Testator
    The writer then states, “for this cause [Christ] is the Mediator of a new covenant.”
    The “cause” to which he refers is the superiority and effectualness of Christ’s
    sacrifice, made with His own blood, over and against the sacrifices made by man
    with the blood of beasts. In other words, because of the effectiveness of Christ’s
    sacrifice, He is now the Mediator of that covenant which was sealed by His own
    blood.

    And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having
    taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first
    covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal
    inheritance. For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him
    that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth
    never avail while he that made it liveth. Wherefore even the first covenant hath
    not been dedicated without blood. For when every commandment had been

    537
    spoken by Moses unto all the people according to the law, he took the blood of
    the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled
    both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant
    which God commanded to you-ward. Moreover the tabernacle and all the
    vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood. And
    according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and
    apart from shedding of blood there is no remission. (Heb 9:15-22)

    A covenant, or testament, is a declaration of what is to be done after the death of


    the testator, the one whose wishes are delineated in the will, as is the case when
    household head dies and leaves a “last will and testament” detailing how his assets
    are distributed to those named in his will. It is a document stating his final wishes,
    testifying to what the deceased testator is unable to testify himself. The formation of
    the testament is due to the testator’s good will and love for his benefactors. The
    testator has the right to bequeath his possessions to those whom he chooses,
    declaring who is to benefit from his death.

    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: even as thou gavest
    him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give
    eternal life. (Jn 17:1-2)

    It is the testator’s death which seals the will and makes real the stipulations by
    which others receive such benefit, for the benefits of the will are not received by the
    beneficiaries and the blessings of the will not conferred as long as the testator is
    living. Upon the death of Christ, the blessings of God’s covenant are imparted to
    those for whom He died – to those were chosen before creation, whose names are
    written in the Book of Life (Rev 20:15).

    Scripture testifies that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.”

    For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar
    to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by
    reason of the life. (Lev 17:11)

    When Adam sinned, he brought upon himself the curse of death, a disposition which
    passes to all men. The curse of sin requires the life, or blood, of man. In Scripture,
    the shedding of blood symbolized cleansing from sin, as the writer of Hebrews
    states, “according to the law, … all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from
    shedding of blood there is no remission [of sin].” In order for God’s people to be
    redeemed, it was necessary for blood to be shed. By the shedding of His blood, the
    blood of the covenant, Christ sealed His will, through which others are named
    beneficiaries and receive the blessing of being called sons of God by adoption.

    And as they were eating [in the upper room, prior to Jesus’ betrayal], Jesus took
    bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take,
    eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them,

    538
    saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is
    shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mt 26:26-28)

    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. 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. (1 Cor 11:23-25)

    In the shedding of Christ’s blood, the covenant is made effectual, the promises of
    the old covenant are fulfilled in the new covenant, as the stipulations of an earthly
    testament stand only as promises until the testator is deceased and the benefactors
    receive the promised blessings.

    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, to
    the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the
    Beloved: in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of
    our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, (Eph 1:3-7)

    Christ’s sacrifice was once for all, unlike the sacrifices made by the priests
    before Him
    The sacrifices of the Old Testament were made with the blood of animals, but the
    sacrifice made in the New Testament was made with the blood of Christ Himself,
    thus giving infinite and eternal worth and value to His sacrifice, in contrast to the
    value of the animal sacrifices made prior to His being offered as the final sacrifice
    for sin. In order for the new covenant to be sealed and the blessings conferred
    thereby, blood needed to be shed by one who had no sin of His own; otherwise, the
    shedding of His blood would only pay for His sin, rather than the sin of others. Also,
    if Christ had sin of His own, the shedding of His blood would be a requirement,
    rather than an act done voluntarily. The value of Christ’s sacrifice is that which
    requires no more sacrifice on His part. In a single sacrifice, He paid the penalty for
    sin once and for all.

    The author of Hebrews then draws a parallel between the death of man and the
    death of Christ, in that both need die only once, and after death to appear before God
    to be judged by God according to their merit. All men shall die or undergo a change
    likened to death, as did Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11). For the believer
    in Christ, death is a cause for joy and a means of blessing, but for the remainder of
    humanity, death is a cause for utmost dread and terror. At death, the soul returns to
    God to be judged according to his deeds, which are a product of one’s faith, as Jesus
    said, “by their works you will know them,” (Mt 7:16) and elsewhere Paul advises
    that the reprobates “profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him,

    539
    being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work.” (Titus 1:16) In like
    fashion, Christ died once for sin, and in so doing was presented before the Father, on
    behalf of sinful man, as one bearing the likeness of sinful flesh and the image of
    corrupted humanity. Then, the wrath of God being satisfied and Christ being justly
    cleared of all such blemish (for sin was placed upon Him, not found in Him), He is
    then presented before the Father, again on behalf of the same, as one without sin, and
    one able to abide in the presence of God the Father. In His first appearance before the
    Father, while He hung upon the cross, Christ stood charged with the sin of many, in
    His second appearance; He stands as one having all such likeness of sin being
    discharged against His account and on the behalf of the account of those for whom
    He died. He first appeared before the Father, as if one with sin, so that all those
    whose sin He bore would have the penalty paid for their sin. He appeared a second
    time before the Father, as one without sin, so that those same ones could also appear,
    as if without sin. Sin still abides in man, yet one day God will eradicate even the very
    presence of sin, so that those who now are reckoned as if they have no sin will one
    day stand before God without sin being even a reality in their being – and this shall
    be so not because they made themselves sinless, but because they stand before God
    through identification with Christ; that is to say, they stand as ones represented by
    one in whom sin has never been a reality in His being.

    It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be
    cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices
    than these. For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in
    pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God
    for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into
    the holy place year by year with blood not his own; else must he often have
    suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once at the end of the ages
    hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And
    inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh
    judgment; so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many,
    shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto
    salvation. (Heb 9:23-28)

    Christ offered His body as a better sacrifice than the sacrifices offered under the
    old covenant
    The sacrifice offered annually before Christ did not make sinners “perfect” before
    God; that is, the penalty for their sin remained unpaid, despite the sacrifice for sin
    being made annually in the sight of God. These sacrifices were not effectual because
    they were a mere shadow of the sacrifice which would prove effective in satisfying
    God’s justice. It was to this end that the Father prepared a body for the Son, through
    which the Son would, agreeably so, assume real flesh and blood, yet not assuming
    the sin of the flesh. Having offered His own body, a sacrifice greater than any which
    had before been presented, as the final sacrifice for sin, He sat down at His Father’s
    side, His work being finished and the justice and wrath of God being satisfied with
    regards to the sin of His elect.

    540
    For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of
    the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer
    continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased
    to be offered? because the worshipers, having been once cleansed, would have
    had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a
    remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of
    bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the
    world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou
    prepare for me; In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no
    pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me)
    To do thy will, O God. Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt
    offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein
    (the which are offered according to the law), then hath he said, Lo, I am come to
    do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which
    will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ
    once for all. And every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and
    offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins: but
    he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right
    hand of God; henceforth expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his
    feet. (Heb 10:1-13)

    The blessings conferred by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice


    Presently, Christ serves as the one and only Mediator between God and man, ever
    appeasing the wrath of God which would otherwise come down upon those covered
    by His sacrifice. Yet, there comes a day when God will not merely reckon believers
    guilt-free; moreover, He will erase even the reality of sin, making His people really
    free of all guilt. Following that day, there will be no further need for Christ to
    reconcile man to God, for the parties will then abide in an everlasting fellowship,
    unhindered by any present blemish standing as an obstacle to such fellowship. From
    thenceforth, God’s people will stand in His presence, without a Mediator, able to see
    God face to face, as He is, in all His divine glory. As the veil of the Temple separated
    the Ark of the Covenant, the physical representation of God’s presence, from the
    people of Israel, so does sin separate God’s people from His presence.

    When Christ died, the veil of the Temple was torn in half.

    And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit. And behold,
    the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom. (Lk 27:50-51)

    The rending of the veil bears a two-fold significance. First, as the death of Christ
    paid the penalty for the sin of God’s people, making any further sacrifice
    unnecessary, there was no longer a need for the Judaic sacrificial system, and
    therefore no need for the Temple itself. Second, by the work of Christ, the way to
    God was laid bare for those represented by Christ’s sacrifice. Previously, the veil
    stood as a symbol of the division between God and man, as a broken bridge
    separating two sides of a chasm, but now with that division mended and access to
    God once again, and forevermore, a reality, any such symbol of that former division

    541
    now became obsolete. The flesh of Jesus, being subjected to various Roman
    cruelties, was torn and mutilated, and it was through this surrender of His flesh and
    blood that there is restoration made to the former division between God and man.
    While presently this access to the Father is through the mediation of Christ, and by
    His virtue, the day will come when saints will stand before Him in boldness and
    without a Mediator.

    For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. And the
    Holy Spirit also beareth witness to us; for after he hath said, This is the covenant
    that I will make with them After those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws
    on their heart, And upon their mind also will I write them; then saith he, And
    their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of
    these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to
    enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated
    for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having
    a great priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in fullness
    of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our
    body washed with pure water. (Heb 10:14-22)

    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. (I Jn 3:2)

    And there shall be no curse any more: and the throne of God and of the Lamb
    shall be therein: and his servants shall serve him; 4and they shall see his face;
    and his name shall be on their foreheads. (Rev 22:3-4)

    The supposed similarity to Mithraism


    Mithraism, as with Christianity, professes that there exists a mediator between
    God and man, and it has been charged, even in early times, that Christians borrowed
    such a Mithraic concept when formulating their body of doctrine. Ancient Mithraism
    referred to Mithra as a mesites, or mediator; however, the type of Mithraism which is
    compared to Christianity is Roman Mithraism, a variation of an earlier Persian
    religion. Following that, it serves to note that Mithra was not introduced to Roman
    religion (as Mithras) until a century following Jesus' life.2 If there was any borrowing
    to be done, it was on the part of the Mithraists, as Justin Martyr stated, “...wicked
    devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithra, commanding the same thing to be
    done.”3 Additionally, as stated previously, the Jews' religious pride and disdain for
    pagan religion would have prevented any such borrowing from pagan mythology.
    Presently, knowledge regarding ancient Mithraism is very casual and fragmented,
    due to the lack of texts which bear his name. It is impossible to truly understand the
    intricacies of Mithraic doctrine at the time following Christ and, therefore, any
    accusation against Christianity on this ground is rooted in speculation rather than
    evidence. Regardless, that one deity is named a mediator is no ground for arguments
    against the originality of another who refer to its deity by the same title. As stated in
    a previous heading, similarity in titles among deities is nothing which should come
    as a surprise to any student of religion. Also, the essence of Christ’s priestly role is at

    542
    the heart of His role as Mediator. In contrast, Mithra's role as mediator is derived
    from his position in the cosmos, as being the god of light who hovers at the mid-
    point between heaven and earth, rather than serving as a mediator in a preordained
    plan for man's redemption. Mithra never sacrificed himself at all, whereas, Christ
    gave His own life. The only sacrifice in Mithraism is that of Mithra slaying a bull.
    These differences between Mithra and Christ, along with the differences mentioned
    under previous headings, serve to discredit any such similarity between the two
    religions concerning the mediating activity of the two figures. Those who claim
    otherwise simply need to check their sources and do more research.

    XXI. Jesus existed as an historical figure


    Without restating what has already been addressed concerning the historicity of the
    life of Jesus of Nazareth, it will merely serve here to remind the reader that Jesus was a
    person who lived a real life, walked among real men and women, and did so during a
    definite time in history. Pagan deities, on the other hand, are said to have existed in an
    ageless past, with no relation to a specific time in history, and their names are not
    addressed in any ancient writing as historical persons possessing actual flesh and blood.
    If a pagan deity is stripped of the mythology concerning him, the deity is then reduced to
    nothingness. In the case of Jesus, were He not the incarnate Son of God, and even if the
    supernatural character of the Gospels were removed and the writings proven to be
    falsified accounts (the refutation of such a notion will be the focus of Part six), Jesus of
    Nazareth would still remain as a human being who really walked this earth over two
    thousand years ago.

    XXII. The Gospel of Christ does not change


    Pagan deities commonly have more than one version of their story, as there are often
    varying accounts of one’s birth or death. Attis, for example, has numerous ways in which
    it is said he died, but such is not the case with Christ. In the case of Jesus there exists four
    four accounts which do not differ in content one from another. In each Gospel, He is
    virgin-born (although Mark and John do not provide a birth narrative, such a manner of
    birth is implied in their Gospels), performed the same type of miracles, preached the
    same doctrine, and died and rose in the same fashion. Throughout the past two-thousand
    years, this Gospel of Christ has not changed, and this serves as yet another characteristic
    in which Jesus of Nazareth stands apart from deities recognized by pagan religions.

    XXIII. Concerning Jesus' state of mind


    The Gospels record that Jesus made many fantastic claims about Himself. Jesus'
    portrayal as such in this record is either true or false – either He did make such claims or
    He did not. If He did not, then one of two conclusions must be reached: that the record is
    a legend regarding an actual man known as Jesus of Nazareth, or that the record is a myth
    about a man who never existed in the first place. Both of these propositions has been
    refuted throughout this book; therefore, there is no need to repeat the evidences here to
    their contrary. However, if Jesus did in fact make the claims attributed to Him in the
    Gospels, then one of three conclusions must be reached: that He was a liar, that He was

    543
    insane, or that He was exactly who He claimed to be, that us, God in the flesh. This
    trilemma (“Lord, liar, or lunatic”) was made popular by the late apologist C. S. Lewis in
    his book Mere Christianity, in which he states:

    “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often
    say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept
    his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a
    man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He
    would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg
    — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this
    man was, and is, the Son of God else a madman or something worse. You can shut
    him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his
    feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense
    about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not
    intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend:
    and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to
    accept the view that He was and is God.”1

    The use of such a trilemma as an argument for Jesus' deity is based on assumptions
    made concerning His frame of mind at the time when these statements were made. Since
    it is impossible to conduct an analysis on a person who lived two thousand years ago
    based on observation or interviews conducted with the subject himself, then conclusions
    must be reached based on an analysis of the written record and what is known of the
    culture in which that person lived. In this case, the written record is, of course, the
    Gospels themselves, and considerations based on that record are grounded in the belief
    that such a record is historically accurate. Since the integrity and accuracy of the Gospel
    accounts are the focus of Part six of this book, I will reserve such comments for inclusion
    therein and proceed here on the premise that the Gospels record the events of Jesus' life
    as they actually occurred.

    Some of the claims Jesus made about Himself:


    Oneness with God:
    I and the Father are one. (Jn 10:30)

    Eternal glory with God:


    And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before
    the world began. (Jn 17:5)

    Omnipotence:
    All power in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me. (Mt 28:18).

    That He was a King:


    Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to
    prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” “You
    are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king.
    In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the
    truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” (Jn 18:36-37 NIV)

    544
    That He was without sin:
    Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you
    believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not
    hear is that you do not belong to God. (Jn 8:46-47 NIV)

    That He was sent by God:


    If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now I am
    here. I did not come on my own, but He sent me. (Jn 8:42 NIV)

    That he would return again to judge the world


    When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, He will sit on
    his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He
    will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep and the
    goats. (Mt 25:31-32)

    That He has the authority to forgive sin:


    And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My sons, your sins are
    forgiven.” (Mk 2:1-12 NIV)

    That He was not of this world:


    He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am
    not of this world." (Jn 8:23 NIV)

    That He was the promised Messiah, whom the prophets foretold:


    The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ);
    when He comes, He will show us all things.” Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you
    am He." (Jn 4:25-26 NIV)

    That He was Lord of the Sabbath:


    For the Son of Man is master even of the Sabbath (Mt 12:8)

    The only means of access to God:


    I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
    me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. ( John 14:6-7 NIV)

    He is the only source of knowledge of God:


    All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows who the
    Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom
    the Son chooses to reveal him." (Lk 10:22 NIV)

    That He would be executed, then rise from the dead on the third day:
    The Son of Man is going to be handed over to the power of men, and they will kill
    Him. And on the third day He will be raised to life again. (Mt 1 7.~22-23 NIV)

    545
    That He is the source of eternal life:
    Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though
    he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do
    you believe this?" ( John 11:25-26 NIV)

    Consideration one: was Jesus a liar?


    If Jesus was not divine, and if He was aware of His lack of divinity, then His
    preaching and teaching constituted nothing more than a successful deception.
    However, if He knew that He was not the Son of God, and if He knew that His death
    would have no redemptive power, then He would have lacked the motivation
    necessary for desiring to give His life for the sin of His people. When one is aware of
    his utter inability to perform a certain feat, then he consequently lacks the motivation
    needed to accomplish that feat. For instance, a person who knows he cannot fly like
    Superman will have no motivation for saying, “Up, up, and away,” then jumping off
    of a roof. Additionally, the lifestyle of Jesus was not marked by characteristics that
    would portray Him as one benefiting from such a deception. Although Jesus was
    revered and worshipped by His disciples, His claims to deity did not bring him
    fortune or material glory. Rather, such claims were met with scorn, hatred, and,
    eventually, execution. At some point, were He preaching deceptive lies, He would
    have concluded that enough was enough, then likely retreated elsewhere, where He
    would be free from such a negative reputation. Also, His personality also does not fit
    the profile of a man whose intent it was to deceive loyal followers. Jesus’ lifestyle
    was marked with poverty, ridicule, and suffering, yet through it all He remained
    loving and full of compassion. Humanly speaking, He had nothing to gain by
    propounding the things He did concerning His person and His mission. . The only
    crown He was ever given was a crown of thorns, not a crown studded with finely
    polished jewels. Finally, if Jesus were lying about His deity, then His hopes for
    success would be the things of delusion, for the Jews were the last people on earth
    who would have naturally accepted the notion that God would lower Himself to mere
    humanity, and any claim of oneness with God would be met with accusations of
    blasphemy and death by stoning. The Jewish concept of God’s person was too high
    to favor such a belief, unless it was evidentially true. Since Jesus’ claims to deity
    were backed by His actions (that is, His miracles), and His eventual resurrection,
    which He foretold beforehand, then His followers were supplied with proofs that
    both verified His claims and transcended traditional Jewish beliefs.

    Consideration two: was Jesus a lunatic?


    If Jesus was not God, but was unaware of His lack of divinity, then He could
    rightly be classified as a person suffering from the psychosis known as delusion,
    marked by a cognitive separation from reality. A delusional disorder does not have to
    be accompanied by hallucinations, schizophrenia, or any other form of mental
    illness. According to psychologist Karl Jaspers, the only diagnosis that is needed to
    determine if a person is delusional is the determination that the patient unwaveringly
    holds to one or more non-realistic beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary.2
    Such a person does not need to display behavioral disorders that would prevent him
    from being fully functional in society, or being successful both at home and at work.
    Jaspers identified two types of delusions, which he termed primary and secondary.

    546
    Primary delusions, he said, sprout up suddenly and do not consist of beliefs which
    can be reckoned with on a rational basis, whereas secondary delusions develop over
    time and emerge from one’s response to circumstances in his life, be it conditions
    relating to his childhood or to certain traumas or stress in one’s life. Jesus began His
    public ministry near the age of thirty, the age when a Hebrew male could legally hold
    a position as rabbi or teacher. This ministry effected a drastic change in the public’s
    perception on Him, so much so that the people of Nazareth did rejected him on the
    basis of His humanity. They could not make the leap of faith required to elevate a
    common neighbor to divine status. Perhaps a critic could say that Jesus’ belief in His
    identity as the promised Messiah was a belief that had been spoon-fed into Him since
    He was a child, then later in adulthood evolved into a belief in which He was
    persuaded so far as to claim to actually be the Messiah that His parents said He
    would be. After all, He was born in Bethlehem and was of the lineage of David.
    Biographically speaking, Jesus fit all the requirements of the job description. Still,
    there remain many events in Jesus’ life that transcend such a simplistic explanation.
    What about the star that guided the magi, or Herod’s act of killing children in and
    around Bethlehem, or the many healings and miracles Jesus performed?
    Furthermore, such an explanation does not account for the circumstances
    surrounding His execution – that He would be sold for thirty pieces of silver, or be
    crucified and given gall and vinegar to drink, or that the Romans would cast lots for
    His garments, or that in His execution He would be accompanied by criminals, or
    that His bones would remain unbroken, or that He would be pierced by a spear, or,
    most importantly, that He would rise from the dead? A reduction of Jesus’ messianic
    claims to such a psychological profile does not take into account these factors.
    Furthermore, If Jesus’ parents had spoon-fed messianic expectations into Him as a
    child – expectations by which He would become convinced that He was indeed the
    promised Messiah, then the characteristics of His work as the Messiah would have
    taken on a much different tone than that which is described in the Gospels. Jesus’
    portrayal of the Jewish Messiah, while fitting perfectly in line with what was
    prophesied in the Old Testament, did not line up with prevailing messianic
    expectations of the time. The Jews did indeed expect the coming of the Messiah
    promised by the prophets of old, but their understanding of such prophetic utterances
    lent them to believe in a type of Messiah other than who is described in the Hebrew
    Scriptures. Such predominant messianic expectations will be addressed in Part six of
    this book, so I will not address them here, but will merely make the claim that had
    Jesus’ messianic role been pre-programmed into His psyche, then His ministry would
    have taken on a more militaristic character, not as a Messiah who brought spiritual
    deliverance from sin; but rather, as a Messiah who brought about the national
    restoration of Israel and the gathering together of its twelve tribes.

    In his book Delusional Disorder, psychologist Alistair Munro named nine


    indicators of a delusion.3 A short look at these indicators will serve to separate Jesus
    from someone merely suffering from a mental delusion.

    The patent holds to his delusion with the absolute conviction that it is true.
    The patent’s adherence to his delusion will effect a change in his lifestyle.

    547
    When questioned about his delusion, the patent is often secretive about his
    beliefs.
    The patent is typically serious in demeanor and exhibits oversensitivity of
    emotion.
    The patent accepts whatever his delusion leads him to believe.
    In the face of opposition to his delusion, the patient often reacts with irritability
    and hostility.
    The patent’s delusion consists of beliefs which are unlikely to be or become
    reality.
    The patent is so consumed with his delusion that it affects other elements of his
    psyche.
    When acting out his delusion, the patent exhibits behavior which is abnormal,
    but understandable in light of his delusion.
    Those who are familiar with the patient will notice uncharacteristic changes in
    his behavior.

