This book is a response to Tom Harpur’s Pagan Christ, but it is something more. In this book, Stanley Porter and I really examine the Jesus myth theory in general, using Tom Harpur’s book as a case study. If you have never heard of Tom Harpur, but have been confronted by the claims of Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, D.M. Murdock (Acharya S), Robert Price or those of the Zeitgeist movie, this book will be of interest to you.
In our book, we look at some of the older works that modern writers base their books on. We then look at the claims that the Jesus story is based on pagan myths, especially those of Egypt and Mithraism. When one actually examines the myths, it is quickly apparent that the Gospels have very little to do with pagan myths. We then look at the historical basis of the story of Jesus. We confront claims that Josephus’ testimony is a forgery, that Paul never spoke of the historical Jesus and that the Gospels are not historical. We conclude that there is a firm historical basis for the existence of Jesus Christ.
Unmasking the Pagan Christ: An Evangelical Response to the Cosmic Christ Idea won the 2007 Word Guild Award of Merit in the area of Evangelism and Apologetics.
A documentary was made of this book, produced by David Brady Productions.
You can purchase the Unmasking the Pagan Christ book at:
I am constantly amused that a simple question never crosses the minds of apologists like yourself: Since everything that you believe is ultimately sola fide, and would be believed in the absence of any reasoned proof, what’s the point of your historical dabblings and tendentious hair-splitting? Whatever you think you’re doing, it’s not reason, and it’s not science, since reason and science are authentic only in the context of a tentative, not absolutist, truth, with no predetermined conclusion. In short, everything you do is fatuous from your own point of view, and a positive nuisance from everyone else’s point of view. You can fulfill any injunction to spread the gospel by converting illiterates in Borneo if you like, but a consistent application of your faith would be a blessing for the rest of us: To keep your mouth shut.
Thanks for your comment. Just a couple of thoughts.
1) You miss understand sola fide. This means that Christians are saved by faith and not works. It has nothing to do with why Christians believe. Many Christians, such as myself, included an examination of the evidence in the process of coming to faith.
2) I am not sure if your comment has anything to do with our book Unmasking the Pagan Christ. If you read the book, you would find that it is not about faith. We examine the claims that there was no historical Jesus and that the Gospels are not based on pagan myths from a historical perspective. You do not have to be a Christian to understand that Mithras or Horus were not born of virgins.
3) By your definitions of reason and science, what is coming out of the atheist camp these days would fall into the same category.
“Sola fide”: Strictly speaking, you are correct. But in examining the gnat, you seem unaware that you have been trampled by an elephant. Similarly with comparisons of Jesus to Mithras, Horus, and others: You seem to suppose that by correcting the occasional mistranslation (e.g., Lazarus may not in fact have come from Azar) that you can triumphantly declare that the Jesus rebirth myth was unique in the ancient world and without antecedent. This is complete nonsense. I didn’t catch your definition by innuendo of reason and science, but you seem to suppose that they are in fact absolutist and predetermined. Such is not science; let’s avoid the barnyard word and call it “apologetics.” Your inability to give a direct reply illustrates my point perfectly: You champion honesty up to the point where it is inconvenient for belief, and likewise with reason. Just give a straight, manly reply: Would you still believe if reason and science contradicted the Bible? Of course you would. So why bother if the conclusion is foregone? “Oh, but there is no contradiction! I can smooth out these discrepancies!” Strange how it’s always the truth that gets “smoothed out” in any collision with belief. You persist only to distort reason and science to your preconceptions and place in disrepute these tools hard-won over the centuries by “the atheist camp,” without whom you would still be sitting in the mud, practicing some form of blood sacrifice.
Perhaps it was hard to see your main question clearly through all of your accusations. However, you have now made clear the question:
“Would you still believe if reason and science contradicted the Bible?”
There are some problems with this question. Do you mean if a historical record contradicted the number of soldiers the Bible says were present at a battle? Or do you mean if there were absolute proof that Jesus never existed? My faith is not based on every verse of the Bible being consistent with 21st century standards of history. It is an ancient book and should be interpreted in its context. Am I trying to avoid the question? No, the question is too vague. What particular Christian beliefs are you suggesting could be contradicted by science? Narrow down your question and I will give you my answer. While you do that, here is my question: if evidence existed for the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus, would you change your beliefs?
