• May 27, 2023
Christ Myth

The Great Jesus Debate goes mainstream

The Great Jesus Debate is now in the MSM at The Washington Post. Unfortunately, the article by Raphael Lataster cites the snippy Richard Carrier, as well as Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey, all of whom have attacked and defamed me rather viciously. Of course, there is no mention of their favorite whipping post and all the hard work I’ve put into this issue. (Nor is there mention of Dr. Robert M. Price, who has deferred to me on this subject.)

Also, I disagree that Josephus and Tacitus have any value in providing “evidence” of a historical Jesus. The Testimonium Flavianum and relevant phrase in the James passage are clearly interpolations, and upon close scrutiny Tacitus is worthless in this quest.

I should add that the discussion continues to be framed incorrectly, as we are not trying to prove that “Jesus didn’t exist.” This erroneous focus can only continue if the pre-Christian myths upon which the gospel story were based are ignored. When they are factored into the discussion, what we can say factually is that the “Jesus Christ” of the New Testament is a fictional compilation of characters, not a single historical individual. Hence, we are not trying to prove a negative by saying “Jesus didn’t exist.” There were plenty of Jesuses in antiquity, but it is not their story in the New Testament.

In this regard, ignoring the SOLAR and astrotheological origins of the “celestial being” that Jesus started out as is egregious and nonsensical.

In any event, it is good to see the debate getting out there into the public, as it has been suppressed for the past several centuries.

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.

by Raphael Lataster

There are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence.

Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

The methods traditionally used to tease out rare nuggets of truth from the Gospels are dubious. The criterion of embarrassment says that if a section would be embarrassing for the author, it is more likely authentic. Unfortunately, given the diverse nature of Christianity and Judaism back then (things have not changed all that much), and the anonymity of the authors, it is impossible to determine what truly would be embarrassing or counter-intuitive, let alone if that might not serve some evangelistic purpose.

The criterion of Aramaic context is similarly unhelpful. Jesus and his closest followers were surely not the only Aramaic-speakers in first-century Judea. The criterion of multiple independent attestation can also hardly be used properly here, given that the sources clearly are not independent.

Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his “Heavenly Jesus.” Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12).

Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.

Agnosticism over the matter is already seemingly appropriate, and support for this position comes from independent historian Richard Carrier’s recent defense of another theory — namely, that the belief in Jesus started as the belief in a purely celestial being (who was killed by demons in an upper realm), who became historicized over time. To summarize Carrier’s 800-page tome, this theory and the traditional theory – that Jesus was a historical figure who became mythicized over time – both align well with the Gospels, which are later mixtures of obvious myth and what at least sounds historical.

The Pauline Epistles, however, overwhelmingly support the “celestial Jesus” theory, particularly with the passage indicating that demons killed Jesus, and would not have done so if they knew who he was (see: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10). Humans – the murderers according to the Gospels – of course would still have killed Jesus, knowing full well that his death results in their salvation, and the defeat of the evil spirits.

So what do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say about all this? Surprisingly very little – of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable.

Christ is a mythical character

Jesus as the sun by Thomas Paine

Further Reading

Christ myth articles

Bart Ehrman caught in libel and lies?

Does Josephus prove a historical Jesus?

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus

Is Suetonius’s Chresto evidence of Jesus?

The Alleged Evidence for a Historical Jesus of Nazareth

What is a mythicist?

25 thoughts on “The Great Jesus Debate goes mainstream

  1. “…In recent months or over the last year or so I have interviewed Frank Zindler and Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald and Robert Price all on the issue of mythicism … when I spoke to these people I asked for their expertise collectively and what I got, especially from Fitzgerald and Robert Price, was that we should be speaking to tonights guest D.M. Murdock, author of ‘Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver’.”
    – Aron Ra

    “I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations.” “I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock”
    – Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D’s

    “I have no objection to postulating a ‘prehistoric’ (i.e., prior to our earliest horizon on Christianity) phase to the heavenly Christ cult in which observations of the heavens helped shaped the Christ myth.” “Acharya has that aspect of things sewn up!”
    – Earl Doherty

    Earl Doherty defers to Acharya for the subject of astrotheology:

    “A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions’ ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S”

    – Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, (2009) page 153

    “Your scholarship is relentless! …the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration.”
    – Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology

    “I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!”
    – Dr. Robert Eisenman

    “I’ve known people with triple Ph.D’s who haven’t come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?”
    – Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, North Park Seminary

    “…I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating.”
    – Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor, Presbyterian Church

    The Mythicist Position

  2. I think Acharya that your book Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ is a good introduction to anyone interested in Mythicism. I have owned the book for a year now and up to this day I’m still reading it and had been passed to some people. You have perfectly showed the problems within the gospels like:

    1. Problems in Textual Harmonization
    2. Late gospel dates
    3. Anachronisms, Contradictions (the use of the words Gehena and Synagogue)
    4. Absurd sayings (sayings like Matt 10:21-23 or Luke 19:27 which are indeed rarely read during Sunday mass)
    5. The real deal with Messiahnic prophecies (not prophecies at all but derived from OT)
    6. The Jesus Outside of the Bible chapter
    7. A little bit of comparative mythology (El-Asar is Lazarus being raised by Horus)

    It is very hard to put down. I think it is one of the most received and well reviewed. You have laid down a strong case for a mythical Jesus by using Christianity’s own documents which are often ignored and people aren’t aware of it. I just hope that more people will notice this and the interest of the public in comparative mythology will increase.

