JC Myth (5.1): Saviors, Christs, and Other Gods: “Aten/Aton”

JC Myth Picture for Blog

Chapter Five: Saviors, Christs, and Other Gods: “Aten/Aton”

This first god needs to be mentioned because of his antiquity and the fact that he was the earliest god we know of to be presented as the one true god, thus expressing monotheism in the land of Egypt. Also, the god Aten helps us to see where gods originated and gives us a glimpse into what a good god might look like.

Aten, or Aton, was the sun disk; and he was first referred to in The Story of Sinuhe (from the 12th Egyptian dynasty), an account of a dead king’s rising to heaven to unite with the sun disk,[1] the “divine body merging with its maker.”[2] When Amenhotep IV (18th dynasty[3]) and Nefertiti came into power, they made Aten the single Egyptian god; Amenhotep changed his own name to Akhenaten to be linked to Aten.[4]All creation was thought to emanate from the god and to exist within the god. In particular, the god was not depicted in anthropomorphic (human) form, but as rays of light extending from the sun’s disk.”[5] He was the “light of the world,” and in him was “no darkness at all” (Jn. 8:12, 1 Jn.1:5).[6] In him all things existed (1 Jn. 1:5; Col. 1:16, 20), and his worshipers were not allowed to make graven images to him, as this was viewed as idolatry.[7] His priests offered him limited cakes, flowers, and fruits.[8] Aten was formless; he was simply the “life-giving intangible essence,” the “power that produced and sustained the sun,” the “creator that held all things in hand,” and the “presence of the divine within matter and in human form.” He dwelt in the trees and the flowers, and was the “energetic force that acted through the sun,” the “original causation and continuous presence.”[9]

Amenhotep’s goal was to create a world religion with a universal god. He was the first king to “reject lavish wealth” and extravagant temple rituals. Aten was like a compassionate mother or father. He was totally benevolent and possessed no evil qualities, such as jealousy or wrath. Unlike Yahweh, he was a good god; he was “lord of love” and threatened no divine judgment or hell fire.[10] The Egyptian “Great Hymn to the Aten,” in which Akhenaten praised Aten as the “creator and giver of life,”[11] and Psalm 104 are quite similar, although some Christians deny the similarities.[12]

Tina Rae Collins

My goal is to share my book The Judaeo-Christian Myth one article at a time. If you find these articles interesting or you don’t think I’ll reach my goal (always a possibility, I suppose), and/or you just can’t wait, you can purchase the book by clicking on the picture above or the title in this paragraph. Thanks for reading!

[1] Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (London/New York: Thames & Hudson, 2003), 236–240. [2] Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms (1980), 223. See also: “Aten,” wikipedia.org, 28 Jan. 2015, web, 31 Jan. 2015. [3] “Akhenaten,” wikipedia.org, 30 Jan. 2015, web, 31 Jan. 2015. [4] Wilkinson, 236-240. [5] “Aten,” wikipedia.org. [6] Wim van den Dungen, “Great Hymn to the Aten,” maat.sofiatopia.org, 2005-2015, web, 31 Jan. 2015. [7] “Aten, god of Egypt,” Siteseen Ltd., June 2014, web, 31 Jan. 2015. See also: “Aten,” wikipedia.org. [8] “History embalmed: Aten,” Siteseen Ltd., July 2014, web, 31 Jan. 2015. See also: “Aten,” wikipedia.org. [9] Ted Nottingham, “The Mystery of the Essenes,” youtube.com, 15 Nov. 2010, web, 30 Jan. 2015. [10] Nottingham, “The Mystery of the Essenes.” [11] “Aten,” wikipedia.org. [12] Nottingham, “The Mystery of the Essenes.”

JC Myth (5.0): Saviors, Christs, and Other Gods

JC Myth Picture for Blog

Chapter Five: Saviors, Christs, and Other Gods

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”[1] ~ Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States

“The Christian religion contains nothing but what Christians hold in common with heathens; nothing new, or truly great.”[2] ~ Celsus, Epicurean philosopher

“We know Yahweh was a mythological deity just like the many other deities that were believed to exist in the ancient world. And they too had wives (or, goddesses) and were part of their own pantheon of gods. We know this! Come on now, after all, we read in the Bible that Yahweh had sons. If he had sons then he had a wife. She was just edited out of the OT, but we know she existed in the minds of the Hebrews.”[3] ~ John W. Loftus

***

      Various savior-gods have appeared in the world, many having mothers with similar names. Mary (Myrrha/ Maria[4]) was the mother of Jesus, Maia was Buddha’s mother and also the mother of Hermes and Mercury, Maya was Agni’s mom, Myrrha was the mother of Adonis and Bacchus, Maya Maria was the mother of Sommona Cadom,[5] and Krishna’s mom (Devaki) wore the title Mariama.[6] All of these women whose names begin with Ma are “the planetary Mother.”[7] In this chapter we’ll look, in no particular order, at some of the sons of these blessed mothers/goddesses.

Tina Rae Collins

My goal is to share my book The Judaeo-Christian Myth one article at a time. If you find these articles interesting or you don’t think I’ll reach my goal (always a possibility, I suppose), and/or you just can’t wait, you can purchase the book by clicking on the picture above or the title in this paragraph. Thanks for reading!