Since your standard is absolute proof of a negative, it seems clear that you are beyond any reasonable persuasion. You ask the reciprocal of myself. My own view does not wrangle over one historical Jesus, but instead generously concedes many contemporary Jesuses. The Jewish state was again on the verge of extinction; the prophecies, which primarily blamed the moral shortcomings of the victims of Roman oppression, were widely known: The perfect incubator for cranks bearing the same common name. Out of the crop of “gospels” that they spawned, it was very easy to cull out those which were disagreeable to the properly connected prelate of the day, or to the emperor with an instinct for manipulating the mob. Of course even the “sanctioned” gospels could not resolve all of the contractions of Jesus stories cobbled together more than half a century after the Jewish state’s crisis of existence. But these are details. The nub of the matter is stated by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:14): Did a man, who claimed to be god, in fact die and come to life again? There is absolutely no historical proof of this; you will simply have to take it on faith. But, Pascal’s Wager notwithstanding, you will pay a dear price for that affirmation: By giving in to this one falsehood, you must affirm many others, most on matters that have a great bearing on your happiness on this earth. “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” — deceive ourselves, Sir Walter Scott might have added. But let’s take a radically different tack on this question — one in keeping with our generous disposition. Let’s generously say that Christians of every stripe make up a third of the world’s population. Of that number, the Gospel According to Bedard would cast out all Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Gnostic Christians, Moonies, Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as most Catholics. Let’s very generously say that a tenth of the world’s population confess the Gospel According to Bedard. Let us also generously allow that the other 90% will be cast into outer darkness and not spend eternity with an X that — we further generously allow — is not a rhetorical device for avoiding infinite regress but is a real agent for creating something out of nothing. Not that this would put you off, but isn’t it all a bit breathtaking? But let that go — there’s still more to swallow. Suppose the merry clan of Bedardites can be resurrected, that their distinct personalities remain intact, that the atoms of their glorified bodies can be distinguished from the hundreds of rotting bodies they had commingled with and be returned to their proper owners by the X in whom all things are possible, and that they are all in heaven. The Gospel According to Bedard now has to define a human nature that is completely unlike any human nature ever known: These souls have no activity other than to “magnify X” (whatever that means); this they must do out of their own free will and must never commit a moral transgression, all the while knowing that X has perfect powers of mental surveillance. And these Bedardites must maintain this — well, let’s not say “act” — say, this state of tension, for all eternity. Quite a contradiction: To have free will (the heart of personal identity) yet not exercise it in any significant way (lest they commit a “sin” or — woe betide their personal identities — develop in some meaningful way). Now, the worst gulag on earth at least permitted the privacy of one’s conscience to remain intact; but in Bedard’s “heaven” this tiny corner of solace will be laid open to X and possibly other beings, and thereby destroyed. But we are generous: Allow the Bedardites a free will (though meaningless) and a conscience (though without privacy). And should we concede mental capacity? Again, we are generous, but… well, what for? All of the strivings of reason, logic, and science are otiose: All questions are answered. Shall they be kept only for parlour games, played without winners lest someone fall prey to the sin of pride? But we are exhausted, leaning as we do upon our own understanding — let the Bedardites themselves describe this human nature that is not human nature. Do I hear a tenth of the world’s population in a mighty chorus of tut-tuts and dismayed clucking? Does Bedard reply that “it is a mystery” that shalt be revealed unto the Bedardites, that there is no need for reasons to be given? But as an apologist, you first set foot onto this field, and after all these concessions made to your position, surely you won’t slink away without answering. We freely conceded to faith its right to keep its reasons private; but you as an apologist want to bring this private thing into public arena of reason and science. Time to put up or shut up: Describe this inhuman human nature that you propose to “enjoy” for eternity.