    1. Thanks. I’ve always felt WWJ was a very valuable book, but it’s a very hard sell, for some reason. I’m considering changing the title, updating it a bit, adding images to it and reissuing it. Changing the title opens up a whole can of worms, however, including all those videos I did about it.

      1. I don’t think there’s something wrong with the title. I think the title is perfect as it lays the CSI-style analysis by brushing off the purported evidence. My only suggestion actually is the expansion of the chapter “Jesus Outside of the Bible”, and maybe even adding “Paul the Apostle” mythicist case. Overall, WWJ is a great addition to my bookshelf and it’s a perfect ammunition when debating with deranged Christian apologists. My ex-seminarian cousin from a Dominican order actually liked it.

      2. Hi Acharya,

        Firstly I’d like to say I love your site! -I only found it last night, but will certainly be reading your books in the very near future. I had a couple questions I was hoping you might be able to answer: I trust you are familiar with Issa / Isha? If I may ask, what do you make of the Bhavishya Purana, or the work of Nikolas Notovich?

  3. Speaking of media, here’s an interesting CNN article that mentioned DM Murdock/Acharya S and Barbara Walker:

    Where Christmas really came from

    “In fact, midwinter festivals, including Saturnalia and Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, were broadly celebrated in ancient Rome. In ancient Egypt, there was a festival that marked the birth of a child sun-god, Horus, whose mother (called Isis) was a virgin. Indeed, this child was “laid in a manger,” one of many similarities with the Christmas story.

    Scholars have been all over this, going back to one of the earliest Christian writers, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, who noted the similarities. (The details of this connection will be found in a recent book by Barbara G. Walker and D.M. Murdock, Man Made God: A Collection of Essays.)”

    The author linked to Acharya’s article Was Horus Born on December 25th of a Virgin? and mentioned Barbara Walker’s book, Man Made God

    D.M. Murdock/Acharya S in the Media

    * For media appearances, please contact: acharya_s@yahoo.com

    1. I was watching Sam Harris’s video on TED and it got me thinking, how can we get TED to ask Acharya to speak about mythicism and Astrotheology even for only 20 minutes. Wit her erudition, her books need more exposure especially Who Was Jesus and Did Moses Exist. She should be there first before Richard Carrier steps in and speak about his plans to monopolize mythicism.

      1. Good point JonM.

        I’d like to see Acharya S/Murdock give a lecture at the Mythinformation Conference


        She should be speaking at all the major freethinker lectures such as Skepticon for example.

        The biases and discrimination against her even by some freethinkers and atheists is out of control and an embarrassment to us all.

        Richard Carrier is ok until he starts trashing Acharya S/Murdock due to his own biases and wilful ignorance. I have been at Carrier’s lectures and seen him do this myself … I was pissed. Carrier is on video with many other lectures doing it too and it’s time for him to be called out on it. Here on video Carrier admits his own lack of interest and ignorance on astrotheology:

        “53 through 54 Carrier admits he has no interest in pursuing or investigating astrotheology as he finds it “dull.” Carrier says he could never write a book on the subject. (ain’t that the truth!)

        “But, I think historians in this field, in ancient history and ancient religion, could do us a service if someone is interested in doing that and using it as a teaching tool … So, maybe someday some ancient historian or ancient religion expert would have the passion to do that. I don’t (laughter) … because I find it so dull that I can’t get up the passion to do that. I have different interests than ancient religion. But I would totally read a book like that (laughter). It’s an example of many things in the ancient world that I couldn’t write a book on myself but, I’m dying to read a good book on it.”
        – Richard Carrier

        “My thoughts: So, Carrier admits he has no interest in pursuing or investigating astrotheology, as he finds it “dull.” That’s basically an admission that he has never studied the subject. Therefore, Carrier is not an expert and is unqualified to comment on the subjects of astrotheology and its relationship to mythicism with any authority or competence whatsoever. He says he “could never write a book on the subject” – ain’t that the truth! ”

        Nuskeptix “Christ Myth Theory” Video Chat

        So, why Carrier believes he is a legendary historian going around in all his lectures telling people only to listen to him is beyond me. Carrier is the unethical one and a bad spokesman for mythicism because of it.