[1] Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 Apr. 1823. See also: Jim Walker, “Thomas Jefferson on Christianity & Religion,” nobeliefs.com, n.d., web, 7 July 2015; Graham, 304; and D. M. Murdock/Acharya S, “Were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson Jesus Mythicists?” truthbeknown.com, 2015, web, 4 July 2015. [2] Doane, XXXVI; from Origen, Contra Celsus. [3] John W. Loftus, “Asherah, the Israelite Goddess,” Debunking Christianity, debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com, 6 Aug. 2013, web, 31 Dec. 2014. [4] Godfrey Higgins, Anacalypsis: An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil, or The Saitic Esis, I (London: J. Burns, 1878), 304; See also: Doane, XXXII Notes. [5] Graham, 300-301. [6] Douglas L. Laubach, The Parallax from Hell: Satan’s Critique of Organized Religion & Other Essays (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2012), 98. [7] Graham, 300-301.

JC Myth (4.7) Making New Sayings: “Same Girl, Different Dress”

JC Myth Picture for Blog

Chapter Four: Making New Sayings: “Same Girl, Different Dress”

If the incredible stories found in the Bible had come from China and were called The Adventures of Super God, Christians would immediately declare them false. But for some reason, because they are said to be inspired by a Jewish god, these Christians believe the strange fables although they know that the stories can’t be true, as they themselves have never known the laws of nature to be overruled.

Craig Duckett wrote:

“In the Bible animals can talk, wizards and witches summon spirits, demons possess pigs, sticks turn into snakes, food falls from the sky, people walk on water or through walls or remain lost for forty years in an area roughly the size of West Virginia. In the Bible the dead can come back to life, enough rain falls in seven weeks to cover the entire planet, all sorts of magical things happen that have no basis in the way we know the ‘real world’ works. If you know the world doesn’t work this way, if all the evidence shows it impossible for the world to work this way, then what are your reasons for believing the Bible when it claims otherwise? You’d consider yourself crazy if you believed Greek and Roman myths that claimed the same types of things, or fairy tales, or old European fables, simply because you know how the world works and it doesn’t work that way! And yet, when the Bible makes claims contrary to the way you know the world works, not only do you believe and defend it, but consider all those who don’t as the ones who are living in error. Is this an honest assessment? Shouldn’t what we believe somehow coincide with what we actually know?”[1]

Graham stated:

“The Bible is not the ‘word of God,’ but stolen from pagan sources. Its Eden, Adam and Eve were taken from the Babylonian accounts; its Flood and Deluge is but an epitome of some four hundred flood accounts; its Ark and Ararat have their equivalents in a score of Deluge myths; even the names of Noah’s sons are copies, so also Isaac’s sacrifice, Solomon’s judgment, and Samson’s pillar acts; its Moses is fashioned after the Syrian Mises; its laws after Hammurabi’s code. Its Messiah is derived from the Egyptian Mahdi, Savior, certain verses are verbatim copies of Egyptian scriptures. Between Jesus and the Egyptian Horus, Gerald Massey found 137 similarities, and those between Christ and Krishna run into the hundreds. How then can the Bible be a revelation to the Jews?”[2]

English Unitarian Bill Darlison stated: “I don’t think there’s any history in the Bible whatsoever. I don’t think any of it is history.” He continued to say that those who wrote the biblical books were geniuses who knew the stories were myths, and then said, “We are the dodos who have been trying to make it into history.”[3]

Mack noted:

“Christians in particular have never thought to be critical of Christianity. Christians know about being critical, of course. They render critique on society all the time, but always from the vantage point of the Christian vision, a protected sphere of ideals held to be inviolate, never to be questioned.”[4]

This inability of Christians to critique the Bible is a problem. Their holy book, as stated, is an anonymous book that is presented as a history of real people. However, its authors, the date of its writing, and its main character are unknown, and we have no original copy of the documents it contains. Furthermore, the book boasts innumerable depictions of events that we know can’t happen as well as events we know didn’t happen. Evidence is mounting up against the veracity of the biblical texts. With no eyewitnesses to testify to its inspiration, and no knowledge of who even wrote the book, the entire Bible must be declared a work of men and its superheroes no more real than the mythical characters we will now consider.

Tina Rae Collins

My goal is to share my book The Judaeo-Christian Myth one article at a time. If you find these articles interesting or you don’t think I’ll reach my goal (always a possibility, I suppose), and/or you just can’t wait, you can purchase the book by clicking on the picture above or the title in this paragraph. Thanks for reading!

[1] Craig Lee Duckett, “The World Simply Does Not Behave the Way Described in the Bible,” 25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian, 2007-2012, web, 28 Aug. 2014. [2] Graham, 5. [3] Bill Darlison, “The New Age,” UKUnitarians, youtube.com, 26 Apr. 2014, web, 24 Apr. 2015. [4] Mack, 307.