Why are you so angry toward my beliefs? I have come to a conviction regarding God and who Jesus is. I share that conviction, but without demand or pressure for people to confirm. My focus on this web-site is historical consistency. Can I prove that Jesus was God incarnate? Perhaps not, but I can demonstrate that the four canonical gospels are not simply the choice of Constantine but were in widespread use and were considered authoritative a couple of centuries before. If you are willing to have a civil and rational conversation, I am happy to do so. If you only need to vent your anger toward Christians, perhaps we should call an end to this conversation.
I think you confuse anger with an exasperation that any adult can hold such a number of obviously contradictory beliefs at the same time. Can you describe this inhuman human nature that you propose to “enjoy” for eternity?
I am not sure what contradictory beliefs you are referring to. As for describing what eternity will look like, I do not know the details having never been dead. The Bible speaks of a resurrection and a restoration of the earth. Read N.T. Wright’s Surprised By Hope if you are interested. It is interesting that you are exasperated by people of faith. There are people of other faiths and people of no faith that I disagree with and yet I do not feel exasperation, and I am able to treat them with respect.
It would be sophomoric indeed for me to come to your site just to heap contempt on Christians. I truly wish you well — and be assured that this is my last epistle. It’s just that I sincerely cannot understand why anyone would slice great bleeding hunks off their own spiritual life and hand it over to charlatans who pretend knowledge of, or access to, an afterlife. I have shown to you — not because I say so or have any animus, but because that if you say A you must also say B — that any notion of an afterlife annihilates the concept of human nature. To refute this does not require drawing on an experience that you do not (and will not) have; the refutation comes in showing that saying A does not imply B — and this you cannot do. I have an image of the Christian afterlife as countless yellow smiley faces with glazed-over eyes gathered around a glowing TV set that is locked on a single channel — for eternity. Anyone’s enjoyment of this great gift is entirely speculative, at best. But what is most certain is that believers will hand over to charlatans areas crucial to their happiness on this earth. Such people, depending on your cultural luck of the draw, will command you to kill others who have received a fatwa; some (John Hagee) will demand that you actively support Israel above all other nations; others will say that you must refuse medical treatment; others (Deuteronomy 13:10 — ha, ha, and you thought that was some bloodthirsty imam) will say that you stone to this or that person death; others will deny stem cell research — but with exceptions in this case or that case, depending on the charlatan. Now it is true, as Franz Kafka says, and which may surprise you to hear from an atheist, that “man cannot live without a continuous confidence in something indestructible within himself.” There are many, many, things higher and more everlasting than myself — for example, my family, my honor, my fidelity to the truth, such as my feeble mind is able to determine. These things do endure. Living up to these indestructible things is the daily adventure of life that requires courage and honesty of every human being. To surrender these decisions to charlatans is a betrayal of everything that is human.
It is interesting that some of the things that you say you can not believe about Christianity, I do not believe either. That image of the afterlife does sound boring. That is why I ask you to check out NT Wright’s Surprised By Hope. You might be surprised by what some Christians believe. I do not look to charlatans, televangelists or imams. I look to Jesus the best I can from the Gospel accounts and have found a faith that is intellectually, spiritually and emotionally satisfying. I hope that you can find such a faith. Blessings on you!
When I read the comments left by Audrey Stolz, many things come to mind, but I will only mention a few. If she does not believe there is absolute truth, then no one has the “truth”. If that is so, then, (I don’t wish to be rude) why should I listen to her more than my Golden Retriever. If no one has the truth, then all ramblings are equal value and why tell someone to shut up? Another thing that comes to mind is from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, when the Queen Mother says ” The Lady doeth protest too much, methinks”
Wow Jed – bravo! Audrey does seem to have an axe to grind. Sometimes words on a page do seem angry when they may not be. Stephen, from what I have seen so far on this blog, you seem to be very grounded in your faith and I applaud you for your attempts to explain Jesus from a historical perspective. Carry on Christian!
BTW, I no longer buy books unless they are on Kindle. I urge you to have your publisher make your books available for Kindle. Feel free to let me know when this is the case as I am anxious to read more of your works.
http://wwww.ginzotalk.wordpress.com
I will mention it to my publisher. Thanks for your comments.