    Jesus believed He was the Son of God, and His belief in such an identity was one
    to which He held with utmost conviction, and one which brought about a drastic
    change in His life. However, Jesus, as described in the Gospels, does not exhibit the
    erratic behavior that Munro associated with a delusional patient. Jesus, when
    questioned, rather than running away like a dog with his tail between his legs, gave
    rational answers which were so profound that they confounded the inquisitors. He
    made no attempt to hide His beliefs, but rather preached the Gospel to all who would
    listen. Neither is Jesus described as a person wrought with emotion. There are only a
    few instances when Jesus’ emotion is described in the Gospels, most notably His
    weeping at the tomb of Lazarus and upon seeing Jerusalem, and His anger at the
    merchants who had set up tables in the Temple. When opposed, Jesus responded
    calmly and coherently, not with the rantings of a madman. Even during His trial and
    execution, He did not fight tooth and nail with His accusers; but rather, remained
    silent before them.

    Consideration three: was Jesus exactly who He claimed to be?


    Neither of the above two profiles of Jesus can explain the proofs by which He
    made His identity known – namely, the miracles He performed. His miraculous work
    served to support His claims to deity. But, some would say (as did Jesus’ opposition)
    that Jesus did no miracles at all; but rather, was a mere illusionist. In modern times,
    the illusionist known as Criss Angel has dazzled audiences with feats such as mind
    reading, levitation, surviving various certain deaths, and even walking on water.
    Why then could not Jesus’ miracles have been the same substance as Angel’s
    illusions? First of all, it must be remembered that Jesus not only performed feats that
    were visually astounding, such as walking on water, transfiguration, and turning
    water into wine, but also performed miracles of healing and resurrection. Those who
    were cured of blindness, lameness, and diseases were not just made to believe that
    they had been cured, but instead evidenced the lack of infirmities that had once
    oppressed them. Jesus’ miracles, more often than not, took on this sort of nature, by
    which a real change was effected in a person, a change which was evident to others
    not present at the time the change occurred. Besides, if Jesus had merely been a

    548
    skilled illusionist, then He would also be a liar, which, as stated above, is a theory
    that is wrought with fallacies all its own. Finally, Jesus resurrection was no illusion
    and is not a thing that Jesus could have effected if He was a mere magician (for a
    refutation of critics’ attempts to explain Jesus’ resurrection, I refer the reader the
    previous heading concerning the historical character of Jesus’ resurrection).

    The need for a verdict


    The evidence for the historicity and nature of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the
    Gospels, is, as Josh McDowell has said, evidence which “demands” a verdict. Many non-
    Christians deny Jesus’ deity, yet regard Him as a moral man and a great teacher. If one
    does not consider Jesus to be who He claimed to be; but rather, a mere liar or lunatic,
    then by what estimation could His teaching be considered great, or on what grounds
    could He be considered a moral man, since He was not, as the critic would claim, who He
    said He was? The truth is, the only proper reason for lifting Jesus up on a pedestal is
    because He was, and is, God. During Jesus ministry, there existed various opinions
    concerning who He really was, whether He was an incarnation of an Old Testament
    prophet or a false messianic claimant. On one occasion, Jesus asked His disciples who
    they considered Him to be:

    When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,
    saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say
    that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the
    prophets. He saith unto them, But whom 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 disciple Peter, when asked who he considered Jesus to be, expressed with
    absolute conviction that Jesus was the very Son of God. This same question has been
    posed to every person: who do you say Jesus is? It is a question which everyone will
    answer, but for those who do place their trust in Christ as Savior, the answer will come
    too late, for the judgment of God will have already been passed upon him. Of the many
    Old Testament types, or foreshadows, of Christ, one of the most striking concerning
    Jesus’ redemptive work is the type of the brazen serpent:

    Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have
    spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take
    away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD
    said unto Moses, Make thee a [brazen] serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it
    shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall
    live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to
    pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass,
    he lived. (Num 21:7-9)

    And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of
    man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
    eternal life. 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

    549
    sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through
    him might be saved. (Jn 3:14-17)

    Those who looked upon the brazen serpent, lifted up on a pole, were spared from
    certain death. Likewise, those who look upon the Christ, lifted up on a cross, for the sin
    of many, will be spared from certain judgment and instead receive spiritual everlasting
    life. This is the choice everyone much make: to regard Jesus as the Lamb of God who
    takes away the sin of the world, or as a man consumed with a Messiah complex. For
    those whose verdict is the former, there is blessing and life everlasting, but for those of
    the latter persuasion, there awaits judgment for their sin.

    XXIV. 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 itself. How can we
    trust it as a reliable source? In the next section, we will turn our attention to the source
    itself.

    550
    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,

    552
    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.”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)

    553
    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
    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

    554
    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
    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

    555
    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
    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.”

    556
    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
    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

    557
    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)

    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

    558
    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
    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

    559
    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
    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.

    560
    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

    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.

    561
    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.

    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 (refer to Part five for a discussion on Jesus' suitability in His role
    as such). Also, His shedding of blood and death on the cross required that He possess
    a human nature (refer to Part five concerning Christ's two-fold nature).

    562
    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
    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)

    563
    *See Part five on the dual natures of Jesus for a discussion on the meaning
    and use of the words “likeness” and “fashion.”
    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)
    *See Part five on the dual natures of Jesus for a discussion on the meaning
    and use of the word “likeness.”
    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.

    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

    564
    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)
    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

    565
    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
    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;

    566
    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.
    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.

    567
    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.

    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)

    568
    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,
    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.

    569
    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
    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.

    570
    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

    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.

    571
    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

    572
    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

    573
    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)

    574
    That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the
    prophet, saying, … (Mt 2:15 NASB)

    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.

    575
    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).

    576
    Among the many atrocities committed by Herod, the slaughter of the children in
    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.

    577
    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

    578
    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.

    579
    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

    580
    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

    581
    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.

    582
    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

    583
    as less credible. Nevertheless, in the Gospel accounts, it is the female disciples
    of Jesus who first bear witness to the empty tomb.

    VIII. The Gospels' portrayal of the person and work of


    Jesus does not fit Messianic concepts prevalent during the
    first century:
    An argument similar to what has been discussed in the section immediately
    beforehand, is that the person and work of Jesus did not fit into any of the prevailing
    molds regarding the person and work of the Messiah; therefore, had the Gospels been
    works of fiction, the depiction of Jesus therein would be very different from the portrait
    of Jesus actually provided by the writers of the New Testament. Whereas the previous
    section concerned itself with details concerning various elements and biographical
    aspects of Jesus' life, the present section will focus more on the character of the Gospels
    in their portrayal of Jesus as a Messianic figure – a portrayal which, as the evidence will
    show, does not reflect Jewish expectation during the time of Jesus. The evidence to be
    presented will be in the form of citations from the following pre-Christian Jewish texts:

    The Septuagint, also known as the LXX, so named after the seventy
    Alexandrian scribes who are believed to have composed the volume during the
    third and first centuries before the time of Christ, is a Greek translation of the
    Hebrew Old Testament. The significance of the Septuagint for the present
    discussion is that the scribes occasionally inserted their own Messianic
    interpretations into passages regarded, at least by some, as Messianic in nature.

    The Jewish Apocrypha, non-canonical Jewish writings composed during the


    first two centuries before the time of Christ.

    The Jewish Pseudepigrapha, a collection of non-canonical Jewish writings,


    each ascribed to a figure from Israel's past, such as Enoch, but each regarded not
    to have been actually written by the person to whom the ascription belongs.
    Rather, the books of the Pseudepigrapha are regarded to have been composed
    between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D., and are considered useful in determining
    beliefs held by Jews at the beginning of the Christian era.

    The Talmud, the authoritative body of Jewish law. There are two Talmuds,
    Jerusalem and Babylonian, written between c.200 B.C. and c.500 A.D. The
    Talmud contains the Mishnah (early oral interpretations and commentaries of the
    Hebrew Bible) and the Gemara (a commentary and analysis of the Mishnah).

    The Jewish Targums. Aramaic translations of the Old Testament. Here, only
    the earliest of the Targums will be considered, as they were composed between
    516 B.C. and up until the Middle Ages.

    584
    The writings of Josephus, Jewish historian, written during the first half of the
    first century A.D.

    The writings of Philo, Jewish historian and philosopher, written during the
    latter half of the first century A.D.

    The Dead Sea Scrolls, written prior to or during the writing of the New
    Testament and entailing nine hundred texts, including copies of nearly every
    book of the Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated between 150
    B.C. to 70 A.D.

    Citations from these texts will show that Messianic expectations during the time of
    Christ took on more than one character, with some regarding the Messiah to be a political
    leader (who was sometimes not even regarded to be of Davidic descent1), while others
    considered him to be a supernatural or superhuman being. The central focus of Messianic
    expectation during the time of Christ was that of nationalistic anticipation, that is, the
    future restoration of the nation of Israel2, a monarchy that was eradicated in 597 B.C.
    with the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem. Following a look at Messianic characteristics as
    expressed in these texts, it will suffice to list pre-Christian men to whom the title of
    Messiah was applied, and how the character and activity of these “messiahs” differ from
    Jesus, the one, true Messiah.

    Characteristics of the Messiah as expressed in ancient Jewish texts (emphasis mine,


    when added)

    He will from the town of Bethlehem and from the line of David, or the tribe
    of Judah, and He a ruler or prince, being without sin.

    And you, O Bethlehem Ephrath, you who were too small to be numbered
    among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you shall come forth before
    Me the Messiah, to exercise dominion over Israel, he whose name was
    mentioned from before, from the days of creation. (Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan
    Micah 5:3)

    ... as for the lion whom you saw rousing up out of the forest and roaring and
    speaking up to the eagle and reproving him for his unrighteousness, and as
    for all his words that you have heard, this is the Messiah whom the Most
    High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the offspring of
    David, and will come and speak with them. (Apocrypha, 2 Esdr 12.31-32)

    A ruler shall not fail from Judah, or a prince from his loins, until there come
    the things stored up for him; and he is the expectation of the nations. (The
    Septuagint translation of Gen 49.10)

    585
    And after this there shall arise for you a Star from Jacob in peace: And a man
    shall arise from my [Judah's] posterity like the Sun of Righteousness,
    walking with the sons of men in gentleness and righteousness, and in him
    will be found no sin*. (Pseudepigrapha, Testament of Judah 4:20-23)

    * The sinlessness of the Messiah, in the mind of the ancient rabbis, was not
    due to his closeness with deity. Rather, Jewish thought did not hold to the a
    doctrine equivalent to the Christian doctrine of original sin. Man was
    regarded as being born with an inclination to evil, but gradually develops an
    inclination to do good, an inclination which can overcome the evil, through
    the keeping of the Law, thus attaining favor with God.3

    He will be a prophet and priest of God, who will reveal the words of the
    Lord and be called the Angel, or Messenger, of the Great Council.

    The twelve tribes shall be gathered there and all the nations, until such time
    as the Most High shall send forth his salvation through the ministration of
    the unique prophet. (Pseudepigrapha, Testament of Benjamin 9:2)

    For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon
    his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger/Angel* of the Great
    Council. (The Septuagint translation of Isa 9:6)

    The Prophet announced to the house of David that: 'A boy has been born
    unto us, a son has been given unto us, who has taken the Torah upon himself
    to guard it; and his name has been called by the One** who gives wonderful
    counsel, the Mighty God, He who lives forever; 'Messiah', in whose day
    peace shall abound for us. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Isa 9:5-6)

    And then the Lord will raise up a new priest to whom all the words of the
    Lord will be revealed. (Pseudepigrapha, Testament of Levi 18:2)

    * The word “angel” in Hebrew is angelos, lit. “messenger,” or one who


    makes known the will of another.

    ** In the Targum passage, the Messiah is called “by the One” who gives
    wonderful counsel, who is the Mighty God, and who lives forever, whereas
    in the Bible, it is Messiah Himself to whom is ascribed such attributes: “For
    unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be
    upon his shoulder: and his [Messiah's] name shall be called Wonderful
    Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
    (KJV)

    586
    He will be a man who becomes king, who sits in a glorious throne and rules
    forever over many nations.

    They are destined to make peace at the end, in the days of King Messiah*.
    (Targum, Fragments Ex 12:42)

    As soon as the date of the End when the King Messiah would arrive was
    revealed to him. (Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan Gen 49:1)

    Behold, days are coming,' says the Lord, 'when I will raise up for David a
    righteous Messiah, and he shall reign as king. (Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan Jer
    23:5)

    And my servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one
    leader; and they shall walk in My laws and shall keep my statutes and
    observe them...and David my servant shall be their king forever. (Targum,
    Pseudo-Jonathan Ezek 37:24-25)

    There shall come a man out of his [David's] seed, and he shall rule over
    many nations; and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom
    shall be increased. (The Septuagint translation of Num 24.7)

    There shall come forth from you one day a man, and he shall rule over many
    nations and his kingdom spreading every day shall be exalted on high.
    (Philo, The Life of Moses I:289-290)

    there shall come forth a man, says the oracle (Num 24.7 LXX), and leading
    his host to war he will subdue great and populous nations. (Philo, On
    Rewards and Punishments 95)

    And he shall continue as long as the sun, and before the moon forever. (The
    Septuagint translation of Ps 72:5)

    ...and pain shall seize them when they see that Son of Man sitting on the
    throne of his glory (Pseudepigrapha, I Enoch 62.5)

    * The title “King Messiah” is used numerous times in the Targums.


    Expectation of a kingly Messiah who would overthrow Israel's enemies and
    restore the Jewish nation became latent after the Jews' return to Jerusalem at
    the end of the Babylonian captivity. However, with the rise of the Maccabees
    in the late second to early first centuries B.C., expectation in such a “King
    Messiah” again became the hope and expectation of the people of Israel.4

    587
    His work will have nationalistic ramifications, in destroying heathen
    nations and gathering together the twelve scattered tribes of Israel, thus
    restoring the nation of God.

    Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David, At the
    time in the which Thou seest, O God, that he may reign over Israel Thy
    servant. And gird him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers,
    And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample her down to
    destruction. Wisely, righteously he shall thrust out sinners from the
    inheritance, He shall destroy the pride of the sinner as a potter's vessel.
    With a rod of iron he shall break in pieces all their substance, He shall
    destroy the godless nations with the word of his mouth; At his rebuke nations
    shall flee before him, And he shall reprove sinners for the thoughts of their
    heart. ... And he shall gather together a holy people, whom he shall lead in
    righteousness, ... And he shall divide them according to their tribes upon the
    land, And neither sojourner nor alien shall sojourn with them any more. He
    shall judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness. And he
    shall have the heathen nations to serve him under his yoke; And he shall
    glorify the Lord in a place to be seen of all the earth; And he shall purge
    Jerusalem, making it holy as of old: ... For all shall be holy and their king the
    anointed of the Lord. ... In the assemblies he will judge the peoples, the
    tribes of the sanctified. (Pseudepigrapha, Psalms of Solomon 17:32ff)

    There shall come forth from you one day a man, and he shall rule over many
    nations and his kingdom spreading every day shall be exalted on high.
    (Philo, The Life of Moses I:289-290)

    There shall come forth a man, says the oracle (Num 24.7 LXX), and leading
    his host to war he will subdue great and populous nations. (Philo, On
    Rewards and Punishments 95)

    There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure
    in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the
    happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such
    men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine
    inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the
    government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and
    went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there
    show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be
    the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both
    armed, who destroyed a great number of them. (Josephus, Jewish War
    2.258-60; Here, Josephus was speaking of a man who was recognized as a
    Messiah for his aspirations concerning political "innovations.")

    The transmission of dominion shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor
    the scribe from his children's children, forever, until the Messiah comes, to

    588
    whom the Kingdom belongs, and whom nations will obey. (Targum, Onqelos
    on Gen 49:10-12)

    Moses shall go forth from the wilderness and the King Messiah from Rome.
    (Targum, Onqelos Gen 49:10-12)

    They [the scattered tribes of Israel] shall be gathered in from their


    Dispersion, shall live in the shade of the Messiah. (Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan
    Hos 14:7)

    The twelve tribes shall be gathered there and all the nations, until such time
    as the Most High shall send forth his salvation through the ministration of
    the unique prophet. (Pseudepigrapha, Testament of Benjamin 9:2)

    He will be a king sent from God, who will stand on Mt. Zion, judge and
    destroy the wicked with fire and blood, then set free a remnant of His
    people and build a new Temple.

    But he shall stand on the top of Mount Zion. And Zion shall come and be
    made manifest to all people. (Apocrypha, 2 Esdr 13.36)

    He will denounce them for their ungodliness and for their wickedness, and
    will display before them their contemptuous dealings. For first he will bring
    them alive before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them, then he
    will destroy them. But in mercy he will set free the remnant of my people,
    those who have been saved. (Apocrypha, 2 Esdr 12.33-34)

    And then the heavenly God will send a king and will judge each man in
    blood and the gleam of fire. There is a certain royal tribe whose race will
    never stumble. This too, as time pursues its cyclic course, will reign, and it
    will begin to raise up a new temple of God. (Pseudepigrapha, Sibylline
    Oracles 3.285)

    He will be God's Son who will be called Son of the Most High, whose
    kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, but who will die after four hundred
    years*, ushering in an apocalypse.

    When these things take place and the signs occur that I showed you before,
    then my Son will be revealed, whom you saw as a man coming up from the
    sea. (Apocrypha, 2 Esdr 13.32)

    For indeed the time will come, when the signs that I have foretold to you
    will come to pass, that the city that now is not seen shall appear, and the
    land that now is hidden shall be disclosed. Everyone who has been delivered
    from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders. For my son the

    589
    Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who
    remain shall rejoice four hundred years. After those years my son the
    Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath. Then the world shall be
    turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first
    beginnings, so that no one shall be left**. (Apocrypha, 2 Esdr 7.26-30)

    He will be called the Son of God***, and they will call him the son of the
    Most High...His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom. (The Dead Sea
    Scrolls, 4Q246, col. II)

    * The discrepancy between the dying Messiah and the eternal kingdom
    reflects the varied Messianic expectations present during the pre-Christan
    era. As one author writes, “... messianism was neither widespread nor
    prominent during this period [the first two centuries before Christ] and that
    there was no one 'orthodox' notion of 'the Messiah.... The presence or
    absence of messianism was primarily determined by the political attitudes
    and circumstances of the different groups within Judaism. Those who placed
    their hopes in the institutions and leaders of their day, whether the High
    Priests, the Ptolemies, or the Maccabees, had little interest in messianism.
    Apocalyptic groups developed the idea of a transcendent savior figure,
    either as an alternative or as a complement to earthly messianism. ”5

    ** Such an apocalypse following a four hundred year-long reign of the


    Messiah, as expressed in apocryphal literature, is not reflective of
    prophecies found in the Old Testament.

    *** As stated in Part five, the identification of Jesus as the Son of God was
    due to His oneness, in nature and essence, with deity, rather than an act of
    being begotten or created by the Father. However, in Jewish thought, the
    title of Messiah as the Son of God did not entail such a concept. The Jews
    perceived themselves, as a nation, as both a son and servant of God. Since
    the Messiah, or the “Anointed one” of God, did the work of God, he was
    therefore regarded to be a servant of God, in an even greater sense than was
    the nation of Israel. Likewise, the Messiah was also bonded with Israel by
    virtue of his heritage, coming from the tribe of Judah and the lineage of
    David. Thus, as Israel was God's son, so was the Messiah – not because he
    shared in divinity; but rather, because he was to be a true son of the royal
    Jewish line. The titles Son of God and servant of God were each rightly
    applied to both the nation Israel and the coming Messiah.6

    He is separate from God, and He will be subject to God Himself.

    Nor shall he gather confidence from a multitude for the day of battle. The
    Lord Himself is his king, the hope of him that is mighty through his hope in
    God. He will rebuke rulers, and remove sinners by the might of his word;
    And relying upon his God, throughout his days he will not stumble. ... His

    590
    hope will be in the Lord: who then can prevail against him? He will, be
    mighty in his works, and strong in the fear of God, (Pseudepigrapha, Psalms
    of Solomon 17:33ff)

    He will be given wisdom, power, and righteousness, and His reign will bring
    peace and righteousness.

    For God will make him mighty* by means of His holy spirit, And wise by
    means of the spirit of understanding, with strength and righteousness.
    (Pseudepigrapha, Psalms of Solomon 17:37)

    In his days shall righteousness spring up; and abundance of peace till the
    moon be removed. (The Septuagint translation of Ps 72:7)

    * Note that the strength and wisdom of the Messiah is that which is given by
    God, rather than being possessed intrinsically.

    He has an angelic countenance and will be called the Son of Man, with
    whom righteousness dwells, and He will depose kings

    At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the time before time. And his
    head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual,
    whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of
    grace like that of one among the holy angels*...'Who is this?'...And he
    answered me and said, 'This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs
    righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells**.... this Son of Man
    whom you have seen is the One who would remove the kings and the
    mighty ones from their comfortable seats and the strong ones from their
    thrones. (Pseudepigrapha, I Enoch 46.1-3)

    * The Messiah is seen as distinct from the eternal God, and possesses a
    human form with an angelic (as opposed to divine) countenance. It is clear
    from ancient rabbinic literature that the Jews, although not entirely, thought
    of the Messiah as being someone superhuman. He certainly possesses
    certain divine characteristics, such as being present before creation,
    however exactly how close he was thought to be to deity is uncertain. As
    Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim states, “The Jewish expectation of the
    Messiah was so bordering on the divine that it is almost impossible to
    distinguish between the two.“7 However, he goes on to infer two notions
    found in ancient Jewish literature: 1) that the idea of the union of the twp
    natures, human and divine, seems foreign to the concept of the Messiah,
    and 2) that the Messiah was regarded as not only being above humanity, but
    also above the angels. Thus, the Messiah was regarded as being so God-
    like, that the line between the Messiah and God Himself was a vary narrow
    one. For some, Messianic expectation was concerned with a superhuman

    591
    being, either angelic or divine, while for others a fully human deliverer,
    who may or may not be of the lineage of David.8

    ** Note that righteousness dwells “with” the Messiah, not “in” him.

    He existed before creation, He will be a light to the Gentiles, and all will
    worship Him on bended knee.

    At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord
    of the Spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the sun and the
    moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence
    of the Lord of the Spirits. He will become a staff for the righteous ones in
    order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles
    and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. All those
    who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall
    glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose
    he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of [the Lord
    of the Spirits] prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity.
    (Pseudepigrapha, I Enoch 48.2-8)

    There will be more than one Messiah.