 

JC Myth (4.6) Making New Sayings: “No Reason to Believe”

JC Myth Picture for Blog

Chapter Four: Making New Sayings: “No Reason to Believe”

Dr. Tischendorf, in considering the information revealed by the Sinai Bible, concluded: “We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century.”[1] In 506 CE the Bishop of Tunis said that the Gospels had been written by “idiot evangelists” and that they were later “censored and corrected.”[2]

Physicist Victor Stenger wrote: “Many former evangelical preachers have written eloquently about how they lost their faith once they learned the truth about how the Bible came to be written.”[3] Certainly this is understandable.  We have no reason to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. No Roman census ever required families to return to their native cities in order to register. Herod never slaughtered infants under the age of two. In fact, Herod died in 4 BCE, and the census that was even spoken of took place in 6 CE. Therefore, Herod was dead ten years before the Roman census.[4] Dr. Richard Carrier wrote regarding the birth of Jesus that “experts have long known the Gospel of Matthew sets the date around 6 B.C. (or no later than 4 B.C.), while Luke sets the date at 6 A.D.”[5] Thus, these two authors (Matthew and Luke) contradict each other. Even if no fakery had been involved, the biblical books were handpicked by mortal men. The Gospel of Luke barely made it into the canon, “winning by only one vote at the Council of Nicea.”[6] Again, the four Gospels were only a few of the many that were written, and even they were accepted as part of the canon only in the fourth century. Barbara Walker wrote:

“Early Christians liberally practiced pseudepigraphy, which means an anonymous writer signing his work by another’s name. Scholars have pretty conclusively proved that all the gospels were created by this kind of forgery, excepting only a few of Paul’s epistles out of the rest of the New Testament.”[7]

Walker continued:

“The canonical gospels used today have been extensively worked over, mistranslated, re-translated, added to, subtracted from, reworded and produced in so many different versions that it seems absurd for anyone to claim any particular set as ‘the inerrant word of God,’ as some of the more naive worshippers do. Yet even in their early days, the canonical gospels were neither unique nor rare. Christian bishops of the fourth and fifth centuries spoke of hundreds of different gospels still in circulation. Copies of a few of these—the so-called Gnostic Gospels—were rediscovered during the 1950s; others were absorbed into the Apocrypha. Most were destroyed, in conformity with the dictates of the early Church. But there is plenty of evidence that the miracle tales and the biography of a sacrificed savior-god were common elements of popular literature in the Greco-Roman world and throughout the Middle East.[8]

“Today’s more informed Bible scholars and theologians know perfectly well that Jesus was never an identifiable single person, but rather a composite figure drawn from numerous savior-god traditions. They know that there never was a single coherent philosophy that could be called Christian, dating from the early years of our era. But today’s theologians seldom dare to make this knowledge clear to the general public. Why not?”[9]

If only Christians would question the motives and actions of the ancient Roman and Jewish leaders as they cast doubt upon the motives and actions of the religious and political leaders of today, they would recognize that the scriptures they prize came to them via smoke and mirrors! But we are told that we shouldn’t probe into these genuine and grave problems with the inspiration of the “word of God.” We are encouraged to “take it on faith” and not allow the devil to “put doubts in our heads.” Just believe, we are told. Hang onto faith. We are urged to think that blind faith in fables, in the midst of a million screaming facts to the contrary, is somehow noble. The truth is, even if everything written in the book called the Bible had been penned by good and honest men who thought their words came straight from the creator, one man’s revelation is another man’s hearsay. As Thomas Paine wrote:

“It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.”[10]

Why should we believe Saul of Tarsus and anonymous Gospel writers who couldn’t get their stories straight, yet not believe Joseph Smith, Constantine, or any other man or woman who wishes to present a divine vision or a God-put-it-on-my-heart story? After all, the old prophet of Bethel deceived the younger prophet into believing a lie (1 Kings 13:11-32). Perhaps we should consider not listening to old prophets and try rather to think with our own minds and hearts. And, seriously, if the “inspired prophet” Constantine didn’t write the New Testament, or at least some of it, why in the world not?

Tina Rae Collins

My goal is to share my book The Judaeo-Christian Myth one article at a time. If you find these articles interesting or you don’t think I’ll reach my goal (always a possibility, I suppose), and/or you just can’t wait, you can purchase the book by clicking on the picture above or the title in this paragraph. Thanks for reading!

[1] Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.” See also: Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London. [2] Walker, Man Made God, 114. See also: Miles R. Abelard, Physicians of No Value (Winter Park, FL: Reality Publications, 1979), 43. [3] Victor Stenger, PhD, “How to Debate a Christian Apologist,” huffingtonpost.com, 28 Feb. 2014, updated 30 Apr. 2014, web, 18 Mar. 2015. [4] Walker, Man Made God, 154. [5] Richard Carrier, PhD, Hitler Homer Bible Christ: The Historical Papers of Richard Carrier 1995-2013 (Richmond, CA: Philosophy Press, 2004), 165. [6] Walker, Man Made God, 131. [7] Walker, Man Made God, 153. [8] Walker, Man Made God, 157. [9] Walker, Man Made God, 158. [10] Thomas Paine, Age of Reason (1796), from The Writings of Thomas Paine, Vol. IV, ed. Moncure Daniel Conway, Part I, Chapter II, “Of Missions and Revelations.”