Pastor Bedard,
I did take your advice to heart and read N.T. Wright’s book:
http://untimelymeditations.com/2011/04/25/heaven-careful-what-you-wish-for-part-1-of-3/#more-423
Your arguments are kinda lame to me. They don’t stand up to logic just like the bible. That book was written by the catholic church in it’s quest for power and control. There were numerous god-men throughout time. They all seem to try to share wisdom with mankind.Christians are elitist just like the Jews. The Jews think everyone should believe they are gods chosen because they wrote it in a book. How convenient and utterly racist. Christians think they are the chosen ones as well. Better than everyone else. Alot of the myths in the bible are plagiarized from other civilizations. This can by found out by simply reading. No PHD required. Why do the christiand call on amen at the end of their prayers. It is not a word ,it is a who as it refers to Jesus in revalation 3/14 (the amen). Buddah said don’t believe something because it is written in a book unless you can prove it. You have not proved your argument and you will never be capable of it. Because ther is no evidence to support your claims. On the subject of Josephus , a Jew, who didn’t believe that their messia came, mention him anyway. On the other hand , all the miricles and the earthquakes and sun going dark should have made front page news or at least been documented by other writers of the time. Good luck finding one that can be authenticated. Your 4 gospels werevoted into the holy cannon just like the others. They needed 4 for the cardinal points. They were not written by the people their names bear. They contradict each other also. Most of the new testament is written by a man named Paul. He never met Jesus or walked with him, but is referred to as an apostle. He was apparently almost struck by lightning on a road one day and thought it was Jesus . He then began to preach . If you can find one of his manuscripts in original condition I not only will be impressed but I’ll change my way of thinking. For some reason I can’t proof read this so there might be some spelling or grammatical errors.
Just curious, as you have rejected the arguments of our boo, have you read it? Our basic argument is that there are no major similarities between Jesus and pagan figures such as Horus or Mithras. You don’t need a PhD for this, just read the pagan myths for yourself (not the Christianized version of Jesus mythicists). As for the existence of Jesus, we have as good if not better evidence for Jesus than any other historical figure. Start contacting professional historians and tell me how many of them deny the existence of Jesus.
I watched the show and saw that you offered no proof of a person called Jesus and you can’t. All religions tie together. There were numerous god- men. Take buddah for example. He gave away all his possessions and lived in poverty ( he was very wealthy) and you have the biblical story of Jesus telling the rich young ruler( buddah was a prince) to sell all he has and give it to the poor . You don’t see a similarity? Christians always conviently take it that Jesus didn’t mean it for them but if it applies to one , it applies to all. Christiand like to pick and choose . They also like to look down on people that disagree with their beliefs. The 3 beliefs ,judiasm Christianity and Islam have murdered more of humanity than anyone else on the planet all in the name if god. There beliefs plagerised other beliefs from Egypt and India that predates theirs. Your whole bible was written over no more than 500 years in human history. Mabe you should look closer at who wrote it and where the stories came from. A phd doesn’t mean anything . I’m sure in my lifetime that I have read more than they with an open mind. I studied the bible with it’s contradictions as well as other religions. If you have a phd from bible thumper university ,I don’t think you will be unbiased do you? All beliefs must stand up to reason and logic. Also it should have proof and you did not present it on the show that I watched and I don’t believe you can. Tell me where I can find indisputable proof and I will be impressed. No religion is wrong in my opinion as long as it is tolerant of others and tries to help mankind without trying to rule over his thoughts. But most of the Christians that I know are elitist and
Think that they have the ultimate truth. Arrogant isn’t it?
The Jesus myth also shares a similarity with the Myan/ Aztec cultures in that it’s all about blood sacrifice. But then there are alot of blood cults and Christianity seems to be one of them. What makes it different? I’ve always heard it was gods plan. The creator has a plan that innocents should die and their blood spilled? And your argument is that christianity has no ties with paganism. Really?