    They should not depart from any counsel of the law in order to walk in
    complete stubbornness of their heart, but instead shall be ruled by the first
    directives which the men of the Community began to be taught until the
    prophet comes, and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. (The Dead Sea
    Scrolls, 1QS, col 9, vs 9b-11)

    Your two deliverers* who are destined to deliver you, the Messiah the son
    of David and the Messiah the son of Ephraim. (Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan
    Song of Sol 7:4)

    * The notion of two Messiahs, sons of David and Ephraim, is a late


    manifestation in Jewish Messianic expectations, and is not expressed in
    literature prior to the post-exilic period (the last 400 years B.C.). While
    such a dualistic Messianic belief is evident in some writings from that era,
    the widespread acceptance of such belief remains a subject of debate
    among scholars.

    Such were the expectations, in the first few centuries B.C. concerning the coming of
    the Messiah. Author S. H. Levey sums it up quite nicely in saying, “The Messiah will be
    the symbol and/or the active agent of the deliverance of Israel. He will be of Davidic
    lineage, though he may have a non-Davidic predecessor, the Ephraimite Messiah, who
    will die in battle. Elijah will herald his coming and will serve as His High Priest. A world
    conflict will rage between Rome, variously identified with Gog, Amalek, Edom, and

    592
    Armilus, on the one hand, and Assyria or Eber, on the other, indicating that to the
    Targumist, Assyria and not Babylon was the real enemy of Israel, and this will result in
    the annihilation of both at the time of the Messianic advent; the enemies of Israel will be
    shattered either by divine or Messianic intervention. The Messiah will bring an end to the
    wandering of Israel, and the Jewish people will be gathered in from their Dispersion to
    their own land; The Northern Kingdom will be re-united with Judah. The drama of the
    Exodus from Egypt will be re-enacted; in this drama Moses may participate, made
    possible by a resurrection of the dead. The Messiah will live eternally. He will restore the
    Temple and rebuild Jerusalem, which will enjoy divine protection for itself and its
    inhabitants. He will have sovereignty over all the world and make the Torah the universal
    law of mankind, with the ideal of education being realized to the full. The Messiah will
    have the gift of prophecy, and may have intercessory power to seek forgiveness of sin,
    but he will punish the unrepentant wickedness of his people, as well as of the nations, and
    have the power to cast them into Gehenna. There will be a moral regeneration of Israel
    and of mankind. The Messiah will be a righteous judge, dispensing justice and equity, the
    champion of the poor and the oppressed, the personification of social justice. He will
    reward the righteous, who will surround him and eternally enjoy the divine effulgence.
    The essence of the Messiah will be faith in God; and he will vindicate that faith, and the
    faithfulness of Israel, in the eyes of all the world.”9

    Characteristics of pre-second century men who were perceived to fit the mold of
    Messianic expectation and laid claim to the title “Messiah.”

    Ancient Judaism had its share of Messianic claimants, or men who have been
    considered by some to fit the Messiah mold. Here, it will serve to briefly look at these
    men in order to perceive just how it was they were considered candidates for the position
    of Messiah and if any of them stand as someone who would have inspired the Gospel
    writers to apply their own Messianic expectations on the person of Jesus of Nazareth. To
    that end, I will not only look at such claimants who lived prior to Christ, but also those
    who lived after Him, but before the final Gospel was written.

    Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 B.C.)


    After the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C., his son Archelaus was named
    king over Judea. Judas, a robber, organized an assault on the palace, successfully
    making off with weapons and money. According to Josephus, he attempted to
    gain political power by becoming “terrible to all men,” and “by tearing and
    rending those that came near him.” Josephus then states that he did “all this in
    order to raise himself, and out of an ambitious desire of the royal dignity, for he
    hoped to obtain that as the reward not of his virtuous skill in war, but of his
    extravagance in doing injuries.” Information regarding Judas' fate is not
    provided by Josephus.10
    Comparison to Jesus: None, since Jesus was not a terrorist.

    593
    Simon of Perea, a former royal servant (4 B.C.)
    Simon was another who attempted a revolt against Herod's son Archelaus.
    Although Simon was a royal slave, he claimed a right to be king. Of him,
    Josephus states, “This man was elevated at the disorderly state of things, and
    was so bold as to put a diadem on his head, while a certain number of the people
    stood by him, and by them he was declared to be a king, and he thought himself
    more worthy of that dignity than any one else.” Simon then embarked on an
    arson spree, burning royal houses and palaces, including the palace at Jericho.
    Herod's army responded quickly and engaged them in battle, but since Simon's
    men were more “bold” than “skillful,” they were defeated. Simon fled the battle,
    but was soon seized by the commander of Herod's infantry and was beheaded
    for his rebellion.11
    Comparison to Jesus: None, since Jesus had a legal and divine right to be
    king, nor did He attempt to usher in His kingdom by force. Also, in Jesus’ hour
    of trial, He did not flee; but rather, went with His accusers peacefully and
    willingly.
    Athronges, the shepherd of Judea (4 B.C.)
    Athronges was a shepherd, being of the most lowly of classes in ancient
    Judea, nevertheless, he was hailed as king by some as a king, due to his notoriety
    for boldness, strength, and stature. His four brothers likewise became leaders,
    each overseeing a band of men who had rallied to their cause. Athronges'
    devotees placed a diadem on his head and enjoyed a time of success (about two
    years) in his new role as “monarch.” Athronges and his followers killed many
    Romans and as time progressed, their actions became more cruel, killing, at
    times, for mere gain. Aside from being a severe thorn in Rome's flesh, they also
    caused much mischief for their Jewish countrymen. After a long, successful, and
    bloody campaign, the brothers and their army were subdued by the forces of
    Rome. The eldest brother was taken prisoner, while the youngest surrendered to
    Herod Archelaus with the understanding that his life would be spared. The final
    fate of Athronges in not provided by Josephus in his account.12
    Comparison to Jesus: Very superficial, at best. Both men wore a sort of
    crown, but the crown worn by Athronges was to his honor, whereas the crown
    worn by Jesus was in mockery by the Roman soldiers. Athronges was a shepherd
    by trade and his role as such bore no figurative significance to the command he
    held over his men; therefore, the identification of Jesus as the Great Shepherd
    bears no similarity.

    Judas of Gamala (6 A.D.; mentioned in Acts 5:37; was called “Messiah” by


    the Jews)
    After the rise of Coponius, Archelaus' successor, a man named Judas
    organized a revolt in response to taxes levied by the new ruler, then, along with
    the Pharisee Zadok, founded the sect known as the zealots. Josephus says that
    Judas and Zadok claimed that “this taxation was no better than an introduction to
    slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure

    594
    them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment
    of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby
    acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be
    assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as
    might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they
    would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same. So
    men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a
    great height.” These men appealed to the notion that God is to be their only
    Ruler and Lord. Josephus does not tell us what happened to Judas, but he does
    relate that Judas' sons were arrested and crucified by governor Tiberius in 46
    A.D.13
    Comparison to Jesus: Judas was called a Messiah due to his nationalist zeal.
    Jesus' promised a future restoration of Israel and the coming of the kingdom of
    heaven, but he referred to a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly kingdom;
    therefore, Jesus' preaching cannot be considered nationalistic in the sense that
    was Judas'

    The Samaritan prophet (36 A.D.)


    Josephus mentions an unidentified Samaritan prophet who persuaded a crowd
    of people to ascend Mt. Gerizin with him so that he may show them the :secret
    vessels” of Moses, which he claimed Moses had buried on the mount. Before
    they began their ascent up the mountain, Pilate, the man who had Jesus
    condemned, blocked they way with a detachment of his soldiers. In a resulting
    conflict, the soldiers slew some of the prophet's followers and reprimanded
    others to prison. Later, Pilate executed the Samaritans responsible for the
    instigation.14
    Comparison to Jesus: None, especially since Jesus was a Jew, not a
    Samaritan. Jews and Samaritans did not hold like messianic beliefs.

    Theudas (45 A.D.; was called “Messiah” by the Jews)


    Theudas, mentioned in Acts 5.36, claiming to be a prophet, persuaded about
    four hundred people to gather their belongings and follow him to the river
    Jordan. He said he would divide the waters, thus permitting the people to cross
    on dry land. Fadus, the Judean procurator at the time, sent men to stop the
    would-be miracle A conflict ensued, and some of Theudas' were killed, while
    others, including Theudas himself, was imprisoned. Later, Theudas was
    beheaded for his attempted feat.15
    Comparison to Jesus: Jesus was baptized in Jordan and performed miracles in
    which water was involved, but that's the extent of the comparison.

    The Egyptian prophet (52-58 A.D.)


    Josephus mentions an Egyptian prophet whom he calls a “cheat” and a
    “pretend[er],” who gathered a large crowd (by one account, 30,000; by another,
    400) men on the Mount of Olives with the intention to command the walls of the
    city to fall down at his command. Roman soldiers came upon them and killed

    595
    half of the party. The remaining half were taken prisoner, although the Egyptian
    prophet escaped and was not heard from again.16
    Comparison to Jesus: Other than the fact that both men once stood on the
    Mount of Olives, none.

    An anonymous prophet (59 A.D.)


    Josephus names an unidentified prophet who promised deliverance to anyone
    who would follow him into the wilderness. Festus, the Roman governor, ordered
    them to be overtaken by his troops, who in turn killed the prophet and his
    followers.17
    Comparison to Jesus: None whatsoever.

    Menahem, grandson of Judas the Galilean (66 A.D.)


    Menahem, grandson of the same Judas mentioned above, and a “barbarously
    cruel” man, formed a small army of men and armed them with weapons he had
    stoled from Herod's fortress at Masada. He then succeeded in capturing the
    governor's palace at Jerusalem and ordered the execution of the high priest.
    Eleasar, the high priest's son, led a counterstrike against Menahem. Being unable
    to overtake Eleasar's men, Menahem and his forces scattered, but were
    eventually killed, except Menahem, who escaped to Masadaa. However, he was
    later drawn out, tortured, and killed.18
    Comparison to Jesus:Menahem fits the expectation of a leader who had
    political aspirations and was at odds with the religious leadership, so in some
    regards he may fit into the mold of what some Jews believed the Messiah would
    be, however, that mold does not align with Old Testament messianic prophecies,
    nor with the mission of Jesus.

    John of Gischala, son of Levi (67-70 A.D.)


    John was the commander of a Jewish army in Galilee, but after failing to
    drive the Romans out, he relocated to southern Judea, where he gained control of
    Jerusalem and appointed a high priest. His presence in Jerusalem drew the anger
    of the Zealots, but John had them killed in turn. He held his position until Titus
    seized Jerusalem in 70 A.D., after which John was sentenced to life in prison.19
    Comparison to Jesus: None. Jesus did not gain political power, did not seek to
    appoint or otherwise better the priesthood, and did not raise a sword against His
    enemies. Also, Josephus states that John did not observe the Law of Moses, for
    he ate unlawful food and engaged in impure practices.

    Simon bar Giora of Gerasa (69-70 A.D.)


    Simon was a Jewish General who banded together forty thousand men. He
    promised freedom to slaves and reward to the free. He was invited to Jerusalem
    by a portion of the population who feared John of Gischala, and ruled them as
    their king from 69-70 A.D. when he was forced to surrender to Titus.20

    596
    Comparison to Jesus: Other than Jesus' promise to set the captive free, none.
    The freedom offered by Jesus is freedom from sin, not political or social
    oppression.
    Jonathan the weaver (73 A.D.)
    A man named Jonathan, a weaver by trade, persuaded a large number of
    people to follow him into the desert where he would show then signs and
    wonders. Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis, sent armed men after
    them. Many of Jonathan's followers were killed, while the rest were brought
    back to Catullus alive. Jonathan escaped the attack, but was later captured and
    burned alive.21

    Comparison to Jesus: Jesus performed “signs and wonders;” otherwise, none.

    Yeshu ha Notzri (c.90 B.C.)


    Here, I will break the chronological order of this list of names so that I may
    save the best for last, as events of this figure’s story very closely resemble
    numerous events which are found in the Gospels' account of the life of Jesus.
    Yeshu ha Notzri (or Yeshua ha Notzri, as he is also called) is the name given to a
    man who is said to have lived about one hundred years before Jesus, and who
    traveled around Palestine practicing magic. Some scholars regard him to be the
    “teacher of righteousness” mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the library
    belonging to a Jewish religious sect known as the Essenes. The Essenes were a
    group of Jews who lived an ascetic lifestyle in poverty and in denial of “worldly
    pleasures.” They lived among other Jews, but gathered in selected communal
    areas for worship and brotherhood. The followers of Yeshu ha Notzri were
    known as the Notzrim, a title by which, according to the Talmud, Christians
    were also known (this point will be addressed further shortly hereafter).
    According to the primary texts in which his account is given, Yeshu was born of
    a young girl named Mary shortly after she was raped by a neighbor. In his
    adulthood, Yeshu displayed supernatural abilities and worked miracles, which he
    was enabled to do after learning the secret name of God. He was regarded as a
    heretic by Jewish religious authorities, placed on trial for his actions, and hung
    from a tree on the eve of Passover, a death which some liken to Jesus'
    crucifixion. In the sections which follow it will be shown whether the account of
    Yeshu ha Notzri is a revision of the Gospels or an account which predates the
    Christian era and one that contains elements which were later incorporated into
    the Gospel writers' account of Jesus of Nazareth.

    The Toledoth Yeshu


    The account of Yeshu is provided in the Toledoth Yeshu, or
    “Generations of Yeshu,” and a slightly abridged version reads as
    follows.

    “In the year 3671[or 90 B.C] … there arose a certain disreputable


    man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He

    597
    lived at Bethlehem, in Judah. Near his house dwelt a widow and
    her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was
    betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned
    in the Torah and God-fearing. Joseph Pandera … betrayed her by
    pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so,
    she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only
    against her will. Miriam gave birth to a son and named him
    Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu.
    On the eighth day he was circumcised. … After [Yeshu’s
    illegitimate birth] became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to
    flee to Upper Galilee.

    … In the [Jerusalem] Temple was to be found the Foundation


    Stone on which were engraven the letters of God's Ineffable Name.
    Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able
    to do whatever he wished. … Yeshu came and learned the letters of
    the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in
    an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the
    parchment. …

    He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of


    Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people
    who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu
    proclaimed, ‘I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah
    prophesied and said, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a
    son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”’ He quoted other
    messianic texts, insisting, ‘David my ancestor prophesied
    concerning me: “The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day
    have I begotten thee.”’

    The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he
    should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to
    him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man
    the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed.
    Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the
    Highest. … He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob,
    acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of
    the prophecy of Zechariah.

    The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene*, with the
    accusation: ‘This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone.’ Yeshu
    replied, ‘The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: “And there
    shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,” and I am he.' … A
    dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the
    Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly
    moved and said: ‘This is a true sign.’ She reprimanded the Sages
    and sent them humiliated from her presence. …

    598
    Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto and brought
    him to the Sanctuary where he learned the letters of the Ineffable
    Name as Yeshu had done. When Yeshu was summoned before the
    queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah
    Iskarioto. Yeshu said: ‘It is spoken of me, “I will ascend into
    heaven.”’ He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew
    between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone. The
    elders asked Iskarioto to do likewise. He did, and flew toward
    heaven. Iskarioto attempted to force Yeshu down to earth but
    neither one of the two could prevail against the other for both had
    the use of the Ineffable Name. However, Iskarioto defiled Yeshu,
    so that they both lost their power and fell down to the earth, and in
    their condition of defilement the letters of the Ineffable Name
    escaped from them.

    Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he
    was smitten with pomegranate staves … Yeshu was taken prisoner
    to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To
    allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set
    a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the
    elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which
    the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch [or
    Egypt, according to some versions of the tale]; there Yeshu
    remained until the eve of the Passover.

    Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of


    the Name. … On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by
    his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed
    down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred
    and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages
    that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had
    taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity
    but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done
    and Yeshu was seized. … Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour
    on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to
    hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power
    he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold
    him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-
    stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged
    until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture,
    ‘His body shall not remain all night upon the tree.’ They buried
    him outside the city.

    On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen
    Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah
    and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he
    prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the

    599
    grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from
    the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in
    the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden. … the
    gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu's followers
    should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into
    heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse
    and transported it to the Queen. … Realizing that Yeshu was a false
    prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked
    the followers but praised the Sages.”22

    * Helena was the wife of Monobaz I, king of Adiabene (modern-


    day Iraq). She converted to Judaism in 30 A.D. and relocated to
    Jerusalem for a time. Helena was known for her benevolence
    toward the Jewish people.

    Common biographical characteristics of Yeshu ha Notzri and Jesus


    of Nazareth, as told in the Toledoth Yeshu and the Gospels,
    respectively

    Both were born in Bethlehem. The place of birth alone is


    insignificant. Besides, as stated previously in this book, Bethlehem
    was named as the Messiah's birthplace long before Yeshu was born.

    Both had a mother named Mary who was betrothed to a man named
    Joseph of the tribe of David. In the case of Yeshu, there is no
    mention of Pandera being of the house of David. The only person in
    that account listed among the lineage of David is the espoused
    husband of Mary, who abandoned her and did not claim Yeshu as
    his legal heir, as did Joseph, the person named as the espoused
    husband of May in the Gospel accounts. Therefore, of the two
    persons under consideration, Yeshu ha Notzrri and Jesus of
    Nazareth, only Jesus is named as among the legal lineage of David,
    which was a requirement of the prophesied Messiah.

    Although both were born in Judea, both later relocated to Galilee.


    Mary and Joseph intended to return to Bethlehem after Herod's
    death, however, after hearing news of who was Herod's successor,
    they chose to return to Nazareth, the town which Mary and Joseph
    called home. Yeshu's relocation to the region of Galilee was to
    escape persecution in lower Palestine.

    Both were said to have traveled to Egypt. Jesus' sojourn there was
    to escape the wrath of Herod the Great, whereas Yeshu's sojourn
    was to flee persecution in Palestine and learn magic from sages in
    Egypt.

    600
    Both were circumcised on the eighth day. This was according to
    Mosaic law, which decreed every male Jew be circumcised on the
    eighth day after his birth. Likewise, prior to the giving of the Law
    on Sinai, God decreed to Abraham that every male be circumcised
    on the eighth day, as a physical mark, or sign, of the covenant
    between God and Israel (Gen 17:11-12).

    Each claimed to be the Messiah and applied to himself various


    messianic prophecies, such as those spoken by Isaiah and David.
    However, the life of Yeshu only fell in line with some Old
    Testament messianic prophecies, to the exclusion of others, whereas
    the life of Jesus fulfilled every single prophecy.

    Both were worshiped as the son of God, although Yeshu never


    claimed that he was pre-existent, as did Jesus.

    Jesus had twelve core disciples. Likewise, in one version of Yeshu’s


    story he is said to have had twelve disciples, but this is a late
    addition to the tale. In the earliest versions, his disciples were five
    in number.

    Both performed miracles such as healing the lame and giving life to
    the dead, although Yeshu did so from acquired supernatural
    abilities, whereas Jesus did so n His own power.

    Each was beaten, given vinegar to drink, and had a crown of thorns
    placed on his head. In the case of Jesus, He was twice offered drink
    while being executed by the Romans. The first drink He refused,
    while the second drink He accepted. The offering of vinegar as a
    drink was a common practice. First, it was given as a mixture of
    vinegar and herb, producing anesthetic results, which was
    commonly used during executions either as an act of mercy or to
    prolong the suffering. A second use of vinegar was the drink known
    as posca, a mixture of vinegar, water and eggs, and was widely used
    by Roman soldiers. Both Yeshu's and Jesus' execution would have
    been authorized by the Roman empire; therefore, the presence in
    each account of such a liquid mixture is not unthinkable.

    Each was betrayed by a disciple (Jesus, by Judas Iscariot; Yeshu, by


    Judah Iskarioto). In one version of the Toledoth Yeshu, Judah
    Iskarioto also learns the name of God and gains the same abilities as
    Yeshu, after which the two engage in aerial combat, with Judah
    victorious over Yeshu, resulting in Yeshu's arrest.

    Each was hung from a tree on the eve of Passover. In the case of
    Yeshu, it was a literal hanging, not a crucifixion.

    601
    Each was buried in a garden tomb.

    Both were said to have risen from the dead, although Yeshu's body
    was discovered shortly thereafter and he was denounced as a false
    prophet.

    Differing biographical characteristics of Yeshu ha Notzri and Jesus


    of Nazareth

    Yeshu was named by Mary, whereas Jesus’ name was given to Mary
    and Joseph by an angel. Also, Yeshu’s name did not bear any
    spiritual significance, since Mary simply named him after her
    brother, whereas Jesus was given His name because He would save
    His people from their sin. (Mt 1:21)

    The source of Yeshu’s power was not inherent to his being, whereas
    Jesus performed miracles in accordance with His own divine nature.
    In the case of Yeshu, he received his power by writing the name of
    God on a parchment, which he then placed inside an open wound in
    his thigh, closing the wound over the parchment. It was this
    parchment that gave Yeshu his supernatural abilities. Such a source
    of power is not all that different from the source by which various
    characters of fiction obtain their own abilities – abilities which are
    obtained through the acquisition of a boon, whether it be a power
    ring, a magical item, or a bite from a radioactive spider, just to name
    a few examples. In other words, Yeshu gained the ability to perform
    miracles, whereas Jesus’ miraculous abilities were inherent to his
    being.

    Unlike Jesus, Yeshu did not promise redemption to any of his


    followers.

    Yeshu made false messianic claims. His life does not bear the
    biographical requirements which were necessary in order to fulfill
    Old Testament messianic prophecies. For instance, there was no
    forerunner who could be likened to John the Baptist, no star
    announcing his birth, no killing of infants after his birth, no
    cleansing of the Temple, no conduct in the offices of High Priest or
    King of God’s people, no virgin birth, no crucifixion and piercing of
    the hands and feet, no execution with criminals, and no resurrection.

    Also, continuing in the vein of the above comment, Yeshu was not
    of Davidic descent, which was a requirement for the Messiah
    according to prophecy. True, Yeshu’s stepfather Joseph was of the
    lineage of David, as was the Joseph of the Gospels, but in the
    Toledoth Yeshu, Joseph leaves Mary, thereby not claiming Yeshu as
    his legal heir and providing for him a link to the line of David. In

    602
    the Gospels, although Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father, Jesus
    still legally gained Davidic lineage through Joseph’s claiming the
    infant Christ as his own and raising Him as his own son. It is also
    believed that Jesus gained a genetic link to the line of David through
    the lineage of Mary.