JC Myth (4.5) Making New Sayings: “Eusebius, Constantine, and the Making of the New Testament”

JC Myth Picture for Blog

Chapter Four: Making New Sayings: “Eusebius, Constantine, and the Making of the New Testament”

Eusebius wrote “Historia Ecclesiastica,” or the “History of the Church.” He was friends with Emperor Constantine the Great and helped Constantine win the crown. Because of this friendship, the Edict of Milan (313 CE), removing penalties for professing to be a Christian, was enacted. Mack wrote: “The Bible was created when Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. . . with Constantine converted, the age-old model of the temple-state could start to work again, and the history of Christendom began.”[1] Until then, there was no New Testament, but only writings by unknown authors.[2]

Constantine, with Eusebius by his side, presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Eusebius’ Life of Constantine states that bishops came from all over the world. Two hundred fifty men (both young and old) came together from “all quarters” and “all nations,”[3] Eusebius listed the following areas from which these men traveled:

“In effect, the most distinguished of God’s ministers from all the churches which abounded in Europe, Lybia, and Asia were here assembled. And a single house of prayer, as though divinely enlarged, sufficed to contain at once Syrians and Cilicians, Phœnicians and Arabians, delegates from Palestine, and others from Egypt; Thebans and Libyans, with those who came from the region of Mesopotamia. A Persian bishop too was present at this conference, nor was even a Scythian found wanting to the number. Pontus, Galatia, and Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Phrygia, furnished their most distinguished prelates; while those who dwelt in the remotest districts of Thrace and Macedonia, of Achaia and Epirus, were notwithstanding in attendance. Even from Spain itself, one whose fame was widely spread took his seat as an individual in the great assembly.”[4]

Constantine urged that they sit down and discuss their differences and come to unity.[5] When all the delegates were seated, Constantine urged them to get a handle on their doctrine and be “united in a common harmony of sentiment.”[6] He “gave permission to those who presided in the council to deliver their opinions.”[7] Eusebius wrote that

“the emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and received every proposition with steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the argument of each party in turn, he gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconciliation. At the same time, by the affability of his address to all, and his use of the Greek language, with which he was not altogether unacquainted, he appeared in a truly attractive and amiable light, persuading some, convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed question.”[8]

When all was said and done, all were “united as concerning the faith.”[9] Then, “Those points also which were sanctioned by the resolution of the whole body were committed to writing, and received the signature of each several member.”[10]

In his book Crimes of Humanity, Jared Bailey noted that tales were taken from all over the world, “using the standard god-myths from the presbyters’ manuscripts.”[11] Constantine’s hope, Bailey wrote, was that by including facets of all the myths, East and West would be united in a uniform religion.[12] We have no record of what the book contained, but Mack wrote that other “lists would be produced from the fourth to the ninth century, showing that total agreement was never reached.”[13] Mack continued: “When the Jewish scriptures and the apostolic writings were combined in a single book, the church finally had its story straight. The Bible could be used to claim antiquity for the Christian religion and serve as the Christian epic.”[14]

According to Eusebius, he was told to make fifty copies of the scriptures,[15] and later Constantine wrote a letter to the churches as follows:

“Having had full proof, in the general prosperity of the empire, how great the favor of God has been towards us, I have judged that it ought to be the first object of my endeavors, that unity of faith, sincerity of love, and community of feeling in regard to the worship of Almighty God, might be preserved among the highly favored multitude who compose the Catholic Church. And, inasmuch as this object could not be effectually and certainly secured, unless all, or at least the greater number of the bishops were to meet together, and a discussion of all particulars relating to our most holy religion to take place; for this reason as numerous an assembly as possible has been convened, at which I myself was present, as one among yourselves (and far be it from me to deny that which is my greatest joy, that I am your fellow-servant), and every question received due and full examination, until that judgment which God, who sees all things, could approve, and which tended to unity and concord, was brought to light, so that no room was left for further discussion or controversy in relation to the faith.”[16]

I couldn’t tell whether the following was written by Constantine or Eusebius: “Receive, then, with all willingness this truly Divine injunction, and regard it as in truth the gift of God. For whatever is determined in the holy assemblies of the bishops is to be regarded as indicative of the Divine will.”[17] Because “It was by the Will of God that Constantine became possessed of the Empire,”[18] naturally it was perceived that God guided him in leading these men to truth.

And why shouldn’t Constantine know the truth? After all, he was inspired (according to Eusebius). On a day previous to the convening of this council, God had sent Constantine a vision of a “Cross of Light” and

“about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.”[19]

Then, to ensure that Constantine understood, God appeared to him in the form of Christ.

“He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.”[20]

This sounds a lot like the story the apostle Paul told about his own vision, which also appeared “about noon” and in the presence of his companions (Acts 22:6-9). Many Christians believe Paul’s story while disbelieving Constantine’s; then they turn around and trust Constantine to give them their holy book with its holy words from God (including the story about Paul). I don’t think they can have it both ways.

After this miracle Constantine “sent for those who were acquainted with the mysteries of His doctrines, and enquired who that God was, and what was intended by the sign of the vision he had seen. They affirmed that He was God, the only begotten Son of the one and only God[21] (whatever that means). At that point Constantine began to worship the gods Yahweh and Jesus.