Our main arguments are found in our book. I encourage you to read it. I also challenge to read the Horus, Mithras and Dionysus myths themselves. Most of the claims made by Jesus mythicists (virgin births, twelve disciples, crucifixion, resurrection) cannot not be found in the myths. If you have an open mind, dig deeper into the original sources and not just the writings of Jesus mythicists.
I have read alot about the Egyptian beliefs and their trinitys. Wow another similarity with Christianity. I don’t know what church you go to but I would wager it has a steaple (an oblisk- Osiris ) and you say amen(Amun -amut- ) the god of storms/wind before you leave each service. I have done research on many beliefs. What makes theirs a myth and yours the truth? It would seem that perhaps they are all myths used to try to teach mankind how to live. Have you truly studied with an open mind? I’ll find a copy of your book and add the others to my reading list. I’m just looking for evidence that I believe can’t be found. I’m waiting for someone to prove me wrong.
Again, I would say read the actual myths and not just books about the myths. I was shocked at how much Jesus mythicists misrepresent the myths. For example it is claimed that Horus was virgin born when the myth says that Isis caused Osiris to have an erection and then had intercourse with him. Not much of a virgin birth. Or that Mithras is a dying and rising god, when he actually never dies (and therefore is not resurrected). Always go back to the primary sources. As for the historicity of Jesus, I would suggest you look at what the standards are for historians hold for any ancient figure to be historical and not mythical, and then see how Jesus compares. Jesus and other ancient figures must be looked at in the same way historically. We cannot start with a prejudice against (or for) Christianity and then create a new set of standards apart from what other historians use.
So you seem to ignore the points I make and focus on some standards of proof. Ok truth is logic and reason. Was Julius Ceaser a man or myth? Logic and reason would suggest that he was a man because we have several historians of the time writing about this man. ( who was reportedly born of a virgin) Jesus really doesn’t appear in history before 200 300 ad. All of the so called proofs of his existence have been proven fraudulent. Jesus was Joshua that the Jews wanted to come back and deliver them from the romans but it did not happen, hence they don’t believe the messia ever came. Josephus would not have given Jesus a second thought . If so where in his book the story of the sun darkening and the earthquake when the crucifixion took place. You have conveniently dodged all the points I made . You church steaple is a representation of Osirus’ penis because when he was killed and cut up by his brother Seth , it is the part that wasn’t found and one was made of stone. That is the rest of your Osirus story. Now disprove by your standards that what I have written is false and your proof is true. I don’t have to read what someones opinion is , I can take the evidence and think for myself. Like Buddah said: don’t believe anything just because it is written in a book. Judge for yourself if it is true. We should all do this.
You are not offering proof for a steeple being related to an obelisk. You are simply stating it as a brute fact. As for disproving you, you are the one who came to me saying our book was wrong. I put forth the arguments of our book because it is you that came to me, disagreeing with what I say. As for Jesus not appearing in history until the 200 or 300′s, that is simply false. In the first century, we have Gospels, Paul and Josephus. You may reject them but secular and non-Christian historians accept them as important historical sources. I understand that Jesus mythicists simply dismiss them. You are welcome to do so, but I will stand with the majority (99%?) of historians who use them. I have no interest in debating you on this. I encourage you to read the primary sources and make up your mind. I put forth my case and you are welcome to either learn from it or reject it.
I just offered some points to show cristianity and other religions have things in common and you argue that other religions are myths and yours is not. As for Paul being a historical figure where are his writings ? I would like to see a signed copy. As for the non Christian historians , I would say it would be more like 5 percent at the most. I happen to have watched the show that featured your book and was on the net one day and saw this site. I have enjoyed the commentary and you seem to be happy with your beliefs as am I. It Doesn’t hurt to discuss or debate beliefs because it test your ideas. If every scholar on the planet believes one way, it doesn’t make it so. Even they should still try to learn. Religion is not about us against them as most organized religions make it. It is about toleration and helping mankind ,not trying to be superior. The way you treat your fellow man is how you treat the creator. An old gnostic belief. Peace
Thanks for this blog. Press on, and many blessings!