    Variations of the text


    The Toledoth Yeshu exists in more than one version. The oldest
    references to Yehsu can be found in the Talmud, where he is referred to
    as a sorcerer who enticed others to apostasy. Since then, the various
    versions of the account of Yeshu differ on key elements of the story. In
    the earliest references, in Sanhedrin 43a (of the Talmud), Yeshu is
    sentenced to death, but given hope for release. After his sentence, a
    crier was told to walk before him asking anyone who believed Yeshu
    should be pardoned come forth in his defense. When no one stepped
    forward, his execution was carried out as decreed. In one version of the
    story he is stoned, while in another he is hung from a tree. In the
    version above a second miracle worker, Judah Iskarioto, defeats Yeshu
    in a comic book style aerial contest where both figures struggle in mid-
    air, whereas in other versions Judah Iskarioto is one of Yeshu’s
    disciples who betrays him while in the Temple. The later the version,
    the more details are added or elaborated upon, such as the number of
    Yeshu’s disciples from five, in the earlier versions, to twelve, in the
    later versions.

    Other later texts go beyond giving an account of Yeshu himself and


    proceed to relate tales of his followers as well. In the Tosefta, a
    compilation of Jewish law and dating to c.200 A.D., one passage
    (Chullin 2:22-23) tells how one Rabbi Eleazar ben Damma was bitten
    by a snake and was offered aide by a man who came to heal him in the
    name of Yeshu. Immediately following that account (in Chullin 2:24) is
    mention made of Rabbi Eliezer who was charged for heresy when he
    accepted some sort of benediction, or other type of verbal
    communication, in the name of Yeshu. In each of these accounts, Yeshu
    is mentioned not as the son of God, but as “Yeshu ben Pandera,” or
    “Yeshu, son of Pandera,” a moniker which will be addressed shortly
    hereafter.

    In contrast to the varying accounts of Yeshu, the Gospels portray a


    harmonious account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. While there are
    elements of the Gospels which appear contradictory on the surface,
    studies concerned with translation errors or Jewish idioms and customs
    of the day serve to clarify such supposed contradictions. Such a
    discussion and treatment of individual so-called contradictions is
    beyond our discussion at this juncture. For now, it will serve my
    purpose simply to state the Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth have
    not changed since they were first composed in the first century, while

    603
    the accounts of Yeshu ha Notzri present an ever-changing and mutative
    portrayal of their hero.

    Authorship and dating of the Toledoth Yeshu


    The question of authorship of the Toledoth Yeshu is a simple
    question to address: no one knows who wrote it. Scholarship consensus
    agrees that the variations in the accounts indicate that each version was
    penned by a different hand. As far as dating the text, the version listed
    above is a translation of a fourteenth century manuscript.23 The earliest
    extant evidence of its existence is in the form of six seventh century
    fragments discovered in Cairo, Egypt,24 however the Toledoth Yeshu
    itself is believed to date as early as the fourth century25 and is believed
    to be based on an oral tradition dating no earlier than the second
    century,26 after the completion of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
    and John.

    Character and purpose


    The Toledoth Yeshu is generally regarded to be a derogatory
    commentary, in parody form, on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The
    various authors are thought to have drawn on the mentions of Yeshu in
    the Talmud, then merging such references with the Gospel accounts of
    Jesus, as well as the Greek myth of Pandareus* and the account of
    Simon Magus** in the apocryphal work the Acts of Peter. Morris
    Goldstein, whose translation of the Toledoth Yeshu is given above,
    comments on the character of the text by saying, “… we have a
    conglomeration of a parody on the Gospels, with the full play of the
    imagination which is characteristic of [sixth century authors] in this
    type of literature in the Near East, plus misinterpretation of Talmud and
    Midrash [Jewish literature written between 200 and 700 A.D.]
    passages, plus excerpts from non-Canonical and Patristic writings, plus
    vestigial remains of sectaries, plus items from the Yosippon [a tenth
    century chronicle of Jewish history], plus unwritten folk legend.”27

    * In Greek mythology Pandareus was the son of Clymene and Merops.


    Like Yeshu, he too stole an item of value from a temple – not from the
    Temple of Yahweh, but from the temple of Zeus located on the isle of
    Crete. The object of Pandareus’ thievery, rather than being a piece of
    parchment on which was written the secret name of God, was a golden
    dog. As a consequence for his theft he was either stoned or fled to
    Sicily, depending on which version of the myth one is reading.

    ** Simon Magnus, also known as Simon the Sorcerer, was a first


    century sage who was hailed as the Great Power of God. Concerning
    him, the aspect of the account which is of interest here is that, like
    Yeshu, Simon was also said to have possessed the ability to fly or
    levitate.

    604
    Jesus, son of ... Pandera?
    The Toledoth Yeshu is, in part, based on a claim made by the second
    century Greek philosopher Celsus who said that Jesus was the illegiti-
    mate child of Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera. Likewise, in
    the Talmud, Jesus is portrayed in the same light, only in that account
    the soldier is identified as Pandera and Jesus is identified as Yeshu ben
    Pandera, meaning “Jesus, son of Pandera.” The claim by Celsus exists
    today in the extant writings of the early Christian apologist Origen
    (c.185-254). Origen’s relating of Celsus’ claim is as follows:

    “[Celsus] accuses [Jesus] of having ‘invented his birth from a


    virgin,’ and upbraids Him with being ‘born in a certain Jewish
    village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her
    subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by
    her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted
    of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and
    wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to
    Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a
    servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there
    acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians
    greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly
    elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed
    himself a God. … when she was pregnant she was turned out
    of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as
    having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a
    certain soldier named Panthera.’”28

    The above passage contains several elements which were later in-
    corporated into the Toledoth Yeshu, such as the name of the father (Pan-
    theras, according to Celsus, and Pandera, according to the Toledoth
    Yeshu), Joseph’s abandonment of Mary, and Yeshu’s journey to Egypt
    and subsequent acquisition of supernatural abilities, after which he re-
    turns to Palestine and claims divinity for himself. Whereas minor revi-
    sions have been made (such as the identification of the father from a
    Roman soldier to a neighbor of Mary) and the base elements of the sto-
    ry being elaborated upon (such as the inclusion of specific miracles
    done by Yeshu, as well as his betrayal, arrest, execution, and supposed
    resurrection from the dead), the formula of the story remains generally
    intact from the time of Celsus to the composition of the Toledoth Yeshu.
    In borrowing from the Gospel account of Jesus, medieval opponents to
    Christianity merged the Gospel narratives with the later claim of Cel-
    sus, resulting in the conflated text presently under discussion.

    It is uncertain who Celsus had in mind when naming Panthera as the


    father of Jesus, although speculation has arisen that he was referring to
    Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera (c.22 B.C.- 40 A.D), a Roman soldier
    whose unit was stationed in Judea until 9 B.C.29 That, combined with

    605
    the fact that a Roman presence was in Sepphoris, near Mary’s
    hometown of Nazareth, around the time of Jesus’ birth in order to
    suppress a revolt there, may have given rise to Celsus’ version of Jesus’
    birth. If this were the case, the morphing of Pantera’s name into
    Panthera may have been a play on the word “parthenos,” the Greek
    word for “virgin,” and it is assumed by some scholars that Greek
    Christians may have referred to Jesus as Yeshua ben Parthenos, or
    “Jesus, son of the Virgin.”30 Still, Pantera is a known Roman name from
    the first century, as attested by gravestone inscriptions. The earliest
    known suggestion that Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera was the Panthera
    of Celsus’ account does not come until the 1966 publication of
    Marcello Craveri's book La vita di Gesu.31 No ancient claim exists to
    substantiate Celsus’ proposition, nor does there exist any biographical
    information on Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera other than what is listed
    on his gravestone, which merely mentions his age and place and
    manner of service in the Empire of Rome.32 The fourth century
    Christian writer Epiphanius (c.320-403 A.D.) suggested that the name
    Panther was a nickname for Joseph based on his parentage, since his
    father was said to have been known as “Panther.”33 Likewise, in the
    seventh century text The Teaching of Jacob it is said that Mary’s
    grandfather was named Panther. According to Jewish historian Robert
    Eisler, the Toledoth Yeshu’s use of the name Panthera, or Pandera, may
    be an Aramaic modification of the Greek name Pandaros, a figure from
    Homer’s Illiad, whose actions served to betray the Greeks and bring
    calamity upon them.34 As a result, Pandaros’ name became synonymous
    with betrayal and was applied to individuals in order to portray them in
    a negative light. Consequently, the name “ben Pandera,” or “son of
    Pandera,” may be a means of derogatory identification for Jesus,
    naming him as the “son of the betrayer.” It should be remembered, as
    mentioned previously in this book, that sonship, in Judaic thought, was
    also used to refer to oneness of nature or character. So it was that Jesus
    was called the Son of God, since He possessed the essence of God.
    Likewise, men were called “sons of the prophets” not because they
    bore genealogical relation to the prophets, but simply because they held
    the same office and function as the prophets. Such an expression is not
    unlike an expression used in modern times when an ill-tempered child
    may be jokingly referred to as the “son of Satan.” It may have been in
    this same spirit that Jesus was called Yeshu ben Pandera, or son of the
    betrayer, since Jesus’ preaching was thought by the religious authorities
    of His day to be heretical. As such, Jesus could have been thought of as
    one who betrayed the religious system into which He was born, then
    establishing His own system of religion in its place. However, any such
    theorizing relating to the origin of the name Panthera, as used by
    Celsus, is purely speculative, as there is no conclusive way to
    determine exactly who he had in view or even if his reference was to an
    actual person or a figment of Celsus’ imagination. Celsus’ version of
    Jesus’ birth is not substantiated by any other early account. The Talmud

    606
    and Tosefta (a collection of Jewish law composed between the first and
    second centuries) mention a Yeshu ben Pandera, but the specifics of his
    birth is not given, other than that it was illegitimate. Self-taught
    Egyptologist Gerald Massey, who is often cited by Jesus myth
    proponents, professed that the identification of Pandera as Jesus’ real
    father “can be established beyond a doubt.”35 While the name of
    Pandera was an actual name in circulation in the time of Jesus, there is
    no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of a man named
    Pandera. Quite to the contrary, and for reasons cited previously in this
    work, the reasonable conclusion is that Jesus was the virgin-born son of
    Mary, as the Gospels declare.

    Jesus, son of ... Stadia?


    The Talmud also makes reference to a figure named Yeshu ben
    Stadia.36 Like Yeshu ben Pandera, Yeshu ben Stadia was said to have
    been the illegitimate son of a woman named Miriam who had an
    adulterous relationship with a Roman soldier. Since the name “Stadia”
    originates from the Aramaic phrase “satat da,” meaning “gone astray”
    or “to deviate,” many scholars perceive “Yeshu ben Stadia” as simply a
    reference to the son of a deviant and adulterous woman, without
    specific reference to the name of the child’s father. Such a belief is also
    expressed in the Gemara,37 an addition to the Talmud which was
    composed between 350-500 A.D. Unlike the name Pandera, there is no
    archaeological evidence to suggest that Stadia was a known name in
    circulation during the time of Jesus. Some scholars speculate that the
    identification “ben Stadia,” or “son of a deviant,” may have been used
    in a derogatory fashion similar to how the name “pen Pandera” may
    have been used to portray one in a negative light. As with Yeshu ha
    Notzri, the central figure in the Toledoth Yeshu, Yeshu ben Stadia was
    said to have learned magic in Egypt, then later stoned in Lod or
    crucified on the eve of Passover in Judea, ideas which later migrated
    into the Toledoth Yeshu.

    Is the name Yeshu interchangeable with the name Jesus?


    Aside from any considerations regarding dating or content, a key
    factor in determining whether or not the Toledoth Yeshu is an account
    which was used by the Gospel writers in their composition of the life of
    Jesus is the etymology of the name Yeshu. In other words, is the name
    Yeshu one which is synonymous with the Greek name Iesous, from
    which is derived the English name Jesus? Or, does Yeshu serve as a
    derogatory moniker or pseudonym rather than a person's given name?
    One position is that Yeshu is an acronym for a derogatory Rabbincal
    phrase used in reference to a heretic and which was employed in the
    Toledoth Yeshu as a means of providing a negative commentary on the
    person and work of Jesus, whose teachings were indeed regarded as
    heresy by the Jewish religious authorities of His day. Another factor to
    consider is the etymology of the title Notzri, and whether or not Notzri

    607
    is synonymous with the name Nazareth. Furthermore, can the Jesus of
    the Gospels be linked to a pre-Christian sect known as the Notzrim, of
    whom it is said that Yeshu, the central figure of the Toledoth Yeshu,
    belonged? These are some considerations which will be addressed in
    the paragraphs which follow.

    “Yeshu” or “Yeshua”?
    As stated above, the name Jesus is rendered as Iesous in the
    original Greek in which the New Testament was written. The name
    “Iesous” was not rendered as “Jesus” until the mid to late Middle
    Ages when Anglo influence affected the spelling of the name. The
    name Iesous itself is a Hellenized, or Grecian-influenced, version
    of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Yehoshua literally means “to save”
    or “to deliver.” It is rendered in the King James and modern
    English versions of the Old Testament as “Joshua.” In the book of
    Numbers (13:16), Hoshea, Moses' successor as the leader of the
    Jewish people, was renamed Yehoshua, or “Joshua” in English,
    because of his role as the one who would bring an and end to the
    Hebrews’ forty years of wilderness wandering after their exodus
    from Egypt and lead them into the land promised to them since the
    days of the Hebrew patriarch Abraham (Gen 12:1-7). In Aramaic,
    the language spoken in Palestine during the first century, Yehoshua
    becomes Yeshua. In modern times, both names, Yeshua and Yeshu,
    are used as Hebrew names for Jesus. Because of the modern usage
    of the name Yeshu, as well as the phonetic similarity of the names
    Yeshua and Yeshu, Yeshu is considered today to be interchangeable
    with the name Jesus. However, within ancient texts, no concrete
    evidence exists to substantiate the name Yeshu as one which is
    interchangeable with the Aramaic name Yeshua. Although the
    name Yeshua is rendered as Yeshu in some manuscripts of the
    Tosefta (c.200 A.D.), such a rendering of the name may be due to
    the silence of the final consonant in the Hebrew Yehoshua and does
    not serve to testify to early usage of the name Yeshu as a name
    applied instead of Yehoshua. Furthermore, the Tosefta’s rendering
    of the name Yehoshua as Yeshu is not an exclusive rendering, since
    elsewhere in the text Yehoshua is also rendered as Yeshua. Also, it
    is the view of David Rokeah, Professor Emeritus at Jerusalem’s
    Hebrew University, that the original rendering was Yeshua, rather
    than Yeshu.38 There has also been found a first century ossuary
    inscribed with the name Yeshu, however, it is believed the that
    such a rendering was due to lack of space where that particular
    name was inscribed on the box, since elsewhere on the same
    ossuary the name is inscribed as Yeshua.39 Finally, Elieser ben-
    Yehuda, the father of Ivrit (the modern Hebrew language), in his
    introduction to Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis, the name of Jesus is
    mentioned eight times and in each instance the name is rendered as
    Yeshua, not Yeshu.40 So, how then, in modern times, did the name

    608
    Yeshua become synonymoous with Yeshu, if there is no solid
    evidence in antiquity to substantiate such an association? The most
    widely accepted explanation is based on the dialect of Galilee and
    comes from David Flusser, professor of Early Christianity and
    Judaism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in his book Jewish
    Sources in Early Christianity, in which he writes, “Jesus was a
    Galilean, and therefore the a at the end of his name, Yeshua, was
    not pronounced. His full name was thus Yeshua.”41

    “Yeshu” as an acronym, not a name


    Aside from its modern usage as a name, Yeshu is also believed
    to be an ancient acronym for the Hebrew expression “yimmach
    shemo vezikhro,” literally translated as “may his name and memory
    be blotted out.”42 The phrase was used for heretics and enemies of
    the nation of Israel and is based on a divine mandate passed on
    through Moses. After receiving the Ten Commandments, Moses
    continues to receive further instruction from God which he would
    then pass on to the Jewish people. In the Law which Moses
    received, God commanded Israel as follows: “... make no mention
    of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.”
    (Ex 23:13) When Jesus claimed oneness with God He became a
    heretc, at least in the mind of the religious authority of the day. As
    a result, ancient Jews may have been forbidden to mention the
    name of Jesus, or Yeshua, since doing so would be speaking the
    name of one who was considered by non-Christians to be a false
    God. Rather, ancient Jews may have been requred to substiute the
    name Yeshua, or Jesus, for a more derogatory and defaming
    moniker such as Yeshu, in reference to above mentioned divine
    mandate. Such was the view of the seventeenth century German
    author Johann Andreas Eisenmenger (1654-1794) who also
    proposed that since Jesus did not prevent His own execution, He
    did not deserve to be called Yeshua, a name specifically
    referencing salvation or deliverance.43 It was also his belief that the
    Toledoth Yeshu utilizes the name Yeshu, rather than Yeshua, in the
    spirit of such a negative connotation.

    Is the title Notzrim interchangeable with the name Nazareth or the


    title Nazarene?
    As stated previously, in order to determine any association between
    the Gospels and the Toledoth Yeshu, another factor to consider is the
    etymology of the title Notzri. Yeshu is mentioned as “Yeshu ha Notzri”
    in several late medieval manuscripts of the Talmud, such as Sanhedrin
    43a, 103a, 107b, Sotah 47a, Berachot 17b, and Avodah Zarah 16b-17a.
    The attachment of “ha Notzri” to the name Yeshu has given further rise
    to the association of Yeshu ha Notzri with the titles “Jesus of Nazareth”
    and “Jesus the Nazarene,” since Notzri is considered by some as a
    reference to Nazareth, Jesus’ hometown. It is also assumed by some

    609
    that Yeshu ha Notzri belonged to a pre-Christian Jewish religious sect
    known as the Notzrim. Those who regard the Toledoth Yeshu as a text
    on which the Gospels were based regard early Christians as adherents
    to this sect, thereby making Christianity a belief system which is not
    grounded in the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth; but rather, in the
    Yeshu of the text presently under discussion, a figure who was neither
    God incarnate nor a redeemer. Therefore, it is important to consider
    whether or not the title Notzri is one which translates into the Gospels’
    account of Jesus as a “Nazarene.” Does the title simply refer to the
    town to which Jesus’ family relocated after His birth, or does it serve to
    associate Him with a pre-Christian way of life and set of beliefs held by
    a particular sect? Or, are there yet other ideas which are signified by the
    term Notzri? The question which will be dealt with here is whether or
    not “Notzri” does in fact refer to a person from Nazareth, but I will first
    address various other theories concerning the meaning of the word
    “Notzri.” Following that, I will then address the sect of the Notzrim and
    any alleged relationship between that sect and Christianity.

    Theory one: “Notzri” as “netzir” – a reference to a branch


    In the Old Testament the Hebrew words “netzir” is
    translated as “branch” and is used as a title for the coming
    Messiah. In the Old Testament, the word is used to describe
    the Messiah as the “Branch of Yahweh” (Isa 4:2), the
    “Branch” (Isa 11:1) and “Root” (Isa 11:10) of Jesse (the father
    of David, who would become King of Israel), and a
    “Righteous Branch” (Jer 23:5). The word “netzir” literally
    means “offshoot,” and is used by Isaiah with a particular
    messianic connotation to the branches of an oak tree. An oak
    tree, after being cut down, still contains a stock from which
    the tree may regrow and sprout new branches, a fact which is
    also referenced in the book of Job:

    For there is hope of a tree, If it be cut down, that it will


    sprout again, And that the tender branch thereof will not
    cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, And
    the stock thereof die in the ground; Yet through the scent
    of water it will bud, And put forth boughs like a plant. Job
    14:7-9

    In Isaiah, the imagery of the felled oak tree is used to


    communicate a promise to Israel that, although it be fallen (as
    the royal lineage of David was brought to an end and the
    Jewish people led into Babylonian captivity), a sprout – that
    is, the Messiah – shall come from within the fallen people,
    bringing restoration and new life.

    610
    And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of
    Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit. And
    the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him [cf. Mk 1:10],
    the spirit of wisdom and understanding [cf. Lk 2:46-47,
    52]. (Isa 11:1-2 NASB)

    As Joseph, the youngest of Jacob’s children, became great in


    Egypt, and as David, a lowly shepherd, became a great king of
    Israel, so it was prophesied that the Messiah shall arise from a
    lowly estate bringing salvation and eternal fellowship with
    God. Although Jesus was of the legal lineage of David, He
    was not born to a wealthy king. Although He is worshiped in
    heaven and crowns cast at His feet, during His incarnation He
    was spat upon, mutilated, and executed as a criminal by both
    Jews and Gentiles. From His birth in a manger to His lowly
    rearing in Nazareth and His rejection by the Jews, Jesus truly
    arose from one low and despised to one crowned as the King
    of Kings and Prince of Peace. Jesus’ earthly humiliation may
    be that to which Matthew refers when he says that it was
    “spoken through the prophets, that [the Messiah] should be
    called a Nazarene.” (Mt 2:23) While the usage in the text
    clearly refers to Jesus’ place of rearing, there lies a secondary
    reference to the Messiah’s humiliation by His being referred to
    as a Nazarene (which shall be discussed shortly hereafter), as
    prophesied before His appearance among men.

    As the term “notzri” was used to refer to the Messiah as


    sprouting from within Israel, so could the term be correctly
    applied to Christians as an “offshoot” of Jesus of Nazareth, the
    True Vine (Jn 15:1-6), or to Christianity as an “offshoot” of
    Judaism itself.

    Theory two: “Notzri” as “Nazir” – a reference to a


    Nazarite or “holy one”
    A second meaning applied to the word “Notzrim” is that of
    a reference to one who has taken a Nazarite vow or has been
    separated from birth in service to God. The Hebrew word
    “nazir” is rendered in the Greek New Testament as both
    “hagios,” meaning “holy,” and “Naziraios,” meaning
    “Nazarene,” used in reference to one who has taken the
    Nazarite vow rather than one who is from the town of
    Nazareth. Likewise, “nazur,” the Aramaic equivalent of
    “nazir,” means to be “separate.” To be a Nazarite was to be
    “nazir,” or “holy,” and to be holy is to be separated from
    someone or something and unto another. The concept of
    holiness in Scripture, when used in reference to men, refers
    not to a divine nature, but to the quality of service that a

    611
    person renders to God and to the exclusion of any service
    which would be to the contrary. Holiness, therefore, is a type
    of service which is rendered to God alone, excluding any other
    master. Such is the subject of Jesus’ preaching in Matthew
    chapter six where He commands His followers to follow after
    the things of God rather than the things of the world, since
    service to one master (that is, the world) renders the subject
    incapable of service to another master (that is, God). Jesus
    said, “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate
    the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and
    despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Mt
    6:24 NASB). Christians are called to be holy, or separate unto
    God, (2 Cor 6:17; 1 Pet 1:15-16) and to present themselves to
    God as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to Him (Rom
    12:1). In the Old Testament, certain men, such as Samson
    (Judg 16:17) and Samuel (1 Sam 1:11), were called Nazarites
    because they were separated unto God (Num 6:1-21). In
    Samson’s case, he was separated unto God from birth, while
    others became Nazarites later in life. Likewise, in the New
    Testament, John the Baptist, before he was born, was
    separated unto God, since he would act in service to God,
    preparing the way for the coming Messiah (Lk 1:15). When
    the angel Gabriel announced Jesus’ birth to the virgin Mary,
    the angel declares that “the holy thing which is begotten [of
    Mary] shall be called the Son of God.” (Lk 1:35) Jesus of
    Nazareth was holy, not only because His humanity was
    inseparably linked to His divine nature as God, but also
    because He was born for the work of God – specifically for
    accomplishing the redemption of God’s people (Mt 1:21) and
    to reveal God the Father to man (Jn 1:14, 14:9). While Jesus
    did not live the life of a Nazarite as described in the book of
    Numbers (6:1-21), since He did not abstain from wine and
    contact with the dead, He was holy, or separate, in that He
    lived His life in obedience to the Law and in service to God.