Constantine was enthralled by the writings of Eusebius, and wrote to him, saying:

“I am, notwithstanding, filled with admiration of your learning and zeal, and have not only myself read your work with pleasure, but have given directions, according to your own desire, that it be communicated to many sincere followers of our holy religion. Seeing, then, with what pleasure we receive favors of this kind from your Sagacity, be pleased to gladden us more frequently with those compositions.”[22]

Constantine himself was a speaker, author, philosopher, and prophet. Eusebius wrote of him:

“For himself, he sometimes passed sleepless nights in furnishing his mind with Divine knowledge: and much of his time was spent in composing discourses, many of which he delivered in public; for he conceived it to be incumbent on him to govern his subjects by appealing to their reason, and to secure in all respects a rational obedience to his authority. Hence he would sometimes himself evoke an assembly, on which occasions vast multitudes attended, in the hope of hearing an emperor sustain the part of a philosopher. And if in the course of his speech any occasion offered of touching on sacred topics, he immediately stood erect, and with a grave aspect and subdued tone of voice seemed reverently to be initiating his auditors in the mysteries of the Divine doctrine . . . And he himself both felt and uttered these sentiments in the genuine confidence of faith.”[23]

Perhaps both these men had a hand in writing these New Testament scriptures. Whoever did the work of piecing together information from far and wide (whether Eusebius, Constantine, or the 250 bishops), at some point a new merged manuscript was turned into a document that would through the years, and other councils, grow into what we have sitting on our coffee tables today. As Robert Wright noted, “politics and economics gave us the one true god of the Abrahamic faiths.”[24]

“Having by these means banished dissension, and reduced the Church of God to a state of uniform harmony,”[25] Constantine turned his attention to the false prophets and heretics, addressing them as follows: “Understand now, by this present statute, you Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, you who are called Cataphrygians, and all you who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies.”[26] He informed these people that “from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place.”[27] Eusebius wrote:

“Thus were the lurking-places of the heretics broken up by the emperor’s command, and the savage beasts they harbored (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines) driven to flight. . . Thus the members of the entire body became united, and compacted in one harmonious whole; and the one catholic Church, at unity with itself, shone with full luster, while no heretical or schismatic body anywhere continued to exist. And the credit of having achieved this mighty work our Heaven-protected emperor alone, of all who had gone before him, was able to attribute to himself.”[28]

“Thus the emperor in all his actions honored God, the Controller of all things, and exercised an unwearied oversight over His churches. And God requited him, by subduing all barbarous nations under his feet, so that he was able everywhere to raise trophies over his enemies: and He proclaimed him as conqueror to all mankind, and made him a terror to his adversaries: not indeed that this was his natural character, since he was rather the meekest, and gentlest, and most benevolent of men.”[29]

After that, God revealed traitorous plots to Constantine in visions so that he was able to dispose of threats against him. In fact,

God frequently vouchsafed to him manifestations of himself, the Divine presence appearing to him in a most marvelous manner, and according to him manifold intimations of future events. Indeed, it is impossible to express in words the indescribable wonders of Divine grace which God was pleased to vouchsafe to His servant.”[30]

Eusebius believed Constantine’s flights of fancy. I do not. However, I believe the stories he told of his visions as much as I believe the stories he (Eusebius, or whoever) told of Paul’s visions. Paul also was supposedly given exceeding or abundant revelations (2 Cor. 12:7).

Now, what are the chances that a non-Christian emperor of Rome (he wasn’t baptized until right before he died[31]) and his bishops were able to decide which of all the contradictory writings that existed were the true word of God? We can boldly proclaim that “God watched over the process and made sure only the inspired material was put in the book these men made,” but that is the epitome of  naiveté, particularly when Yahweh wasn’t even able to preserve any original writings.

Edward Gibbon wrote:

“The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.”[32]

Gibbon further noted:

“It must be confessed that the ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model which they were impatient to destroy. The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved in less than a century the final conquest of the Roman empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals.”[33]

Dr. Robert L. Wilken, the “first Protestant scholar to be admitted to the staff of Fordham University,” wrote: “Eusebius wrote a history of Christianity in which there is no real history. Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest and unfair historian in ancient times.”[34] Joseph Wheless wrote that Eusebius was “one of the most prolific forgers and liars of his age in the church.”[35] Paul L. Meier noted: “They cannot deny their crime: the copies are in their own handwriting, they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, and they cannot produce originals from which they made their copies.”[36]

These books Eusebius put together were, according to Bushby and Bailey, called the “New Testimonies.” Bushby wrote that “this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.”[37] After the book was presented Constantine  ordered all other writings that had been brought to the meeting to be burnt; and, according to Bushby, “presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.”[38] As Mack noted:

“The writings in the New Testament were not written by eyewitnesses of an overpowering divine appearance in the midst of human history. That is the impression created by the final formation of the New Testament. Dismantled and given back to the people who produced them, the writings of the New Testament are the record of three hundred years of intellectual labor in the interest of a thoroughly human construction. . . It is charged with the intellectual battles and resolutions of untold numbers of persons who invested in a grand project three centuries in the making. . . To be quite frank about it, the Bible is the product of very energetic and successful mythmaking on the part of those early Christians.”[39]

It should come as no surprise to us that we have been fooled. According to my research,

“The original encyclopedias produced under the name of Britannica probably provided the first and last opportunity for unaffiliated biblical specialists outside Vatican control to release factual information about the development of the Christian religion. In the 1895 version alone, 344 Christian experts contributed to articles associated with biblical sections in the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Editions. The knowledge they provided was subsequently published, and the priesthood had endowed the Encyclopaedists with disclosures that shocked the Christian hierarchy. Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), in particular, was horrified by the revelations, and realizing something had to be done, circuitously arranged for a group of Catholic businessmen to purchase Encyclopedia Britannica.”[40]