    Theory three: “Notzri” as “nasi” – a reference to a royalty


    A third meaning applied to “Notzrim” is a reference to
    royalty – specifically, to that of a Prince – and is derived from
    the Hebrew “nasi,” a word also used in reference to royalty. In
    the second century the term was applied to one Rabbi Judah ha
    Nasi, or Judah the Prince. He was a religious leader in Judea
    and was of David’s royal lineage, thereby earning for himself
    the moniker of Prince, although neither he nor his father held
    any crown. The word “nasi” was also used as a title for
    presidents of the Sanhedrin, the judicial order of the Jews.
    Likewise, Jesus was of Davidic lineage and was prophetically
    referred to by Isaiah as the Prince of Peace. Therefore, it is

    612
    conceivable that such a title could have been used of Jesus by
    first century Jews.

    Theory four: “Notzri” as “Nazarat” – a reference to a


    person from the town of Nazareth
    The word “Nazarat” is a Hebrew word used to identity the
    town of Nazareth. It is believed by some that “Notzri,” or the
    plural “Notzrim,” is a reference to residents of the town of
    Nazareth. The New Testament is clear regarding Nazareth as
    Jesus’ place of rearing.

    [Joseph and Mary] came and dwelt in a city called


    Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
    through the prophets, that [Jesus] should be called a
    Nazarene. (Mt 2:23)

    After the death of Herod, Jesus' parents returned to Palestine


    and established their residence in Nazareth; therefore,
    throughout Jesus’ ministry He was referred to as a Nazarene
    (Mk 1:23; 11:47; 14:67; 16:6; Lk 4:34; 24:19; cf. Acts 24:5).
    The word translated as Nazarene in the above text is the Greek
    word “Nazorean,” which is a word used to refer to a resident
    of the town of Nazareth (it should also be noted that the
    second chapter of Matthew is largely concerned with
    geography and makes numerous references to locations in
    relation to the nativity of Jesus). Still, it is suggested by some
    that the term “Nazarene,” as used by Matthew, denotes
    something other than a reference to Jesus’ hometown and
    instead identifies Him as one associated with a pre-Christian
    Judaic sect known as the Notzrim, thereby furthering the
    argument that the Gospels’ account of Jesus of Nazareth is
    based on the Toledoth Yeshu’s account of Yeshu ha Notzri. A
    valid point which is made in the course of such a suggestion is
    that nowhere in the Old Testament is the Messiah prophesied
    to come from the town of Nazareth. Quite to the contrary, the
    only town mentioned in prophecy as the Messiah’s place of
    origin is the town of Bethlehem, as foretold by the prophet
    Micah (5:2). Some scholars believe Matthew was making
    reference to a prophecy not written in the canonical Scriptures.
    Still other scholars believe Matthew was referring to a
    “spoken” or oral tradition regarding Nazareth as the Messiah's
    hometown. However, elsewhere in his Gospel when making
    reference to prophecies in Scripture Matthew likewise
    describes the prophecies as being “spoken,” despite such
    prophecies being preserved in the writings of the prophets. It
    is also worthy to note that Matthew here strays from his usual
    formula when making reference to the prophets before him.

    613
    Throughout his Gospel he quotes from the Jewish Scriptures
    by referencing a particular text and prefacing his reference
    with variations of the phrase, “which was spoken by the
    prophet, saying ...” The formula is found here in his account of
    Jesus' nativity on no less then three previous occasions, as in
    the passages below:

    … that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord


    by the prophet, saying ... (1:22-23, referencing Isa 7:14)

    ... which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying


    … (2:14-15, referencing Hosea 1:11)

    ... that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying


    ... (2:17-18, referencing Jer 31:17)

    Departing from his usual formula of making reference to the


    prophets in the singular tense, Matthew here refers to the
    “prophets” - not to one prophet in particular, but to a general
    description of the Messiah found in the writings of prophets. It
    is likely that Matthew had in view the humiliation which the
    Messiah was foretold to endure, rather than a moniker by
    which the Messiah was foretold to be called. It was prophesied
    that the Messiah would be mocked and sneered at (Psalm
    22:7), hated (Psalm 35:19, 69:4), cut off (Dan 9:26), and
    rejected (Isa 53:3). Still, Matthew states that it was prophesied
    Jesus would be “called” a Nazarene. In the first century to be
    called a Nazarene was to be in a place of disposition. Palestine
    was divided into the southern region of Judea and the northern
    region of Galilee. Judeans generally considered Galileans to
    be a lowly sort, a prejudice which is evidenced even in
    Scripture (Jn 7:52). The more rural life of Galileans and their
    less formal manner of speech marked them as an inferior form
    of Jew, at least in the mind of the inhabitants of Judea.
    Nazareth was situated in the region of Galilee and the town
    had for itself a particular negative reputation which exceeded
    the more general contempt that Judeans had for the northern
    Jews. A Roman garrison was stationed in Nazareth, which
    served to represent Nazarenes as ones who were sympathetic
    to the Roman oppressorsr, rather than as pure Jews.47 Even
    among Galileans, Nazarenes were looked down upon. So it
    was that Nathaniel, a fellow Galilean, doubted Jesus'
    identification as the Messiah simply because Jesus came from
    Nazareth (Jn 1:46). Likewise, in the United States there are
    cities and suburbs which bear the mark of a bad reputation, so
    much so that someone from such a place may at first perceived
    by outsiders as representative of the character of his or her

    614
    hometown, and so it was in the case of Nazareth. Such a
    negative image of the residents of Nazareth became so
    common that the title “Nazarene” was used as a word with
    which to express one's contempt for another, not unlike a
    wealthy Wall Street executive may look down upon a
    homeless “bum.” To be a “Nazarene” was to be rejected and
    despised, qualities which the prophets attributed to the Jews'
    reception of the Messiah, and it is in such spirit that Jesus was
    called a Nazarene. Even on the inscription placed above Jesus
    on the cross, the town of Nazareth was named, as a form of
    further humiliation and scorn. Although Jesus was not “called”
    a Nazarene in prophetic utterances, the fact that he was called
    a Nazarene during His lifetime served to further fulfill that
    which was spoken by the prophets, that He would be despised
    and rejected of men, without the town of Nazareth specifically
    being mentioned by prophets.

    Aside from the Greek word “Nazorean,” translated as


    “Nazarene” by Matthew, another word used in the Gospels to
    describe Jesus is the Greek word “Nazoraios,” which may be
    used in reference to a sect, such as in Acts 24:5 where Paul is
    referred to as a ringleader of the “sect of the Nazarenes.”
    Some have taken that passage to indicate that Christians were
    also referred to as Nazarenes, but the reference actually relates
    to a previous passage (Acts 21:23-26) in which Paul is
    instructed to accompany to the Temple four men who have
    taken the Nazarite vow upon them. Later, in the twenty-fourth
    chapter, Paul is then brought to trial for having supposedly
    profaned the Temple (Acts 24:6) by virtue of the activities of
    these Nazarites mentioned in the narrative. However, while the
    passage does not serve as a means to conclude that Christians
    in general were referred to as Nazarenes, the passage does
    testify that the term Nazoraios, or Nazarene, was used not only
    as a geographic identification, but also as a reference to a
    person or group of people without respect to their town of
    origin. So it was that those who had taken a Nazarite vow, as
    the four men mentioned above, were called Nazarenes. Still,
    later texts, post-dating the era of the Apostles, testify that
    “Nazarene” was eventually used to refer to Christians. So it is
    in the Canons of the Church of Alexandria (second to third
    century) where, in the tenth canon, it speaks of “those who
    wish to become Nazarenes (Christians).”44 Also, in the fourth
    century, Jerome defines a Nazarene as ones “who accept
    Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the
    old Law [referring to the ordinances and sacrifices established
    in the Old Testament].”45 The Catholic scholar Raymond
    Brown agrees that “‘Nazoraios’ is quite defensible as a

    615
    derivation form ‘Nazareth,’ … [but such a meaning] does not
    exclude a secondary messianic association of the term.”46

    The above discussion served to bring to light that, while the term
    “Notzrm” can be linked to more than one meaning, with each meaning
    conceivably being applicable to Christianity, the meaning which is
    intended to be conveyed in the Gospels is that of a geographic
    designation. Simply, Jesus is called a Nazarene because He came from
    the town of Nazareth. Moreover, His rejection by men was, in part, due
    to His association with that very town. It was in this spirit that Matthew
    states Jesus was a Nazarene. Although Jesus was the “Netzir,” or
    Branch of Jesse, and although He was a “Natzir,” or Nazarite (holy
    one), and although He was a “Nasi,” or the Prince of Peace, the
    meaning which Matthew (as well as the other Gospel writers) is
    conveying is that Jesus was a Nazorean (Nazarene) from the town of
    Nazarat (Nazareth), and it is that town which He called home that
    served to further add to His humiliation, as prophesied long before His
    birth.

    What relation, if any, does the pre-Christian sect known as the


    Notzrim have to Christianity?
    The Notzrim were a Jewish Gnostic sect formed during the reign of
    Salome Alexandra (139-67 B.C.) and were geographically consolodated
    to Galilee, the narthern region of Palestine. As explained under a
    previous heading, Gnostics regarded themselves as possessors of a
    secret knowledge regarding a supposed “inner light” or spark of
    divinity which lies hidden in mankind. It is through the awareness of
    this spark that men achieve their true potential and find true spiritual
    freedom from the body, which Gnostics regard as a prison house for the
    soul. For the Gnostic, the material world and everything in it, including
    the body, represents corruption and death, whereas the world of the
    spirit is where truth and liberty reside. The word Notzrim comes from a
    Hebrew word “nosri,” which means “sentry,” “watcher,” or
    “watchman,” as it is translated in Jeremiah 31:6. So it is that adherents
    to Gnosticism regard themselves as keepers or guardians of a type of
    special knowledge of which only the enlightened come into possession.
    Although the Notzrim consisted of Jews, the members of this sect did
    not hold to the teachings and sacrifices of orthodox Judaism. They
    rejected the Hebrew Scriptures as the word of God and they did not
    take part in Temple worship and sacrifices. Additionally, they rejected
    the Law of Moses, believing that he had come into posession of a type
    of knowledge other than what is contained in the Penteteuch (the books
    of Moses, or Genesis throuigh Deuteronomy, in the English Bible). The
    Notzri movement was particularly popular among Samaritan Jews, who
    were generally held in contempt by non-Samaritans, so much so that
    Jews from the northern regions of Palestine would avoid traveling on
    roads passing through Samaria even though such an averted route

    616
    would usually take longer to travel and would, at times, be a more
    difficult route to take.

    The messianic expectations of the Samaritan Jews were unlike those


    of orthodox Judaism, being focused on a restoration of the northern
    kingdom of Israel,* whereas orhtodox messianic expectations were
    concerned with a re-unification of the scattered twelve tribes of the
    Hebrews and the restoration of the Hebrews as a national entity free
    from oppression, occupation, and captivity. The Notzrim regarded
    themselves as descendents of Joseph, Jacob’s youngest son who was
    sold by his brothers into slavery and later rose to power in the land of
    Egypt. As such, they prouded themselves as the “sons of Joseph,”
    which some have understood as the root of elements found in the
    nativity of Jesus, in which Joseph, the husband of Mary, claims the
    virgin-born Christ as his legal heir. Furthermore, in Matthew’s Gospel,
    the father of Joseph, Jesus’ step-father, is named as Jacob. Despite the
    commonality of the name Jacob, such a mention in Joseph’s
    geneaology is used as a means to further the proposition that the
    Gospels were a revision of beliefs held by the Notzri sect. However, the
    title “son of Joseph” was applied by the Notzrim to all within their sect,
    not just their presumed messiah. If all Notzrim were sons of Joseph,
    then there would be no significance in naming Mary’s husband Joseph
    since Jesus would already be a “son of Joseph” by virtue of His
    association with the Notzri sect. The central figure of the Toledoth
    Yeshu is based on the figure recognized by the Notzrim as the Messiah.
    However since factors which differentiate Yeshu ha Notzri from Jesus
    of Nazareth have already been considered, it does not bear to repeat
    them here, other than mentioning that Jesus preached salvation to all
    Jews, regardless of from which region of Palestine they belonged. Also,
    Jesus commanded His disciples to carry His Gospel beyond those of
    Jewish nationality and extended His disciples’ mission to those of
    Gentile origin, which does not at all fall in line with the Notzrim belief
    concerning the extent of the Messiah’s restorative work. Therefore, it is
    in error when one refers to a Noztri sect as a “Jesus movement,” since a
    true Notzri would reject the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the
    Gospel accounts.

    As a final note concerning any supposed relationship between the


    Notzrim sect and early Christianity, it is claimed by some that John the
    Baptist was actually a leader of the Notzri sect. This claim is made by
    the Mandaeans, who regard themselves as a continuation of the Notzri
    sect and list John the Baptist among their ancient teachers. The
    Mandaeans, also a Gnostic sect, include such a mention of John in the
    Haran Gawaita, in which it is said that John was initiated into their sect
    and became a keeper of the secret knowledge which Gnostics held in
    such high regard. However, according to Dr. E. S. Drower, a specialist
    on the Notzri movement, such mention of John is a late Arabic

    617
    inclusion to the original Aramaic text and does not reflect beliefs held
    during the first century.48

    * After the reign of Solomon, David’s son, the unified kingdom of the
    Hebrew people was divided into the northern kingdom of Israel and the
    southern kingdom of Judah.

    As shown above, the accounts of the various individuals who came before Jesus and
    were considered candidates for Messiah, either in antiquity or in modern times, do not
    bear characteristics which would serve to inspire the Gospel writers to fabricate a
    Messiah based on one or more of the above men. Neither does any of these men fit the
    expectations listed in the previous section, where the Messiah is described as one who is
    superhuman, who acts with righteousness, and whose kingdom will remain forever,
    among other things. Josephus nicely sums up the character of these Messianic wishful
    thinkers in saying that they “deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine
    inspiration, but were in fact for procuring innovations and changes of the government.
    These men prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into
    the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.”49
    Jewish Messianic expectations compared to the person and work of Jesus
    Having listed what expectations a typical pre-Christian Jew had for the promised
    Messiah, it will now serve to apply such expectations to Jesus, doing so not in terms of
    their intended Old Testament context; but rather, within the context of pre-Christian
    Messianic expectations. It will be shown that the Gospels' account of Jesus the Messiah is
    one that does not fit such prevailing pre-Christian messianic expectations. Had the
    Gospel writers pieced together their own Messiah, based on such expectations, in a
    Frankenstein-like fashion, the end result would have been a much different Gospel that
    that which has been handed down since the first century A.D. Each of the expectations
    listed above will here be considered individually, and their components applied to Jesus
    of Nazareth.

    Expectation 1: “He will from the town of Bethlehem and from the line of
    David, or the tribe of Judah, and be a ruler or prince, being without sin.”

    He will from the town of Bethlehem ...


    Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem, as indicated in the Gospels.
    However, there is no indication that He ever made that town a
    residence of His. On the contrary, Jesus spent His childhood in the
    northern town of Nazareth. Had the Gospels been fabricated, the
    portrait of the Messiah would likely have been a figure who made
    Bethlehem His central dwelling, given His Davidic lineage, the
    prophecy of Micah that the Messiah would come from there, and also
    Bethlehem’s close proximity to Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish
    religious structure. In contrast, Nazareth was a town of ill repute, and it
    is unlikely that the Gospel writers would have taken a fancy to such a
    hedonistic town as the location where they would place a Messiah of
    their own making.

    618
    … and from the line of David, or the tribe of Judah, …
    Jesus was of Davidic descent and of the tribe of Judah, so this one is
    dead on.

    … and be a ruler or prince, …


    The prophet Isaiah named the coming Messiah the Prince of Peace,
    and many times in Scripture He is identified as the Monarch over a
    spiritual Kingdom, however, since the expectation was that the Messiah
    would be an earthly ruler, this expectation would therefore not apply to
    Jesus. Jesus held no seat of earthly power, He bore no arms, and He
    overthrew no political power during His time among men.

    … being without sin.


    On the surface, it would seem evident that an expectation such as
    this would be correctly applied to Jesus, however, the reason for Jesus’
    sinlessness is not synonymous with he reason ancient Jews believed the
    coming Messiah would be without sin. In the case of Jesus, His
    sinlessness was due to His deity, for God cannot have sin in Him, else
    His very nature and essence would be violated. However, in the mind
    of ancient rabbis, the sinlessness of the coming Messiah was not due to
    a oneness with deity, in whom no sin can dwell; but rather, due to a
    lack of belief in the doctrine of original sin, which states that every
    person is born with a sinful nature that prevents proper communion and
    relationship with God. Rather, it was believed that man was born
    merely with an inclination to evil, but that the nature of the man was
    not sinful in and of itself. Every person, they believed, had the potential
    within them to overcome this tendency to evil through the keeping of
    the Law, thus making a proper relationship with God something that is
    attained by merit rather than grace, thus earning God’s favor by virtue
    of his or her adherence to God’s Law. The New Testament makes it
    clear, on numerous occasions, that no one is justified by the Law; but
    rather, by grace, and Paul makes it very clear that no one is righteous
    until he is made righteous by God. (Rom chapters 1-6) Therefore, while
    the sinless state here under consideration does apply to Jesus, in that He
    was in fact without sin, this expectation cannot be properly applied to
    Jesus when taking into consideration the way in which ancient Jews
    applied a sinless state to the coming Messiah, for their reasons for
    doing so were other than the reason that Jesus was indeed without sin.

    Expectation 2: “He will be a prophet and priest of God, who will reveal the
    words of the Lord and be called the Angel, or Messenger, of the Great
    Council.”

    He will be a prophet and priest of God, …


    Jesus foretold things yet to come, not the least of which was His
    own crucifixion and resurrection, so He could rightly be said to have
    been recognized as a prophet during His earthly ministry. Concerning

    619
    His role as priest, this is a role which He performs in the heavenly
    tabernacle, of which the earthly tabernacle and Temple were a mere
    foreshadow. During His ministry, Jesus did teach in synagogues, but
    such was not uncommon for a man near, or over, thirty years of age, the
    age when a Hebrew male was considered fit for ministry or to be called
    a rabbi, or a teacher. However, Jesus did not hold the office of a priest.
    He never officiated a Temple sacrifice. He never entered into the Holy
    Place of the Temple built in Jerusalem by Herod the Great. In fact,
    during His ministry, He challenged the priests of the Temple, and even
    overturned the tables where money changers sold items for profit
    within the Temple. Therefore, of these two roles, prophet and priest,
    Jesus would have only been recognized by the public as a prophet
    during His ministry, and not a priest.

    … who will reveal the words of the Lord …


    Jesus did in fact make known the Word of God, as He is the
    personification of the Word. As Paul says, in Him dwelt the fullness of
    the Godhead bodily, therefore, He was not only one who made known
    the will of God, but, more so, He revealed the very person of God,
    being the second person of the Trinity.

    … and be called the Angel, or Messenger, of the Great Council.


    An examination of the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament,
    which was done in Part five, reveals the Angel and Christ to be one and
    the same, however, this was not revealed until after the resurrection,
    when Jesus made known to His disciples all that the Old Testament
    prophets said of Him. During His ministry, Jesus was referred to by
    numerous titles, but never as Angel or Messenger of the Great Council.
    To the public, He was most commonly called by the titles “rabbi,” or
    “teacher.”

    Expectation 3: “He will be a man who becomes king, who sits in a glorious
    throne and rules forever over many nations.”

    He will be a man …
    Jesus was indeed a flesh and blood human being, born to the virgin
    Mary. He did not merely appear to be a man – He was a man.

    … who becomes king, …


    The “king” here refers to one holding political power, which Jesus
    never did. While He is the King of Kings, His kingdom is a spiritual
    kingdom, not an earthly kingdom, as was the expectation of ancient
    Jews.

    … who sits in a glorious throne …


    Again, Jesus’ “throne” is in heaven, and was not an earthly throne,
    as the Messiah was expected to claim.

    620
    … and rules forever …
    Jesus’ crucifixion no doubt became a hindrance to many who
    believed Him to be the Messiah. Rather than overthrowing the might of
    Rome, Jesus was convicted as a criminal and executed by the very
    same political power that the Messiah was expected to overthrow.

    … over many nations.


    Jesus’ ministry was to the Jews. Following His resurrection He
    commanded His disciples to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles as well,
    but during His earthly ministry, Jesus is never said to have left
    Palestine. During His earthly life, Jesus never became king, He never
    claimed a throne, and He never ruled over nations, although in the end
    of days, every person of every nation will declare that Jesus Christ is
    Lord, and every knee shall bow before Him, either in reverent worship,
    or in fear and dread.

    Expectation 4: “His work will have nationalistic ramifications, in


    destroying heathen nations and gathering together the twelve scattered
    tribes of Israel, thus restoring the nation of God.”

    His work will have nationalistic ramifications, …


    Jesus’ ministry was known throughout Palestine, and following His
    resurrection, Christianity became a force to be reckoned with, not just
    in Palestine, but throughout the Roman Empire. However, after Jesus
    was crucified and rose from the dead, the political arena remained in
    force – Pilate was still procurator of Judea, Herod was still king, Caesar
    was still Emperor, and the Jews were still under Roman oppression.

    … in destroying heathen nations …


    In the end times, Jesus, as the Great Judge, will judge every person
    from every nation, but as a man in the early first century, He never
    lifted a sword against His opponents.

    … and gathering together the twelve scattered tribes of Israel, …


    To this day, the twelve tribes of Israel are still scattered, and some
    are lost altogether.

    … thus restoring the nation of God.


    Until modern times, the Jewish people have not existed as a unified
    nation since the division of the Davidic monarchy into the northern and
    southern kingdoms centuries before Christ. Since then, Jews have been
    an oppressed people, whose national unity has been hindered by civil
    disrupt, exile, captivity, and foreign occupation. Even after Jesus passed
    from the scene, the Romans still occupied Palestine, and Israel’s
    restoration remained nothing more than a hope of things yet to come.

    621
    Expectation 5: “He will be a king sent from God, who will stand on Mt.
    Zion, judge and destroy the wicked with fire and blood, then set free a
    remnant of His people and build a new Temple.”

    He will be a king …
    As stated above, and kingship attributed to the coming Messiah by
    ancient Jews was a reference to an earthly kingship, which Jesus did not
    hold.

    … sent from God, …


    Jesus was indeed sent from God, but He was also God Himself. Still,
    as the Father’s Anointed One, this expectation rightly applies to Jesus.

    … who will stand on Mt. Zion, judge and destroy the wicked with
    fire and blood, …
    No such thing is described in the Gospels. This image was not
    attributed to Jesus until the latter part of the second century, when John
    penned his apocalypse. During His earthly life, Jesus did not judge and
    destroy His enemies with fire or blood.

    … then set free a remnant of his people …


    Jesus came to set the sinner free from the bonds of sin, but He
    accomplished no kind of deliverance for anyone from political
    oppression or bondage.

    … and build a new Temple.


    Such a thing is not described in the Gospels.

    Expectation 6: “He will be God's Son who will be called Son of the Most
    High, whose kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, but who will die after
    four hundred years, ushering in an apocalypse.”

    He will be God's Son …


    As stated in Part five, the identification of Jesus as the Son of God
    was due to His oneness, in nature and essence, with deity, rather than
    an act of being begotten or created by the Father. However, in Jewish
    thought, the title of Messiah as the Son of God did not entail such a
    concept. The Jews perceived themselves, as a nation, as both a son and
    servant of God. Since the Messiah, or the “Anointed one” of God, did
    the work of God, he was therefore regarded to be a servant of God, in
    an even greater sense than was the nation of Israel. Likewise, the
    Messiah was also bonded with Israel by virtue of his heritage, coming
    from the tribe of Judah and the lineage of David. Thus, as Israel was
    God's son, so was the Messiah – not because he shared in divinity; but
    rather, because he was to be a true son of the royal Jewish line. The

    622
    titles Son of God and servant of God were each rightly applied to both
    the nation Israel and the coming Messiah.

    … who will be called Son of the Most High, …


    Jesus was known as God’s Son, so this one matches up with the
    person of Jesus of Nazareth.

    … whose kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, …


    Jesus is Monarch over an eternal spiritual kingdom, but not over an
    earthly kingdom.

    … but who will die …


    Jesus did die on the cross.

    … after four hundred years, …


    Jesus lives to about the age of thirty-three.

    … ushering in an apocalypse.
    No apocalyptic event occurred when Jesus died. There were
    significant events which accompanied His death, events such as the
    rending of the veil, the darkening of the sun, and an earthquake, but
    nothing occurred that could rightly be called an apocalypse.

    Expectation 7: “He is separate from God, and He will be subject to God


    Himself.”

    He is separate from God, …


    Jesus, the Son of God, is one with God the Father. Both the Father
    and the Son share the same essence and nature, and are, along with the
    Spirit of God, together one being.

    … and he will be subject to God Himself.


    Jesus was subject to the Father in terms of the work of redemption,
    in that He gave Himself as the sacrifice for God’s people, as was the
    will of the Father. He also subjected Himself, as a man (not as God), to
    the power of the Holy Spirit, through whom Jesus of Nazareth
    performed many miracles. Still, the expectation among the ancient
    rabbis was that the Messiah would be inferior (to varying degrees,
    depending on which ancient rabbi to whom you would be speaking) to
    God in his person, not just in his work or office, therefore this
    expectation cannot be properly applied to Jesus, as one who possesses
    equality of being with the Godhead.

    623
    Expectation 8: “He will be given wisdom, power, and righteousness, and His
    reign will bring peace and righteousness.”

    He will be given wisdom, power, and righteousness, …


    Here it must be noted that the strength and wisdom of the Messiah,
    as expected by ancient rabbis, is that which is given by God, rather than
    being possessed intrinsically. Jesus, on the other hand, possesses the
    wisdom and power of God because He is God, not because such was
    imparted to Him. Also, the righteousness of Christ is an inherent aspect
    of His being – He has ever been, and will ever be, the one in whom
    righteous dwells.

    … and His reign will bring peace and righteousness.


    The peace provided by the work of Christ was a restoration of the
    union between God and sinful man. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross
    effectually formed an eternal treaty between these two opposing sides,
    but the work of Christ effected no peace between any two warring
    nations. While the work of Christ brought the Gentiles into covenant
    with God, thus forming a new, spiritual Israel of both Jews and
    Gentiles, it cannot be said that the union of these two ethnic groups
    ushered in an age of peace, for Jews and Gentiles remained at odds with
    one another, generally speaking. Even after the decades following
    Jesus’ giving of the Great Commission, whereby the Jews were
    commanded to preach to the Gentiles, there was dispute over the
    inclusion of Gentile believers within the body of Jewish Christians.

    Expectation 9: “He has an angelic countenance and will be called the Son of
    Man, with whom righteousness dwells, and he will depose kings.”

    He has an angelic countenance …


    Aside from His transfiguration where three of His disciples saw
    Jesus in His original glory, His countenance was of a poor carpenter,
    and with as much of a normal human countenance as anyone else.

    … and will be called the Son of Man, …


    The Gospels do indeed record Jesus referring to Himself as the Son
    of Man on numerous occasions during His ministry.

    … with whom righteousness dwells, …


    Ancient rabbis expected that righteousness would dwell “with” the
    Messiah, not “in” him. The righteousness of Jesus was an intrinsic
    righteousness, the righteousness of God Himself.

    … and he will depose kings.


    Jesus of Nazareth deposed no earthly king.

    624
    Expectation 10: “He existed before creation, He will be a light to the
    Gentiles, and all will worship Him on bended knee.”

    He existed before creation, …


    Jesus, as the second person of the Godhead, did take part in the
    creation of the cosmos, and did exist before creation.

    … he will be a light to the Gentiles, …


    Jesus was declared to be a Light to the Gentiles.

    … and all will worship him on bended knee.


    Many Jews worshiped Him on bended knee, but certainly not those
    who cried out for His crucifixion, so this expectation does not apply to
    Jesus.

    Expectation 11: “There will be more than one Messiah.”


    The notion of more than one Messiah is absolutely contrary to the Gospel
    accounts, as expressed in the words of the Apostle Peter when he declared that,
    “in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under
    heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be
    saved.” (Acts 4:12 NASB)

    The above exercise considered a total of thirty-nine various characteristics which


    ancient Jews expected to be embodied in the Messiah of God. Of these, only ten
    rightfully line up, without any question, with the Gospels’ portrayal of Jesus:

    That He would be from the line of David, or the tribe of Judah


    That He would be prophet of God
    That He would reveal the words of the Lord
    That He would be a man
    That He would be sent from God
    That He would be called Son of the Most High
    That He would die
    That He would be called the Son of Man
    That He existed before creation
    That He would be a light to the Gentiles

    Concerning the remaining twenty-nine pre-Christian messianic expectations, only


    three apply to Jesus, but when analyzed further, as explained above, do not apply to Him
    in the way that was expected by ancient Jews.

    That He would be from the town of Bethlehem


    That He would be without sin
    That He would be God's Son

    625
    In the final analysis, it would seem that the Gospel writers, had they sought to fashion
    a fictional Messiah, would have made him more in line with what was expected by the
    people at that time. The great differences between pre-Christian messianic expectations
    and Jesus the Messiah serve to further validate the historicity of the Gospel account of
    Jesus of Nazareth.

    Addendum: Concerning the coming of “Messiah ben Joseph”

    In the Babylonian Talmud there exists a reference to the coming of a Messiah so


    identified as “Messiah ben Joseph,” or Messiah, son of Joseph. This name appears three
    times in the ancient Talmudic text. Of these three reference, the earliest is found in
    Sukkah52a, b, which reads as follows:

    “And the land shall mourn family by family apart. The family of the house of
    David apart and their women apart” (Zech. 12:12). They said: Is not this an a
    fortiori conclusion? In the age to come, when they are busy mourning and no
    evil inclination rules them, the Torah says, 'the men apart and the women apart.'
    How much more so now when they are busy rejoicing and the evil inclination
    rules them. What is the cause of this mourning? Rabbi Dosa and the rabbis
    differ. One says: 'For Messiah ben Joseph who is slain'; and the other says: 'For
    the evil inclination which is slain.' It is well according to him who says, 'For
    Messiah ben Joseph who is slain,' for this is what is written, 'And they shall look
    upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him like the
    mourning for an only son' (Zech. 12.10); but according to him who says. 'The
    evil inclination which is slain': Is this an occasion for mourning? Is it not an
    occasion for rejoicing rather than weeping?”50

    Here, a Temple dialogue is recounted in which one Rabbi Dosa identifies the coming
    Messiah as the son of a man named Joseph and who will suffer and die, as foretold by
    Isaiah. No doubt this would strike the fancy of the mythicist who would gladly declare
    this text as proof that the Gospel account was nothing more than a fictional mix and
    match of various Old Testament prophecies and ancient Rabbinic literature. However, the
    dating of this text is post-Christian, being dated to c.250 A.D. and could therefore not
    have served as inspiration for the Gospel writers.

    626
    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.

    627
    “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

    628
    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

    629
    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.”

    630
    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

    631
    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

    632
    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)

    633
    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

    634
    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)

    635
    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

    636
    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.

    637
    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

    638
    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

    639
    The Author's Creed: The Death and Life of Man

    Part I - Considerations preliminary to the study of grace

    Article One; On Divine revelation and the authority of Scripture


    God, out of his eternal purpose1 and gracious pleasure2, chose to communicate
    Himself to man through two means. The first, by instilling within all men a general
    revelation of the reality of God3. This revelation consists of a sense of providence
    throughout history4, a sense of morality within man's conscience5, and a sense of Divine
    intention for the created order6. Through this revelation, mankind may perceive a First
    Cause by which the universe originated and remains governed7. The second, by extending
    to His elect8 those whom He would redeem9, a special revelation of the Divine nature10.
    This revelation is passed through the entertainment of angels unaware11, through the
    emotions and mental faculties endowed to man12, through miracles and other alterations
    of the laws of nature and reason13, through personal experience wrought in the lives of
    men14, and through His eternal15, innerent16, inspired17, and all-sufficient Word18. Through
    this special revelation, those individuals whom He has chosen19 to draw towards His
    saving grace20 will surely receive21 the means necessary22 by which they are brought into
    covenant with God23.

    Article Two; On attributes peculiar to the Divine nature


    The triune24 and eternal25 God, existing and consisting in and of Himself26, in whom all
    His faculties and attributes form a unified and perfect whole27, foreordained all things,
    events, causes, and effects both physical and spiritual28, good and evil29, throughout all of
    history30, doing so without afterthought or change of will31, so that all things work
    together for His good purpose32. Through this fore-ordination33, God exercises sovereign
    control over all, so that His every determination will surely come to pass without
    deterrence, hesitation34, or challenge35, not having to contend with any power equal to or
    all-encompassing as His36, thus effectually accomplishing every initiation and succeeding
    means toward His perfect intended end for all things37.

    Article Three; On the nature of man


    God, the Creator of all things, at the predetermined time and for His glory and
    pleasure38, formed the heavens and the earth and all that is within them, in a state of
    maturity and perfection39, out of nothingness40 in six literal days41. He has since then
    directed all things and events through His providential determination and control42, being
    transcendent43, yet immanent44, to His creation. As the consummation of this creation, He
    formed man45 through a union of things both material and immaterial46, into whom was
    placed the image of his Creator47, that is: the endowment of communicable attributes of
    the Divine nature into the faculties of the spirit48, the intellect49, the affections50, the
    conscience51, and the will52.

    Article Four; On the depravity of man


    From his germination within fallen Adam53, every man has inherited upon
    conception54 a nature that is absolutely removed from its original state of communion

    640
    with his Creator55 and is now bound by this deformed sinful nature56 to seek after what is
    against that original communion57. The resulting corrupted state changed man into being
    no longer able to employ the faculties of the intellect58, desire59, or will60 toward the
    direction of spiritual good, thereby condemning man61 to receive the just consequence62
    of such an abandon, that being the eventual physical death of the body63, the functional
    death of the soul and spirit in relation to true communion with God64, and, ultimately, the
    casting of the whole of fallen man into a state of eternal damnation65.

    Part II: The means of grace

    Article Five; On the election by the Father


    God the Father66, before the foundation of the world67, chose out of the corrupted pool
    of humanity68, as yet uncreated69, a specific number of people70 towards whom He would
    direct His love71 and adopt as His own72. This adoption comes through their justification
    from73 and forgiveness of sin74. This forgiveness comes not based on their own merit of
    faith75 or works76, but based solely on the purpose and pleasure of His will77, thus granting
    His elect a gracious pardon from the damnation78 for which they should have been justly
    sentenced79. Consequently, God would pass over the remainder of humanity80,
    recompensing to them the just measure of Divine wrath for their sins81, thus leaving the
    reprobate on the course for destruction on which they have been set82.

    Article Six; On the atonement by the Son


    God the Son83, in humble submission84 to the will of the Father85, took upon Himself86
    the form of sinless humanity87 being born through virgin birth88, while yet retaining His
    deity89. In taking on the image of corrupted humanity, He gave Himself90 as the
    substitute91 for the Father's elect92, assuming for Himself the wrath of God which had
    been merited by fallen man93. Through His sacrifice as the unblemished Lamb of God94,
    the elect of God would surely95 be redeemed96, cleansed97, and purified98 wholly99, and
    once for all100 by His atonement101, through the shedding of His blood on the cross102. The
    work of providing salvation for the Father's elect was finished by their crucifixion for
    their sin through union with Him on the cross103 and by their resurrection to new life
    through union with His resurrection from the dead104, thus securing salvation and all the
    benefits procured by it105, for those whom the Father pleased to redeem through the Son's
    atonement. Whereas the elect of God was once represented by fallen Adam through their
    union with him in his sin and condemnation106, they are now represented by the sinless
    Son of God through their union with him in his paying of the penalty for sin and in his
    final glorification107. Thus, all those for whose sins the Son had provided atonement will
    one day be presented before the Father108, as sons109, in everlasting glorification110, while
    the remainder of humanity will be presented before the Father, as workers of iniquity111,
    to receive the just damnation for their sin112.

    Article Seven; On the call by the Spirit


    God the Spirit113, in perfect agreement with the will of the Father114 and in obedience
    to the Son's atonement115, moves toward each of the Father's elect to bring about
    predetermined events and actions in each of their lives116, thereby leading them to their
    appointed time of regeneration117. Upon regeneration, the elect individual is given the
    gifts of faith118 and repentance119, thereby altering his desires120 unto that which is proper

    641
    towards communion with God121, giving him a true knowledge and understanding of
    God122, and enabling his now regenerated will to freely123 in submission and agreement to
    that which the Father has chosen to bestow on him124. Consequently, the individual now
    desires nothing but to accept the grace given to him125 and the salvation secured for
    him126, thus ensuring that none of those will be lost for whom the Son made atonement127.
    Upon the acceptance of this grace, the Spirit baptizes the individual128 into the Son's
    death129, burial130, and resurrection131, thus appropriating the work of the Son on his
    behalf132 and forever sealing the redemption obtained for him133.

    Part III: The preservation of grace

    Article Eight; On covenant blessings


    God, through succeeding and progressive stages134, brought Himself135 into an eternal
    covenant with His elect136, instituting the sacrament of baptism as the sign of the
    covenant137 and the sacrament of the Lord's Supper as the memorial of the covenant138. In
    the keeping of His covenant with man, God bestows upon His elect all the benefits and
    blessings encompassed within the bounds of that covenant139; those being: the eternal
    preservation of His people140; progressive freedom from sin141; restored communion with
    God through the indwelling Spirit of God142, along with the gifts143, and the fruit144 the
    Spirit brings with Him; identification and union with Christ in His death145, burial146,
    resurrection147, and glorification148; the blessing of God's power and strength149; an
    enlightened revelation of the Divine nature and purpose150; access to God151 and all the
    treasures embodied within Him152; freedom from ceremonial laws and practices
    regulating communion with God153; and unity among fellow covenant partners154.

    Article Nine; On the regenerate nature of man


    The renewed man155, having been called into covenant with God156, and his intellect,
    will, and desires now being free from the bonds of sin157, is able to comprehend that
    which is spiritual158, choose that which is proper to communion with God159, and desire
    that which is good and attaining to such communion160. In his renewed nature, man then
    evidences fruitfulness resulting from the Spirit's call unto salvation161, such fruitfulness
    being: a proper relationship with nature162, the relinquishment of the faculties of the
    whole of man to communion163, comprehension164, affection165, pursuit166, and
    submission167 with respect to God168, and the acceptance of responsibility in regards
    fellow man169, along with the diligent pursuit of virtues proper to that responsibility170.
    Should any of God's elect abandon such pursuits in accordance to his regenerate nature171,
    God brings to light his abandonment through diligent chastising, as a loving Father to a
    son172, all along never abandoning His own promise to one day bring him into renewed
    fellowship, nor ever releasing his elect from the saving grace bestowed upon him173.

    Article Ten; On the kingdom of Heaven


    Upon His ascension to Heaven174, having secured the salvation of the Father's elect175
    and fulfilling the condition of the covenant God made with His elect176, the Son claimed
    Lordship177 over His kingdom, that is, His church178, bringing into it, through the
    predetermined means of prayer179 and the spreading of His word to all nations180, those
    who were included within that covenant181. Upon the completion of this covenant and at
    the predetermined time182 He will return to gather unto Himself the bodies of all God's

    642
    elect, both living and dead183, and present them before the Father184, who will distribute
    unto them rewards and blessings185, according to the measure of individual thoughts186,
    words187, and deeds188 directed toward the glory of God189, while distributing to the
    remainder of humanity the justice of Divine wrath190 as retribution for their sin191, thus
    attaining them to the torments of Hell192. As the final act of redemption God will initiate
    the final cleansing and purging of the earth193 and the consummation of His kingdom194,
    bringing the world to its intended end195, that being: the renovation into a new creation196
    and the institution of eternal197 unhindered198 union and communion between God and His
    people199.

    643
    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.

    644
    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.

    645
    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.

    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.

    646
    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.

    647
    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.

    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.

    648
    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.

    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.

    649
    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.

    650
    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.

    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.

    651
    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.

    The Unusual Suspects

    1. Schaff, Philip, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol.63. Jerome, Against


    Jovanius, ch 42-43. AGES Software. ag jovanius 1.42-43

    2. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Cycle> Accessed October 12, 2008.

    3. Graves, Robert. New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. Louisville:


    Crescent Books, 1968.

    4. ibid.

    5. Cocker, Benjamin Franklin. Christianity and Greek Philosophy, New York:


    Harper & brothers, 1872. p. 317.

    6. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuxi> Accessed October 12, 2008.

    7. <www.voluspa.org> Accessed October 12, 2008.

    8. <www.earth-history.com/Sumer/inana-descent-netherworld.htm> Accessed
    August 21, 2008.

    9. Yamauchi, Edwin M. Article titled "Tammuz and the Bible." Journal of


    Biblical Literature, 1965.

    10. Schaff, Philip, ed., op. cit., Epistle to Paulinus. ch. 58:3.

    11. <www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mikado> Accessed October 12,


    2008.

    12. Plutarch, op. cit.

    13. Hastings, James. Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 5. Peabody: Hendrickson


    Publishers, 1989. p. 194.

    14. Metzger, Bruce. Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and
    Christian, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968. p. 23.

    15. Jones, Lindsay, ed. Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: MacMillan


    Reference Books, 1987. Article titled “Dying and Rising Gods” by Jonathan Z.
    Smith, pp. 524-525.

    652
    16. De Vaux, Roland. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. London: Darton,
    Longman and Todd, 1971. p. 236.

    17. <www.pantheon.org/articles/o/osiris.html> Accessed July 26, 2008.

    18. Plutarch, op. cit., 359B.

    19. <www.theskepticalreview.com/TSRmag/016osir.html#17> Accessed July


    27, 2008.

    20. ibid.

    21. ibid.

    22. Plutarch, op. cit., 365A.

    23. Budge, Wallis. Osiris And The Egyptian Resurrection. University Books,
    1961. p. 17.

    24. Plutarch, op. cit., 358B.

    25. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, Book 1, Ch 85.

    26. Plutarch, op. cit., 362D, 368B, D.

    27. Diodorus Siculus, op. cit., Ch 88.

    28. Book of the Dead, Plate 33.

    29. Goelet, Ogden. A Commentary on the Corpus of Literature and Tradition


    which Constitutes the Book of Going Forth by Day. San Francisco: Chronicle
    Books. p. 151.

    30. ibid., p. 150.

    31. Recueil de Travaux, t. v., p. 55.

    32. ibid., p. 185.

    33. ibid., p. 55.

    34. <www.theskepticalreview.com/TSRmag/016osir.html> Accessed July 30,


    2008.

    35. Recueil de Travaux, t. iv., p. 71.

    36. ibid, t. v., p. 170.

    653
    37. Book of the Dead, Chapter 175.

    38. Taylor, John. Mediation and Atonement, New York: Steven and Wallis,
    Inc.,1950. p. 194.

    39. Plutarch, Parallel Lives.

    40. Wilford, F. Origin and Decline of the Christian Religion in India. Asiatic
    Researches; or, Transactions of the Society Instituted in Bengal, for Inquiring
    into the History and Antiquities; the Arts, Sciences, and Literature, of Asia:
    Volume 10, Charleston: BookSurge Publishing, 2001. p. 97.

    41. Graves, Robert. New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. Louisville:


    Crescent Books, 1968. p. 87

    42. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tian> Accessed October 12, 2008.

    43. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puranas> Accessed October 12, 2008.

    44. <newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Trimurti> Accessed October 12, 2008.

    45. Basham, A. L. The Wonder That Was India: A Survey of the Culture of the
    Indian Sub-Continent Before The Coming of the Muslims. New York: Grove
    Press, Inc., 1956. pp. 310-311

    46. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara#Philosophy_and_religious_thought>
    Accessed October 12, 2008.