Apparently by the eleventh edition (1898), the new ownership was in place and earlier versions were destroyed. The Roman Catholic University in Chicago[41] took over the encyclopedia’s dissemination, and church missionaries began selling the new version door to door.[42] Vati Leaks said researchers today need to check at their local libraries for information in Britannica’s Ninth Edition, Volume 10. The author noted:

“Christians with access to libraries holding older pre-edited copies of Encyclopedia Britannica, particularly the Ninth Edition, Volume 10, will be shocked to read page 783 onwards under the heading of “Gospels”. It confirms what church leaders knew about the crooked nature of early Christian bishops, the Fourth Century compilation of the Gospels, later inclusion of forged narratives into now-canonical New Testament texts, the papal suppression of 1200 years of church history (Encyclopedia Biblica, Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899), contradictions between Gospels, the retrospective fabrication of the Christian story, and the anonymous nature of Gospels now official to Christianity. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Secret Vatican Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Scrolls, that earlier knowledge was reinforced and reveals that the Vatican hierarchy know that the origin and authenticity of its Gospels is falsely presented. Persons in a position to compare earlier editions with ‘under Vatican management’ editions should do so for personal confirmation that a new and fictitious Christian history was written and published, omitting previously available detrimental information.”[43]

After suppressing the evidence, the Vatican was able to create its own false history.[44] From there the bogus information began to spread.

Protestants speak about the Catholic Church in derogatory terms (some even calling her the whore of Babylon) while they gobble up every poison niblet she has poured into their bowl. Valerie Tarico wrote that the printing press “brought the written word to the masses,” fueling the Protestant Reformation; and in time the “authority of the papacy and Catholic hierarchy were replaced by the authority of the Bible, the Reformation’s ‘sola scriptura.'” The irony here is that it “was the Catholic hierarchy itself that had assembled the collection of texts and declared them, on papal authority, to be God’s best and most complete revelation to humankind.”[45]

Tina Rae Collins

My goal is to share my book The Judaeo-Christian Myth one article at a time. If you find these articles interesting or you don’t think I’ll reach my goal (always a possibility, I suppose), and/or you just can’t wait, you can purchase the book by clicking on the picture above or the title in this paragraph. Thanks for reading!

[1] Mack, 293. [2] “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 30 Oct. 2014. [3] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Chs. 6, 7, and 9; tr. Ernest Cushing Richardson; from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1; ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890); rev. and ed. for New Advent by Kevin Knight; newadvent.org, 2009, web, 9 Apr., 2015. [4] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 7. [5] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 12. [6] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 12. [7] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 13. [8] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 13. [9] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 14. [10] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 14. [11] Bailey, Crimes of Humanity. [12] Bailey, Crimes of Humanity. [13] Mack, 288-289. [14] Mack, 290. [15] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, IV, Ch. 36. [16] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 17. [17] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 20. [18] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 24. [19] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 28. [20] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 29. [21] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 32. [22] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, IV, Ch. 35. [23] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, IV, Ch. 29. [24] Wright, 134. [25] Eusebius, Life of Constantine,  III, Ch. 63. [26] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 64. [27] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, Ch. 65. [28] Eusebius, Life of Constantine,  III, Ch. 66. [29] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 46. [30] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, I, Ch. 47. [31] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, IV, Ch. 62. [32] Edward Gibbon, Rome, Vol. II (Philadelphia, 1876), as noted at “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 12 Nov. 2014. [33] Gibbon, Rome, Vol. III, 163, as noted at “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 12 Nov. 2014. [34] Robert Louis Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings, History’s Impact on Belief, Chapter III: The Bishop’s Maiden: History Without History (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971), 73, 57. See also: “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 12 Nov. 2014. [35] Wheless, Forgery in Christianity; quoted in Gibbon, History, Ch. 37; Lardner, IV, 91. These citations were retrieved from: “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 12 Nov. 2014. See also: Taylor, Diegesis, 272. [36] Eusebius, The Church History,  Book 5, Section 28; retrieved from:  “Father Eusebius – Forger,” 12 Nov. 2014. [37] Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.” [38] Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.” [39] Mack, 308. [40] D. H. Gordon and N. L. Torrey, History in the Encyclopedia (New York, 1947); and Norman Segal, The Good News of the Kingdoms (Australia, 1995). See also: Vati Leaks, “Why the Vatican purchased Encyclopedia Britannica,” vatileaks.com, 6 July 2011, web, 11 Apr. 2015. [41] Encyclopedias: Their History Throughout the Ages, 1966. See also: Vati Leaks. [42] Vati Leaks. [43] Vati Leaks. [44] Cardinal Caesar Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, tome vii, Fol. Antwerp, 1597. [45] Valerie Tarico, “In Defense of Cherry Picking the Bible,” exchristian.net, 9 July 2015, web, 10 July 2015.

JC Myth (4.4): Making New Sayings: “No Risen Savior”

JC Myth Picture for Blog

Chapter Four: Making New Sayings: “No Risen Savior”

Whether Jesus lived or not, we cannot prove from the earliest biblical sources that he was born of a virgin or resurrected as a Messiah. These ideas were added to the manuscripts by later editors.