    47. Wilson, Horace. Vishnu Purana. London: Ganesha Publishing, 2001. p. 72.

    48. Kramrisch, Stella. The Presence of Śiva. Princeton University Press: New
    Jersey, 1981. p.184

    49. <www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=017> Accessed


    October 12, 2008.

    50. <letusreason.org/Current56.htm> Accessed October 12, 2008.

    51. <www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/
    chapter_1.html> Accessed October 12, 2008.

    52. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veles> Accessed October 12, 2008.

    53. Herodotus, op. cit., Book IV, 93-6

    54. Augustan History, Firmus et al.

    654
    55.<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Augusta#Bogus_documents_and_authoritie
    s> Accessed October 12, 2008.

    56. Schaff, op. cit., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Justin Martyr, First Apology,
    ch. 21.

    57. ibid., ch. 22.

    58. ibid., ch. 23.

    Jesus vs. the cookie cutter

    1. <department.monm.edu/classics/courses/clas230/mythdocuments/heropattern/
    default.htm> Accessed October 30, 2008.

    Part 2: The Origins of Paganism

    Freethought: The Philosophy of Atheism

    1. Zacharias, Ravi. Jesus Among Other Gods. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2002.
    p. 7.

    2. Sproul, R. C. The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that


    Shaped Our World, audio series. Orlando: Ligonier Ministries.

    3. Sproul, R. C. What Is Truth?, from The Classic Collection audio series.


    Orlando: Ligonier Ministries.

    4. <www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html> Accessed September 1,


    2008.

    5. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Vol 2, AGES Software, Q77.

    6. <freethought.freeservers.com/> Accessed September 1, 2008.

    7. <users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html > Accessed September 2, 2008.

    8. Sproul, R. C. The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that


    Shaped Our World, audio series. Orlando: Ligonier Ministries.

    9. ibid.

    Luciferianism: The Philosophy of Self-deification

    1. Black, Lucian. The Luciferian Manifest, p.1; <www.ordo-


    luciferi.org/files/Luciferian_Manifest.pdf> Accessed September 3, 2008.

    655
    2. ibid., p. 1.

    3. ibid., p. 1.

    4. ibid., p. 2.

    Nimrod and the beginning of pagan religion

    1. <www.earth-history.com/Various/Compendium/hhc1ch11.htm> Accessed
    September 20, 2008.

    2. Josephus, op. cit., 1.4.2.

    3. The Book of Jasher, ch 11.

    4. <www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/193872/Etemenanki> Accessed
    September 20, 2008.

    5. Josephus, op. cit., 1.4.2.

    6. <www.livius.org/es-ez/etemenanki/etemenanki.html> Accessed September


    20, 2008.

    7. <www.geocities.com/anderson_chapel/pagan.htm> Accessed September 20,


    2008.

    8. ibid.

    9. ibid.

    Part 3: Shattering the Mirror – Debunking the Claims of the Critics

    Concerning Zoroastrianism

    1. <www.sullivan-county.com/z/zor4.htm> Accessed September 20, 2008.

    2. Yasna 12.

    3. Herzfeld, Ernst. Zoroaster and His World. Octagon Books, 1974. pp. 18, 24.

    4. ibid., pp. 29, 31, 61-61.

    5. ibid., p. 51.

    6. ibid., p. 94.

    7. Shahnama (“The Book of Kings”), 5.92

    656
    8. <www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?
    artid=135&letter=C&search=Babylonian+exile> Accessed September 23, 2008.

    9. Yasht 19:82-3.

    10. Yasna 30.3.

    11. Henry, op. cit., p. 574.

    12. Ahunavaiti Gatha 30.3.

    13. Settegast, Mary. Plato Prehistorian. Herndon: Lindisfarne Books, 2000. p.


    216.

    14. McDowell, Josh. Handbook of Today’s Religions. Thomas Nelson, 1996.

    15. <www3.sympatico.ca/zoroastrian/jashan.htm> Accessed September 23,


    2008.

    16. ibid.

    17. Denkard 710.15ff.

    18. Yasht 19.89, 92.

    19. Clark, Peter. Zoroastrianism, An Introduction to an Ancient Faith. East


    Sussex: Sussex Academic Press, 1999. p. 74.

    20. Yasht 19:88-90.

    21. Zaehner, R. C. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. New Haven:


    Phoenix Press, 2003. p. 57.

    22. Graves, op. cit., p. 322.

    Concerning the Luxor inscription

    1. <forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=3456167> Accessed July 6, 2008.

    2. <www.frontline-apologetics.com/Luxor_Inscription.html> Accessed July 6,


    2008.

    3. ibid.

    4. ibid.

    657
    Concerning suspect confessions of prominent ancient Christian writers

    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.

    19. <www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT> Accessed September


    19, 2008.

    658
    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. Philip Schaff, 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.

    A Pope's Confession

    1. <www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm> Accessed October 29, 2008.

    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.

    659
    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.

    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.

    660
    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.

    661
    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.

    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, op. cit., p. 18.

    17. Schaff, op. cit., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.

    18. Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels. New York:
    Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1977. pp. 199-200.

    19.<home.earthlink.net/~douglasofcalifornia/christ/socrates/socrates00.htm>
    Accessed October 4, 2008.

    20. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 3. Tertullian, Apologeticus, Ch 50.

    21. <www.preventingtruthdecay.org/dje.shtml> Accessed October 4, 2008.

    22. ibid.

    23. <jdstone.org/cr/files/nohistoricalevidenceofjesus.html> Accessed October 6,


    2008.

    24. The Jewish Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.

    25. The Babylonian Talmud; b.Yebamoth 49a; m Yebam. 4:13.

    26. ibid.; b. Sanh. 106a.

    27. ibid.; b. Sabb. 104b.

    662
    28.<en.wikisource.org/wiki/Report_of_Pilate_to_the_Emperor_Claudius_(M._R
    ._James_
    translation)> Accessed October 6, 2008.

    29. Anthropoetics - The Electronic Journal of Generative Anthropology, Vol III,


    No 1.

    30. <www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/peregrinus.htm> Accessed October 7,


    2008.

    31. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus. 2.14.

    32. ibid., 2.33.

    33. ibid., Vol. 6. Julius Africanus, Extant Fragments, 18.1.

    34. ibid., Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus. 2.59.

    35. ibid., Vol. 6. Julius Africanus, Extant Fragments, 18.1.

    Concerning alternate gospels and suspect ancient texts

    1. Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development
    and Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. p. 76.

    2. Yardeni, Ada. "A New Dead Sea Scroll in Stone?". Biblical Archaeology
    Review, Jan/Feb 2008. p. 34.

    3. <http://www.hartman.org.il/SHInews_View_Eng.asp?Article_Id=162>
    Accessed January 10, 2009.

    4. <http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2008/07/messianic-jews.html> Accessed
    January 10, 2009.

    5. <vialogue.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/gabriels-revelation-vision-a-new-dead-
    sea-stone-is-really-much-ado-about-nothing/> Accessed January 11, 2009.

    6. <webmunism.com/vids/of/1st+century+births> Accessed January 11, 2009.

    7. Henry, op. cit., p. 1475.

    8. Smith, Morton. The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the
    Secret Gospel According to Mark. Harper & Row: New York, 1974.

    9. Schaff, op.cit., Vol. 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies. 1.25.1.

    10. ibid., 1.25.3.

    663
    11. Smith, op. cit.

    12. ibid.

    13. <www.tertullian.org/rpearse/reviews/carlson_gospel_hoax.htm> Accessed


    January 15, 2009.

    14. <moorscode.blogspot.com/2008/03/miller-on-secret-gospel-of-mark.html>
    Accessed January 15, 2009.

    15. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm (ed) and Wilson, R. McL. (trans.). New Testament
    Apocrypha, Westminster/John Knox:Louisville, 1991. p. 107f.

    16. Bruce, F.F. The ‘Secret’ Gospel of Mark. The Ethel M. Wood Lecture
    delivered before the University of London on February 111, 974. London: The
    Athlone Press, 1974. pp. 11-12.

    17. Schneeme lcher and Wilson. op. cit.

    18. Bruce, op. cit., p. 20.

    19. Schaff, Philip, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1.
    Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.1. AGES Software.

    20. Carlson, Stephen. The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret
    Mark, Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005. p. 74f.

    21. Chilton, Bruce and Evans, Craig (eds.). Studying the Historical Jesus:
    Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers,
    1994. pp. 526-527.

    22. Bruce, op. cit.,

    23. Boyd, Gregory. Cynic Sage or Son of God? Bridgepoint: Baker Book House,
    1995. p. 333.

    24. <www.crosswalk.com/1388856> Accessed January 15, 2009.

    25. Schaff, op.cit., Vol. 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies. 1.31.

    26. The Gospel of Judas. Barrat, James. DVD. National Geographic, 2006

    27. ibid

    28. <juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/gospel_of_judas.html> Accessed


    January 15, 2009.

    664
    29. Barrat. op. cit.

    30. ibid.

    31. <www.4truth.net/site/apps/nl/content3.aspc=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=784449&ct
    =2162351> Accessed January 18, 2009.

    32. Barrat, op. cit.

    33. <www.crosswalk.com/1388856/> Accessed January 18, 2009.

    34. <www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GspelofJudas.pdf> Accessed


    January 18, 2009.

    35. ibid

    36. ibid

    37. ibid

    38. ibid

    39. ibid

    40. ibid

    41. ibid

    42. <wwwgnosticq.com/az.text/glos.af.html#Anchor-BARBELO-49425>
    Accessed January 20, 2009.

    43. Schaff, op.cit., 1.29.1.

    44. <www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html> Accessed January 20, 2009.

    45. <www.gnosticq.com/az.text/glos.af.html#Anchor-BARBELO-49425>
    Accessed January 20, 2009.

    46. ibid

    47. <www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gospel_of_Thomas> Accessed


    January 20, 2009.

    48. ibid

    49. Schaff, op.cit., Vol. 5, Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies. 5.7.20.

    665
    50. Schaff, Philip, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 5. Cyril
    of Jerusalem, Catechesis, 4.36 and 6.31. AGES Software.

    51. <www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gospel_of_Thomas> Accessed


    January 20, 2009.

    52. Hogeterp, Albert L A. Paul and God's Temple. Dudley: Peeters Publishers,
    2006. pp. 137.

    53 <www.bibletexts.com/glossary/peter.htm> Accessed January 20, 2009.

    54. <www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gospel_of_Thomas> Accessed


    January 21, 2009.

    55. <http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gthomas.html> Accessed January 21,


    2009.

    56. ibid.

    57. Wilkins, Michael J. and Moreland, J. P. (eds.) Jesus Under Fire--Modern


    Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. p.
    23.

    58. <www.christian-thinktank.com/gthomas.html> Accessed January 21, 2009.

    59. <www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gospel_of_Thomas> Accessed


    January 21, 2009.

    60. ibid.

    61. <http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Gospel_of_Thomas> Accessed


    January 21, 2009.

    62. Schaff. op. cit., Vol. 1. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.12. AGES
    Software.

    63. Foster, P. “The Gospel of Peter”. The Expository.Times, Vol.118, No.7, pp.
    318-325.

    64. Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the
    Grave: Commentary on the Passion Narrative in the Four Gospels. New Haven:
    Anchor Bible Press, 1999. p. 1341.

    65. <www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter.html> Accessed January


    23, 2009.

    666
    66. <www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Gospel_of_Peter> Accessed January
    23, 2009.

    67. <www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/davinciopportunity.htm#faq2>
    Accessed January 23, 2009.

    68. Brown, Dan. The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday, 2003. p. 254.

    69. <www.americanbible.org/brcpages/theGospelofMary> Accessed January 24,


    2009.

    70. <www.thechristianalert.org/index.php/gospel_of_mary?blog=7> Accessed


    January 24, 2009.

    71. <www.maryofmagdala.com/GMary_Text/gmary_text.html> Accessed


    January 24, 2009.

    72. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip> Accessed January 27, 2009.

    73. <www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelphilip.html> Accessed January 27,


    2009.

    74. <www.theologywebsite.com/etext/naghammadi/ philip.shtml> Accessed


    January 27, 2009.

    75. ibid

    76. ibid

    77. ibid

    78. ibid

    79. <bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2844&version=kjv>
    Accessed January 27, 2009.

    80. The New Manners and Customs of the Bible. QuickVerse 2008 Platinum CD-
    ROM, FindEx, Inc., 2007.

    81. Bible Knowledge Commentary. QuickVerse 2008 Platinum CD-ROM,


    FindEx, Inc., 2007.

    82. ibid.

    83. Schaff, Philip, ed., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Justin Martyr, First
    Apology, 1.65.2. AGES Software.

    667
    84. The New Manners and Customs of the Bible. QuickVerse 2008 Platinum CD-
    ROM, FindEx, Inc., 2007.

    85. <www.metalog.org/files/ph_interlin/ph059.html> Accessed January 27,


    2009.

    86. <www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=5370&t=KJV>
    Accessed January 27, 2009.

    87. <www.theologywebsite.com/etext/naghammadi/ philip.shtml> Accessed


    January 27, 2009.

    88 Wilson, Ian. Jesus: The Evidence, Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing,


    Inc., 2000. p. 88.

    89. Josephus, Wars of the Jews. 2.8.2

    90. Josephus, Antiquities. 18.1.5.

    91. Philo, Hypothetica .11.14-17.

    92. Witherington, Ben, III. op. cit., p. 17

    93 ibid

    Concerning the “Jesus family tomb:”

    1 <www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Talpiot_Tomb> Accessed February 3,


    2009.

    2 <www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=105> Accessed February 3, 2009.

    3. <www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=649> Accessed
    February 3, 2009.

    4. <creationontheweb.com/content/view/5029> Accessed February 3, 2009.

    5. <www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=2978> Accessed February 3,


    2009.

    6. <confirmedword.blogspot.com/2007/03/so-called-jesus-family-tomb-
    mysterious.html> Accessed February 3, 2009.

    7. Ibid.

    668
    8. <www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=640> Accessed
    February 3, 2009.

    9. <http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/historical-Jesus/the-Jesus-family-
    tomb/the-Jesus-family-tomb-witherington-response-problems-multiply.htm>
    Accessed February 3, 2009.

    10. Miller, L., and Chen, J., Have researchers found Jesus Christ’s tomb?,
    Newsweek March 5, 2007.

    11. ibid.

    12. <www.leaderu.com/focus/jesusfamilytomb.html> Accessed February 5,


    2009.

    13. <www.tektonics.org/tombbomb.html> Accessed February 5, 2009.

    14. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus> Accessed February 5,


    2009.

    15. <www.uhl.ac/JudeanTombsAndOssuaries.html> Accessed February 5, 2009.

    16. ibid.

    17. <blog.bible.org/bock/node/106> Accessed February 5, 2009.

    18. <www.leaderu.com/jesus/jesustomb_benw.html> Accessed February 5, 2009.

    19. <allafrica.com/stories/200703040020.html> Accessed February 5, 2009.

    20. <archaeologynewsreport.blogspot.com/2007/03/archaeologists-lost-tomb-of-
    jesus.html> Accessed February 5, 2009.

    21. <www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus > Accessed


    February 6, 2009.

    22. <www.apologeticsindex.org/488-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus> Accessed February


    6, 2009.

    23. <www.realtruth.org/070306-001-jesus.html> Accessed February 6, 2009.

    24. <www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/27/religion.israel> Accessed February


    6, 2009.

    669
    25. <creationontheweb.com/content/view/5029> Accessed February 6, 2009.

    26. <www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/26/jesus.sburial.ap/index.html>
    Accessed February 7, 2009.

    27. <archaeologynewsreport.blogspot.com/2007/03/archaeologists-lost-tomb-of-
    jesus.html> Accessed February 7, 2009.

    28. <www.christilling.de/blog/2007/03/guest-post-by-richard-bauckham.html>
    Accessed February 9, 2009.

    29. <creationontheweb.com/content/view/5029> Accessed February 9, 2009.

    30. Eusebius, op. cit., 3.11.

    31. <www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.shtml> Accessed February 9,


    2009.

    32. Eusebius, op. cit., 2.23.18

    33. <www.curtisvillechristian.org/TombOne.html> Accessed February 9, 2009.

    34. <www.thelosttombofjesus.com/index.html> Accessed February 9, 2009.

    35. <www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=656> Accessed


    February 9, 2009.

    36. <www.uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/CracksInTheFoundation.html> Accessed February


    9, 2009.

    37. <www.bib-arch.org/debates/jesus-tomb-12.asp> Accessed February 9, 2009.

    38. Ibid

    Part 4: 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.

    670
    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.

    The meme virus

    1. <www.bidstrup.com/virus.htm> Accessed December 20, 2008.

    Part 5: 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 possesses the essence of God

    1. Tozer, op. cit., p. 50.

    2. Novation, On the Trinity, pp. 26-27.

    3. ibid., p. 35.

    4. ibid., p .39.

    5. ibid., p. 74.

    6. Aquinas, op. cit., P 1-Q 83-A 3-RO 2.

    671
    7. Thomas Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures, 3.71.6;
    www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/gentiles.vi.lviii.html

    8. Carnell, E.J. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.


    Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1997. p. 302.

    9. Sproul, R. C. Christian Evidences, audio series. Orlando: Ligonier Ministries.

    10. <atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/EvilSuffering.htm>
    Accessed October 11, 2008.

    11. <www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0032.html> Accessed


    October 11, 2008.

    Two natures, one person

    1. <www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html> Accessed October 11, 2008.

    2. Gromacki, Robert G. The Virgin Birth: Doctrine of Deity. Grand Rapids:


    Baker Book House, 1981. p. 101.

    3. Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Philippians, Colossians, & Thessalonians.


    Homily 7, Philippians 2:5-11.

    4. Dreyfus, Frencois. Did Jesus Know He Was God? Black Rock: The Mercier
    Press Ltd., 1989. p. 22.

    5. Gromacki, op. cit., p. 111.

    6. Rhodes, Ron. Christ Before the Manger: The Life and Times of the
    Preincarnate Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992. p. 204.

    7. Gromacki, op. cit, p. 113.

    8. <www.reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html> Accessed October 12, 2008.

    9. Rhodes, op. cit., p. 51.

    10. <faculty.bbc.edu/RDecker/rd_ken.htm> Accessed October 13, 2008.

    11. Chrysostom, op. cit.

    12. Collins, Owen, ed. The Classic Bible Commentary: An Essential Collection
    of History's Finest Commentaries in One Volume. Wheaton: Crossway Books,
    1999. p. 1340.

    672
    13. Wesley, John. Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament. Lane & Scott. p.
    509.

    14. Gromacki, op. cit, p. 131.

    15. Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand
    Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. p. 40.

    16. Gromacki, op. cit, p. 113.

    17. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans


    Publishing Company, 1996. p. 316.

    18. Henry, op. cit., p. 1621.

    19. Schaff, Philip, ed. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 6.
    Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 73. AGES
    Software.

    20. Kimbrough, S. T. Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and


    Practice. New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2006. p. 322.

    21. Rhodes, op. cit., p. 199.

    22. Leith, op. cit.

    23. Gromacki, op. cit., p. 108.

    24. Gill, John. A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 2, Chapter 11. AGES
    Software.

    25. Gromacki, op. cit., p. 113.

    26. Gill, op. cit., AGES Software.

    The Son of God is pre-existent

    1. Rhodes, op. cit., p. 39.

    The Son of God possesses the character of God

    1. Schaff, Philip, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with
    Trypho, the Jew, ch 100. AGES Software.

    2. Tozer, op. cit., p. 88.

    673
    3. <www.preceptaustin.org/covenant_a_walk_into_death.htm> Accessed
    October 15, 2008.

    4. Packer, J.I. Knowing God. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973. p. 123.

    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.

    3. Schaff, op. cit., The Epistle of Barnabus.

    4. ibid., The First Epistle of Clement, chapter 24.

    5. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, ch 9.

    6. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, ch 3.

    7. ibid., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, ch 9.

    8. ibid.,, The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ch 9.

    9. ibid., Fragments of Papias, From the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord,
    Fragment 1.

    10. ibid., Fragment 6.

    11. ibid., Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 50.

    12. ibid., Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, ch 32.

    13. Leith, op. cit., p. 18.

    14. Schaff, op. cit., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.

    15. Leith, op. cit.

    16. ibid.

    17. ibid., pp. 22-24.

    674
    Jesus is the High Priest for His people and the Mediator of the covenant God made
    with man

    1. Gill, op. cit.

    2. <www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html> Accessed October 18, 2008.

    3. Schaff, op. cit., Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 66.

    Concerning Jesus' state of mind

    1. Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. London: Collins, 1952. pp. 54-56.

    2. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Jaspers> Accessed January 10, 2009.

    3. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder> Accessed January 10, 2009.

    Part 6: 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.

    675
    2. ibid., ch 67.

    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.

    676
    The Gospels' portrayal of the person and work of Jesus does not fit Messianic
    concepts prevalent during the first century

    1. Evans, Craig. Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation.


    Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992. p. 239.

    2. ibid.

    3. Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Peabody:
    Hendrickson Publishers, 1993. p. 116.

    4. Collins, John J. The Scepter and the Star--The Messiahs of the Dead Sea
    Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. New York:Doubleday, 1995. p. 47.

    5. Neusner, Green, Frerichs (eds.). Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of
    the Christian Era. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1987. p.101.

    6. Edersheim. op. cit., p. 113.

    7. ibid., p. 126.

    8. ibid., p. 121.

    9. Levey, S.H. The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, Monograph of the


    Hebrew. Cincinnati: Union College, 1974. p. 142.

    10. Josephus, op. Cit., 17.271-272.


    11. ibid., 17.273-276.
    12. ibid., 17.278-284.
    13. ibid., 18.23; 20.100-103.
    14. ibid., 18.85-87.
    15. ibid., 20.97-98.
    16. Josephus. Wars of the Jews. 2.261-262; Antiquities. 20.169-171.
    17. Josephus. Antiquities. 20.188.
    18. Josephus, Wars of the Jews. 2.433-434; 2.442-448.
    19. ibid., 7.264.
    20. ibid., 7.26-32.
    21. ibid., 7.437-441.
    22. Morris Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, New York: Macmillan
    Company, 1950. pp. 148-154.

    677
    23. <ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html> Accessed
    January 30, 2009.

    24. <ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v41/mj_v41i12.html> Accessed January 30, 2009.

    25. <forums.rasta-man.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=4938.0> Accessed January


    30, 2009.

    26. Maas, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian,


    Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. p. 406.