On February 4, 1859, an ancient document was found at St. Catherine’s monastery containing “346 leaves of an ancient codex.”[1] Dr. Tischendorf named the document the Sinaiticus, or Sinai Bible (Codex Sanaiticus). It’s our oldest complete copy of the Bible. Bushby wrote:

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

“When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. . . Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible’s version of the New Testament, not modern editions.”[2]

Yes, this was a problem. According to Lucy Mangan,

“Between them [the Old and New Testaments in the Sinai Bible] they had 35,000 edits and corrections made by three or four different scribes, including one to the words spoken by Jesus on the cross – marked as doubtful by one of the writers, and reinstated later by another. Imagine finding a big question mark beside ‘Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do.’ You’d have to take a moment, wouldn’t you?”[3]

As Bushby noted, today’s Bibles contain many errors, but this document suggests that Jesus was not even born miraculously. Bushby stated that the Catholic Church admitted that “like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour.”[4] Armstrong agreed, writing:

“Mark’s Gospel, which as the earliest is usually regarded as the most reliable, presents Jesus as a perfectly normal man, with a family that included brothers and sisters. No angels announced his birth or sang over his crib. He had not been marked out during his infancy or adolescence as remarkable in any way.”[5]

As Joseph Wheless wrote, the virgin birth is the concept that “the whole forged fabric of Christianity is based on.”[6] Yet even Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote:

“It is clear the first gospel writer, Mark, had never heard of the virgin birth. When Mark was written, over 40 years had passed since the crucifixion, and some 70 years had passed since the birth of Jesus. Mythological traditions build slowly. The story of the virgin birth of Jesus is one of these mythological traditions.”[7]

Bushby continued to say that

“when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was ‘the first Gospel written’ . . . The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth.”[8]

Furthermore, Bushby noted that “No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).”[9] But there is more. Bushby also wrote:

“Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, codenamed ‘K’ by analysts. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixthcentury manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninthcentury AngloSaxon Bibles.”[10]

Mangan confirmed this when she wrote: “The greatest body blow for literalists, however, was the fact that the Gospel of Mark [in the Sinai Bible] lacked its rather crucial final 12 verses, in which Jesus is resurrected and his divinity thus proved.”[11] According to Armstrong, the idea of the “crucifixion as an atonement” for sin “did not emerge until the fourth century and was only important in the West.”[12] She continued to say that the “doctrine that Jesus had been God in human form was not finalized until the fourth century. The development of Christian belief in the Incarnation was a gradual, complex process.”[13] Jared Bailey wrote: “The resurrection verses in today’s Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries, and the Church agrees, saying, ‘The conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine . . . almost the entire section is a later compilation.'”[14]

We know that, right? We’ve known it for years.

After the Sinai Bible was discovered, many flocked to Egypt in search of old Bibles, and Scottish twin sisters Agnes and Margaret Smith found one (Codex Syriac) that rivaled the Sinai Bible in age. It too lacked the important last verses of Mark. Someone finally came upon a copy with the resurrection verses attached, but not until the end of the nineteenth century. Charles Lang Freer uncovered one dating from the fifth century that contained not only the final twelve verses of Mark but also some extra verses that had Jesus saying Satan was dead.[15] Those who claim that the original stories of other mythical gods don’t show them as being resurrected or born on December 25, or whatever the claim might be, need to think about the fact that the original stories of Jesus didn’t show him as being born on December 25 either; and, more importantly, they didn’t show him as being resurrected from the dead.

Most people freely accept that the conclusion to Mark isn’t genuine.[16] And what this means is that Christians may be left without a risen Savior. Some might want to deny the evidence, but surely we believe what the Catholic Church says when its words harm its cause. If not, it is nonsensical to entertain the idea that the books of the New Testament have any merit at all, since they also came to us from this organization. Besides, we know for a fact that the earliest manuscripts didn’t contain any information about a virgin birth or resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Tina Rae Collins

My goal is to share my book The Judaeo-Christian Myth one article at a time. If you find these articles interesting or you don’t think I’ll reach my goal (always a possibility, I suppose), and/or you just can’t wait, you can purchase the book by clicking on the picture above or the title in this paragraph. Thanks for reading!

[1] Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.” [2] Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.” [3] Lucy Mangan, “Bible Hunters: the Search for Bible Truth; The Good Wife – TV Review,” 14 Feb. 2014, web, 22 Nov. 2014 <http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/feb/14/bible-hunters-the-good-wife-tv-review&gt;. [4] Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.” See also: Encyclopaedia Biblica (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1899), Vol. III, 3344. [5] Armstrong, 80. [6] Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion (1930), 74. [7] John Shelby Spong, Bishop, The Birth of Jesus (progressivechristianity.org, 2014), 18. [8] Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.” See also: Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., Vol. VI, 657, and Tony Bushby, The Crucifixion of Truth (Buddina Queensland, Australia: Joshua Books, 2004), 33-40. [9] Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.” [10] Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.” [11] Mangan, “Bible Hunters: the Search for Bible Truth.” [12] Armstrong, 87. [13] Armstrong, 81. [14] Jared Bailey, Crimes of Humanity, lulu.com, 2014. See also: Encyclopaedia Biblica, II, 1880; III, 1767, 1781; and Catholic Encyclopedia, III, “The Evidence of Its Spuriousness,” and Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., III, 274-279, “Canons.” [15] Mangan, “Bible Hunters: the Search for Bible Truth.” [16] Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.” See also: Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. II, 1880, Vol. III, 1767 and 1781; Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III, under the heading “The Evidence of its Spuriousness”; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., Vol. III, 274-279, under heading “Canons.”