    27. Goldstein, op. cit., p. 163.

    28. Schaff, op. cit., Vol. 4. Origen, Against Celsus. 1.28, 32.
    29. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera#cite_note-2>
    Accessed January 30, 2009.
    30. <reference.com/browse/Stada?jss=0> Accessed January 30, 2009.
    31. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera#cite_note-2>
    Accessed January 30, 2009.
    32. ibid.
    33. <reference.com/browse/Stada?jss=0> Accessed January 30, 2009.
    34. <informationdelight.info/encyclopedia/entry/Toledoth_Yeshu\> Accessed
    January 30, 2009.
    35. <gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/dpr_01_historical_jesus.htm> Accessed
    January 30, 2009.
    36. Shabbat 104b and Sanhedrin 67a
    37. <mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html> Accessed January
    30, 2009.

    38. Tarbiz, 1969-70. p. 11.

    39. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu#cite_note-0> Accessed January 30, 2009.

    40. Elieser ben-Yehuda. Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis. Jerusalem: Thomas


    Yoseloff, 1959. pp. 215-216.

    41. Flusser, David. Jewish Sources in Early Christianity. Tel-Aviv: Mod Books,
    1989. p. 15.
    42. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu> Accessed January 30, 2009.

    678
    43. Eisenmenger, Johann Andreas. Entdecktes Judenthum. Vol. I, Frankfurt:
    Konigsberg, 1711. pp. 64-67.
    44. <ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.v.v.html> Accessed January 30, 2009.
    45. Schaff, Philip, ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol.6. Jerome, Letter 79.
    AGES Software.
    46. Brown, Raymond. The Birth of the Messiah. New Haven: Anchor Bible
    Press, 1999. p. 210.
    47. Moore, Mark E. Life of Christ Vol. 1, From Glory to Galilee. Quickverse
    2008.
    48. <medbib.com/Nasoraeans> Accessed January 30, 2009.
    49. ibid., 2.259.

    50 <home.scarlet.be/~tsf07148/theo/Mes.b.Joseph%20in%20Talmud.pdf>
    Accessed February 12, 2009.

    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.

    The Author's Creed: The Death and Life of Man

    1. Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11; 2 Tim 1:9.

    2. Lk 12:32.

    3. Rom 1:20.

    4. Micah 6:4; 1 Cor 10:1-11.

    5. Rom 2:14-15.

    6. Ps 8:1-4, 19:1-6; Acts 14:15-17, Rom 1:18-20.

    7. Gen 1:1, Jn 1:3-4; Heb 1:3.

    8. Eph 1.4-5; 2 Thess 2.13; 1 Pet 1:1, 2:9.

    679
    9. Mt 1:21; 2 Tim 2:10; Heb 9:15.

    10. 2 Cor 2:10-13.

    11. Heb 13:2.

    12. Deut 30:14; 1 Kings 3:5; Dan 2:4; Mt 1:20; Acts 10:34.

    13. Ex 4:2-8; Mt 11:2-6; Jn 2:11, 10:25-26, 37-38, 20:30-31.

    14. Jn 3:21, 4:4-26; Acts 9:1-19; Rom 8:13-17.

    15. Ps 119:89; Mt 24:35.

    16. Ps 19:7; 2 Sam 7:28, 22:31.

    17. Neh 9:13; Acts 1:15; 1 Cor 14:36-37; Gal 1:11-12; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16;
    2 Pet 1:20-21.

    18. Deut 8:3; Jn 5:46-47.

    19. 1 Thess 1:4.

    20. Eph 1:4-5.

    21. Rom 11:29; 1Thess 5:24.

    22. Mt 16:16-17; 1 Cor 2:4-5; Eph 2:8.

    23. Acts 13:48; Rom 8:15; 2 Cor 1:21-22; Heb 8:10-12.

    24. Mt 3:16-17, 28:19; Lk 1:35; Jn 3:34-35; 2 Cor 13:14; Gal 4:4-6; Eph 4:4-5;
    Jude 20-21.

    25. 1 Chron 16:36; Ps 48:14, 93:2, 102:25-27; 1 Tim 1:17; Rev 1:8.

    26. Ex 3:14; Isa 43:10; Jn 5:26; Acts 17:24-25; Rom 11:36; Col 1:16.

    27. Deut 32:4; 2 Sam 22:31; Mt 5:48.

    28. Job 42:2; Isa 14:24-27, 46:10.

    29. Lam 3:38; Isa 45:7; Amos 3:6.

    30. Job 10:8-12; Ps 104:19; Isa 40:23; Jer 27:5; Dan 2:21; Rom 13:1.

    31. Ps 33:11; Eph 3:11; Heb 6:17; Jas 1:17.

    680
    32. Rom 8:28; Phil 2:13.

    33. Acts 4:26-28; Rom 8:29-30; Eph 1:5-11.

    34. Num 23:19.

    35. Lam 3:37; Isa 46:10, 55:11.

    36. Job 42:2; Isa 14:24; Jer 32:17-23.

    37. Prov 19:21; Rom 12:2; Eph 3:10-11; Rev 4.11.

    38. Gen 1:26-31; Col 1:16.

    39. Gen 1:1; Neh 9:6; Ps 33:6; Jer 10:12; Jn 1:3.

    40. Gen 1:1-26.

    41. Gen 1:31; Ex 20:11.

    42. Gen 1:14-16, 8:21-22; Ps 74:17, 104:19; Dan 2:20-21.

    43. Deut 4:39; 1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron 2:6; Isa 33:5, 55:8-9; Acts 17:24-25.

    44. Deut 4:7; Job 33:4; Ps 139:1-10; Mt 6:25-30; Eph 4:6.

    45. Gen 1:26; Isa 64:8; Jas 3:9.

    46. Gen 2:7; Job 33:4.

    47. Gen 1:26.

    48. Isa 26:9; Acts 7:59; Rom 8:16; 1 Thess 5:23.

    49. Rom 7:23, 12:2, 14:5; Eph 4:17.

    50. Ps 6:3, 35:9; Isa 61:10.

    51. Acts 24:16; Rom 2:15, 9:1; 1 Cor 8:7-13; 1 Tim 1:5.

    52. Jn 1:13; 1 Cor 7:37; 2 Pet 1:21.

    53. Gen 3:1-7; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22; Heb 5:19.

    54. Ps 51:5, 58:3.

    55. Ps 5.4-5: Isa 59:2; Rom 8:7; Eph 2:1-3, 5:5; Jas 4:4; Rev 21:23-27.

    681
    56. Jer 13:23; Jn 8:34-36; Rom 6:16-18.

    57. Ps 10:2-11; Prov 10:23; Isa 32:6-7; Jer 18:12; Hos 5:4; Acts 7:51.

    58. Ex 5:2; Ps 14:1; Jer 4:.22.

    59. Lk 6:22; Rom 1:28-29; Titus 3:3.

    60. Isa 1:4, 63:10; Ez 3:7.

    61. Ecc 12:14; Mt 12:36-37; 1 Cor 3:12-15; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12-13.

    62. Lk 12:48; Deut 32:4; Ps 119:142.

    63. Gen 2:16-17, 3:19; Num 27:3; Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:22; Titus 9:27.

    64. Job 35:12; Ps 11:5; Isa 32:8; Dan 9:13; Hab 1:13; Mt 7:23.

    65. Mt 25:41; 2 Thess 1:9; Rev 20:14-15.

    66. Mt 28:19; 2 Cor 12:31; Gal 1:1.

    67. Mk 25:34; Eph 1:3-4; Rev 13:8, 17:8.

    68. Jn 6:37-39, 15:16-19, 17:6; Rom 5:8, 8:30; Eph 1:4-5; Col 3:12.

    69. Rom 9:10-13; 2 Thess 2:13.

    70. 1 Kings 19:8, Jn 5:21; Acts 13:48; Rom 11:5.

    71. Deut 10:15; Ps 59:17; Jer 31:3; Titus 3:4-5; 1 Jn 4:10.

    72. Prov 3:11-12; Isa 63:16; Jn 1:12; Gal 4:4-7; 1 Jn 3:1.

    73. Isa 50:8-9, 61:10; Rom 5:9, 8:1-2; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9-10.

    74. Mt 26:28; Acts 13:8; 2 Cor 5:19; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14, 2:13.

    75. Mt 16:17; Jn 1:12; Rom 12:3; 1 Cor 2:4-5; Eph 2:8; Phil 1:29; Titus 3:4-6.

    76. Rom 3:28, 4:1-25, 9:30-33; Gal 2:16, 21; Eph 2:8-9; Phil 3:9.

    77. Deut 7:7-8; Jn 3:16; Rom 8:28; 1 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:3-4; Eph 3:10-11; 2 Thess
    2:16; Titus 3:4-5.

    78. Dan 2:2; Mal 4:1; Mt 25:41; 2 Thess 1:8-9; Rev 14:9-11, 20:11-15.

    682
    79. Ex 34:6-7; Deut 32:4; Ps 119:142; 1 Jn 1:9; Rev 16:5.

    80. Mal 1:2; Mt 13:11-16; Jn 12:40, 17:1-9.

    81. Ex 32:9; Josh 7:1; 2 Chron 30:8; Ps 90:11; Nah 1:2-6; Rom 1:18, 2.5; Jas
    4:4.

    82. Ex 7:3-4; Deut 2:30; Josh 11:20; Jer 26:3; Rom 9:17-18, 22.

    83. Mt 3:16, 28:19; Acts 13:33; Rom 1:1-3, 8.3; 2 Cor 1:18.

    84. Gal 4:4; Phil 2:6-9; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 2:7, 14.

    85. Jn 10:17-18; Rom 8:32; Gal 1:4; Heb 10:5.

    86. Phil 2:5-7; Heb 2:14.

    87. Mt 27:3-4; Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15, 5:17-21, 7:26-28; 1 Pet 1:19; 2
    Pet 2:22-23; 1 Jn 3:5.

    88. Isa 7:14; Mt 1:22,23; Lk 2:7; Gal 1:4.

    89. Mt 8:3, 10:1, 28:18; Mk 1:29-31; Lk 1:35, 8:24-25; Jn 2:19-21, 3:11-13,


    11:41-44.

    90. Lk 23:46; Jn 2:19-21, 10:17-18, 19:30.

    91. Isa 53:3-12; Mt 20:28, 26:28; Rom 5:8; 1 Cor 11:23-25; 1 Thess 5:9-10; Heb
    9:11-22, 10:1-22; 1 Pet 2:24, 3:18.

    92. Jn 17:2, 9; Eph. 5:25; 2 Tim 2:10.

    93. Rom 5:9, 1 Thess 1:10, 5:9.

    94. Jn 1:29; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 12:6.

    95. Jn 6:39-40, 17:2-4, 18:9; Heb 7:24-25, 10:14.

    96. Hos 13:14; Mk 10:45; 1 Tim 2:5.

    97. Isa 53:5-6; Mt 1:21; Jn 1:29; Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 1:3.

    98. Ez 36:25; 1 Cor 1:2, 6.11; 1 Pet 4:12-19; Heb 10:22; 1 Jn 1:7.

    99. Jn 6:47; 2 Tim 1:12; 1 Pet 1:3-5, 2:6.

    100. Rom 6:10; Heb 7:27, 9:28; 1 Pet 3:18.

    683
    101. Isa 53:5; Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2, 4:10.

    102. Mt 26:28; Rom 5:9; Eph 1:5; Col 1:20; Heb 9:12-22, 13:20; 1 Pet 1:18-19.

    103. Rom 6:6-7; Gal 2:20.

    104. 2 Cor 4:14; Eph 2:6; Col 2:12, 3:1.

    105. Rom 5:1-2; Eph 1:3; Col 1:27, 2:2-3.

    106. Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 15:21-22.

    107. Rom 5:15-19; 1 Cor 15:45.

    108. Col 3:4; Rev 14:4.

    109. Jn 1:12-13; Rom 8:14-16, 29; Gal 4:6; Eph 1:4-5.

    110. 1 Cor 1:8, 15:50; Phil 3:20-21; Col 3:4.

    111. Lk 13:27; Rom 2:8; Rev 20:12-13.

    112. Ex 32:9; Josh 7:1; 2 Chron 30:8; Ps 90:11; Nah 1:2-6; Rom 1.18, 2.5; Jas
    4:4.

    113. Mt 28:19; Lk 1:35; 2 Cor 13:14.

    114. Ps.104:30; Jn 15:26; 1Cor 2:12.

    115. Jn 16:7-11; Rom 1:4, 8:11; Heb 9:14; 1 Pet 3:18.

    116. Acts 9:15, 15:7; Eph 1:11.

    117. Prov 16:9; Acts 17:26; 2 Cor 6:2.

    118. Mt 16:16-17; Rom 12:3; Eph 2:8; Phil 1:29; Heb 12:2.

    119. Jer 24:7; Acts 11:18; 2 Tim 2:25.

    120. Deut 30:6; Jer 24:7, 31:33, 32:39-41; Ez 11:19, 36:25-27; Rom 6:17, 22,
    8:1-11.

    121. Ps 42:1-11; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 1 Jn 1:6, 3:24.

    122. Jn 15:15: Acts 22:14; 1 Cor 1:14; 2 Cor 4:6; Eph 1:17; Col 1:9; 1 Jn 5:20.

    123. Jn 3:16, 5:24; Rom 3:22; Rev 22:17.

    684
    124. Rom 5:1, 8:38-39; 2 Cor 12:9; Eph 1:3, 2:14, 3:12; Col 1:27, 2:2.

    125. Ps 32:8, 51:2-7.

    126. Rom 11:29; 1 Thess 5:24; 1 Pet 2:9.

    127. Jn 10:27-29; Rom 5:9-10, 8:15-17, 33-39, 11:29; Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:23-24;
    2 Tim 1:12; Heb 7:24-25, 10:14, 1 Pet 1:3-5.

    128. Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:27; Col 2:12.

    129. Rom 6:6-7; Gal 2:20.

    130. Rom 6:4; Col 2:11-12.

    131. 2 Cor 4:14; Eph 2:6; Col 2:12, 3:1.

    132. Rom 5:5, 8:2; 1 Cor 2:12; Gal 4:6; Eph 2:18; 1 Thess 1:4-5; 1 Pet 3:18-21.

    133. 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13-14, 4:30; 1 Jn 4:13.

    134. Lk 24:7; Rom 16:25-27; Eph 2:19-20, 3.4-5; Heb 1:1; 1 Pet 1:10; Rev 22:6.

    135. Heb 6:13-19.

    136. Gen 15:7-20; Mt 26:28; Lk 1:68-73; Gal 3:14; Heb 7:22, 8:6-10, 13:20.

    137. Acts 22:16; Col 2:13; 1 Pet 3:21.

    138. Mt 26:17-30; 1 Cor 10:16-17, 11:23-26.

    139. Heb 8:10.

    140. Jn 10:27-29; Rom 5:9-10, 8:15-17, 33-39, 11:29; Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:23-24;
    2 Tim 1:12; Heb 7:24-25, 10:14; 1 Pet 1:3-5.

    141. Acts 13:38; Rom 5:9, 6:14, 8:2-4; Eph 1:7; Col 1:13-14, 2:13; 1 Pet 2:24.

    142. Jn 4:17; Rom 8:9-11; 1 Cor 3:16; Gal 4:6; 1 Jn 3:24.

    143. Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:4-10, 28-29; Eph 4:11; Heb 2:4.

    144. Gal 5:22-23.

    145. Rom 6:6-7; Gal 2:20.

    146. Rom 6:4; Col 2:11-12.

    685
    147. 2 Cor 4:14; Eph 2:6; Col 2:12, 3:1.

    148. Rom 8:17; Eph 2:6; Phil 3:20; Col 3:4.

    149. 1 Cor 1:8, 5:4; 2 Cor 2:14, 12:9.

    150. 1 Cor 1;24; Eph 1:9; Col 2:2-3.

    151. Rom 5:1-2; Eph 2:18, 3:12.

    152. Eph 1:3, 2:7, 3:8, 17-19; Phil 4.19; Col 2:2-3.

    153. Heb 9:11-28, 10:1-13.

    154. Jn 11:51-52; Gal 3:26-28; Eph 3:6; Col 3:11.

    155. 2 Cor 2:17; Eph 2:10; Col 3:9; Jn 3:3; Jas 1:18.

    156. Rom 8:30; 1 Pet 2:9.

    157. Rom 3:14, 3:17, 6:1-11; Eph 4:22-24.

    158. Ps 51:3; Jn 15:15; 1 Cor 2:16; Col 1:9; 2 Tim 2:25; 1 Jn 3:24, 5:20.

    159. Ps 27:4, 63:1; Jer 32:39; Lk 15:18-21; Rom 6:16-17; Phil 2:13; 1 Jn 5:2-3;
    Jas 2:14-25.

    160. Ps 1:1-2, 16:11, 51:1-10, 62:1-2, 103:2-5; Isa 61:10; Jer 24:7; Ez 11:19-20;
    2 Cor 7:9.

    161. Mt 7:16-18; Jas 1:22-25, 2:14, 18-26; 2 Pet 1:5-6.

    162. Gen 1:28; Ps 8:5-7, 19:1-6; Rom 8:19-25.

    163. Ps 19:14, 63:1-5; 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Cor 13:14; Phil 4:6-7; Heb 4:14-16; 1 Jn 1:3.

    164. Jn 17:25-16; 2 Cor 4:6; Eph 4:20-24; 1 Jn 5:20, 16:15.

    165. Mt 22:36-38; Jn 14:15; 1 Jn 5:2-3.

    166. Ps 27:4, 8, 40:16, 73:28; Isa 26:9; Jer 29:13; Heb 10:22.

    167. Josh 1:7; Ps 40:8, 119:11, 33-37, 105, 112; Mt 6:24; Phil 2:12; 1 Pet
    1:14-15.

    168. Ex 20:1-11; Heb 12:28.

    686
    169. Ex 20:12-17; Prov 6:20-23, 19:17, 22.8, 23:22-25; Mt 6:2-4,18:21,
    28:19-20; Lk 6:37, 10:27; Rom 12:10, 14, 17-21, 13:1-10, 14:19; 2 Cor 1:3-7;
    Eph 4:2, 32, 5:22-29, 6:1, 4, 9; 1 Tim 2:1-2, 5:3-16, 6:18; Heb 12:14, 13:2, 17;
    Jas 1:27; 1 Pet 2:13-16, 3:8, 15, 4:9-11.

    170. Ps 15:1-4, 51:17, 97:10; Mt 5:3-12; Rom 5:3-4, 13.13-14, 1 Cor 3:18,
    16:13; Gal 2:20, 5:22-23; Phil 2:3, 4:4, 8; Eph 6:10-17; Col 4:2; 1 Tim 6:6-8, 2
    Thess 2:15; Heb 5:12, 10:22; Jas 3:13-17, 4:7; 1 Pet 1.15, 3:8; 2 Pet 1:5-7.

    171. Gal 3:1-5 4.9-11; 1 Tim 1:19.

    172. 1 Thess 4:3; Heb 12:5-11.

    173. Jer 32:40; Jn 6:37; Phil 1:6.

    174. Mk 16:19; Lk 24:30.

    175. Ps 111:9; Isa 53:5; Acts 20:28; Rom 3:25; Gal 4:4-5; Eph 5:25; Rev 5:9.

    176. Gal 3:6-14, 29; Heb 6:13-20.

    177. 1 Cor 15:27; Phil 2:9-11; Eph 1:19-22; Rev 1:5.

    178. Eph 2:19; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6.

    179. 2 Chron 7:14; Rom 8:26; Phil 4:6; Heb 4:16.

    180. Mt 28:19-20; Jn 15:16; Acts 1:8.

    181. Jn 6:37; Eph 1:4-5.

    182. Mt 24:36-39; Acts 1:6-7; 1 Tim 6:14-15.

    183. Mt 24:31; Mk 13:27; 1 Cor 15:50-57; 1 Thess 4:16-17.

    184. Col 3:4; Jude 24; Rev 3:5, 14:4.

    185. Mt 25:31-34; 2 Tim 4:8; Jas 1:12.

    186. Jer 17:10; 1 Cor 4:5; Rev 2:23.

    187. Mt 12:36-37.

    188. Mt 16:27; Rom 2:7; Eph 6:7-8; Heb 6:10-11.

    189. 1 Cor 10:23-33; Jas 1:25; 1 Pet 1:14-16.

    687
    190. Isa 66:15-16; Zeph 1:14-18; 2 Pet 3:3; Rom 1:18, 2:5.

    191. Jn 5:28-29; Col 3:25.

    192. Ps 21:8-9; Isa 33:14; Mk 9:47-48; Rev 21:8.

    193. Mt 19:28; Rev 21:1-8.

    194. Zech 14:9; Micah 4:1; Mt 25:34; Eph 1:9-10.

    195. Eph 1:9-10; Phil 3:20-21.

    196. Isa 65:17; Rev 21:1-8.

    197. Rom 6:22-23; 2 Cor 4:17, 5.1; Titus 3:7; 1 Jn 5:11-13.

    198. 1 Cor 13:12; Eph 1:9-10; 1 Jn 3:2; Rev 21:4, 22:3.

    199. Isa 60:19-20; Rev 19:6-9.

    688
    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.

    689
    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.

    690
    Photo Credits

    Page 68 and 100 - Amulet depicting crucified Dionysus:


    <user.tninet.se/~npt994z/jesus_parallels.htm>

    Page 71 - The cross of the Zodiac: <www.labyrinth13.com>

    Page 183 - Luxor nativity scene:


    <commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luxor_Nativity_Sharpe.JPG>

    Page 250 - The Ark of the Covenant: <www.virginmedia.com>

    Page 251 - Egyptian ark thrones: <www.kingsolomonsastonishingtemplesecrets.org>

    Page 251 - Cave painting of the throne of Rameses III: <www.gutenberg.org>

    Page 285 - Gabriel's Revelation tablet: <www.vialogue.wordpress.com >

    Page 306 - The Last Supper by Leonardo Da Vinci: <commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:


    %C3%9Altima_Cena_-_Da_Vinci_5.jpg>

    Page 319 - Stained glass window from Kilmore Church: <margaretstarbird.net>

    Page 319 - La station 14 du chemin de croix (Station 14): <www.rennes-le-chateau-


    archive.com/index.htm?id=eglise_mm_statuaire.htm>

    Page 330 - Tomb of the Sanhedrin: <www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=105>

    Page 330 - Jewish Ossuary: <www.joezias.com/tomb.html>

    691
    Acknowledgments

    Special thanks to:

    Jonathan Myers

    and

    Tim Spanjer

    For your contributions,

    your devoted friendship,

    and the enrichment you bring to my life.

    692
    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

    693

    You might also like