JC Myth (4.3): Making New Sayings: “Unknown Jesus”

JC Myth Picture for Blog

Chapter Four: Making New Sayings: “Unknown Jesus”

We don’t know who wrote the New Testament or when, and we also don’t know for sure that its main character ever actually lived. D. M. Murdock wrote that nobody outside the New Testament writings seems to have known Jesus. This is odd for a man who was supposedly a legend in his own time (Mt. 9:31).

Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 CE), Jewish historian and philosopher, lived in or near Jerusalem when Jesus’ miraculous birth and the massacre of little children occurred, yet he never mentioned Jesus.[1] Plutarch (c. 46 to c. 120 CE) also never said anything about Jesus, nor did Jesus’ contemporary Pliny the Elder (22 to 79 CE) speak of him. Pliny the Younger (62-110 CE) mentioned Christians (Chrestians), but the only Christ he knew was as the object of Christian worship. The historian Tacitus wrote when the New Testament was supposedly written; and, like Pliny the Younger, had “nothing but contempt” for the Christians he mentioned. Tacitus (64 CE) presumably wrote:

“Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Chrestus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.”[2]

This passage from Tacitus, however, is suspect. John G. Jackson wrote: “Eusebius made a list of Jewish and Pagan references to Christianity, but Tacitus is not mentioned by him. In fact, the passage in question was not quoted by any Christian writer before the fifteenth century.”[3] First-century Justus of Tiberius, who hailed from Galilee, authored a history of the time in which Jesus lived; and Christian scholar Photius, writing in the ninth century (“Biblioteca,” 33), was amazed that it didn’t contain “the least mention of the appearance of the Christ.”[4]

John E. Remsburg listed forty-two authors living during the time of Christ and then noted:

“Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.”[5]

Many look to Josephus, who was born after the Christ events occurred, and claim he talked about Jesus; but the main citation has been proven to be false. The passage is out of context with the surrounding text, and it wasn’t present in the earliest copies of Josephus’ works. Even Origen, in the second century, didn’t know of it. This mention of Jesus was first spoken of at the beginning of the fourth century, and Eusebius, a known liar, may have been the one who wrote it.[6] If it were possible to get away with it, people today would most likely be making up stories, characters, and “historical” evidence and cramming them into the biblical texts.

Frederic Farrar (1831-1903), of Trinity College in Cambridge, wrote:

“It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind . . . there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels.”[7]

Sometime in the nineteenth century, the renowned scholar Rabbi Wise “searched the records of Pilate’s court, still extant, for evidence” of the trial of Jesus and found nothing.[8] The truth is, no one who lived during that time spoke of Jesus. All we have is a bunch of stories from a century or two later. We know this! We have always known it. Until Justin Martyr (141 CE), we find nothing of a Christ on the earth.[9]

Scaruffi summed up the evidence we have regarding a historical Jesus as follows:

“The Romans kept accurate records of every political and judicial event. There is no record of Pontius Pilate trying and executing a man named Jesus. Only two Roman writers of Jesus’ time mention Christians (Pliny and Svetonius [Suetonius]) but they don’t mention Jesus. The first Roman to mention Jesus is Tacitus, but almost a century after the death of Jesus. The Jewish historian Josephus certainly mentions Christians, but his words about Jesus are generally considered a later forgery (the Christian historian Origen of the third century wrote that Josephus never mentioned Jesus). The Jewish philosopher Philo, who lived in Egypt at the time of Jesus, does not seem to know anything about Jesus or Christians (he died in the year 40).”[10]

And not only was Jesus not mentioned but, as Scaruffi pointed out, events that supposedly happened during the lifetime of Jesus have not been recorded in history either. Jim Walker wrote:

“Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the ‘heavens.’ According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred ‘about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.’ Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world, including Pliny the Elder and Seneca who both recorded eclipses from other dates. Note also that, for obvious reasons, solar eclipses can’t occur during a full moon (passovers always occur during full moons). Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.”[11]

Tina Rae Collins

My goal is to share my book The Judaeo-Christian Myth one article at a time. If you find these articles interesting or you don’t think I’ll reach my goal (always a possibility, I suppose), and/or you just can’t wait, you can purchase the book by clicking on the picture above or the title in this paragraph. Thanks for reading!

[1] John E. Remsburg, “Silence of Contemporary Writers,” The Christ,  positiveatheism.org, 2000, web, 27 Aug. 2014 <http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm&gt;. [2] Publius Tacitus, Annals, Book XV, Sec. 44, c. 109 CE. See also: “Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ,” rationalwiki.org, n.d., web, 19 Dec. 2014. [3] John G. Jackson, Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth (Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press, 1989), 8. [4] Walker, Man Made God, 146. See also: Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: FFRF, Inc., 1992), 361. [5] Remsburg, “Silence of Contemporary Writers.” [6] Walker, Man Made God, 145-146. See also: Bennett, 666. [7] Bushby, “The Forged Origins of the New Testament.” See also: Frederic W. Farrar, The Life of Christ (London: Cassell, 1874). [8] Graham, 343. [9] Graham, 290-291. [10] Scaruffi, “Jesus and Christianity.” [11] Jim Walker, “Did a historical Jesus exist?”