        “All Carrier has “hypothesized” is what the Gnostics claimed of Christ, and he ignores the pre-Christian mythology that they created their Christ from. His work is shallow and worthless overall, as he has declared gleefully that he has no interest in the actual history of Jesus mythicism and is therefore willfully ignorant … When one traces back the Gnostic ideas and the many other strains of thought that the fictional Christ character was predicated upon, the gospel story resolves itself largely to nature worship, solar mythology and astrotheology, of which Carrier is likewise admittedly extremely ignorant.”

        – Acharya S

        Carrier’s latest book, ‘On the Historicity of Jesus’ by Dick Carrier refuses to mention any evidence such as the following examples:

        “See Exodus 39:9-14: “…they made the breastplate… And they set in it four rows of stones… And the stones were according to the names of the children of Israel, twelve…according to the twelve tribes.”As Josephus says (Antiquities, 3.8): “And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning.” (Josephus/Whiston, 75.)

        Earlier than Josephus, Philo (“On the Life of Moses,” 12) had made the same comments regarding Moses: “Then the twelve stones on the breast, which are not like one another in colour, and which are divided into four rows of three stones in each, what else can they be emblems of, except of the circle of the zodiac?” (Philo/Duke, 99.)”

        – Christ in Egypt, 261-2

        Malachi 4:2

        “…the sun was worshipped by the Israelites, who associated it with their tribal god Yahweh. Like Father, like son, and the connection between Jesus and the sun is first evidenced in the OT book of Malachi (4:2), which immediately precedes the New Testament and in which the author refers to the “Sun of Righteousness” who will “arise with healing in his wings.” This scripture, which is in the last chapter before the Gospel of Matthew, sounds much like the winged solar disc of Babylon and Egypt.”

        “This scripture in Malachi is perceived as a reference to the coming messiah, Jesus Christ. In this regard, this clearly solar appellation “Sun of Righteousness” is repeated many times by early Church fathers as being applicable to Christ.”

        And many more…


  4. Star Worship of the Ancient Israelites

    2,750-year-old solar-aligned temple discovered in Israel

    “I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations.” “I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock”

    – Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D’s

    “This book is a slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation entitled “Solar Worship in the Biblical World” which was submitted to the Graduate School of Yale University in the Spring of 1989. As may be judged from the title of that work, I had at one time planned to cover more territory than sun worship in ancient Israel, but found the material pertaining to ancient Israel so vast that I never got beyond it.”

    – Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor, “Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel” (1993)

    “At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories … Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later.”

    – Dr. Edwin Krupp, Astronomer and Director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles

    Star Worship of the Ancient Israelites

    Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness

    The Mythicist Position

    1. Just more frantic hand-waving to get off the subject – obviously a great deal of people are raising this issue, if the responses are any indication.

      All one needs to do is to read my books and articles, including Christ in Egypt, to see that Christian apologists are desperate.

      1. Yea, I agree. We know that but I did try on my own logically answered the article a friend sent me. I’m not as informed on Egyptian myths yet as I have been studying much of the others. I do have a few books on Egypt though. I’ve used some of your articles. Although I agree on most of your work, I’m confused about the John the Baptist because it only seems to be a partial interpolation because why would it not correspond to the Gospel accounts?

        1. Thanks. The John the Baptist material in Josephus could be an earlier edition than what ended up in the gospels, which postdate Josephus by decades. It could be based on Anubis the Purifier or Oannes the Babylonian Fish/Water God, the latter of whose worship was highly popular in the very region where “John” – I-Oannes, in the Greek – was said to thrive. I write about these subjects in various books and articles, including the Anubis-John connection extensively in Christ in Egypt.

          1. I read something like that of yours before. Thanks for the reply. Please reply to this vid. It’s the same apologist who has that common reason ministries link. He is trying to say Christmas is original & not borrowed. Lol


            there’s a few things within the few mins or so that I wasn’t sure what he meant but most of it I was like seriously this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Even a few things about Jesus being connected to Genesis creation of the earth during a specific time was amusing. He’s claims Jesus was conceived March 25 Then 9 months later is Dec 25 or Something like that. But was confused when he said born & died the same day. Lol it reminded me of this secular site that indicates that Jesus’s birth & death was the same day. In which if that is the case, it further proves it’s a myth. Do these people hear the circular reasoning they dispense from their tounge tied mouths?

  5. Hi Rapture, you have mentionedhere that Paul may have existed. You may want to check out my reviews of Dr. Robert M. Price and Dr. Hermann Detering’s theses on the historicity of Paul. As it turns out, Paul is a composite of historical laypeople and mythical characters. I don’t know about Acharya’s perspective but it seems to me “Paul” the Apostle of Jesus is a mythicist/evemerist combo.

    1. Ok Jon, I’ll take a look. I figured all of them were fakes but just John The Baptist & Paul seem more plausible. Jesus is definitely not a real person. I know Acharya has a good point for the Solstice with John The Baptist but Josephus seems to have a partial interpolation there because why would a Christian contradict the Gospel account? As for Paul there’s so many writings tampered with using his name but sounds like a different person that one has to ask if he is made up too or just some delusional fanatic reading The old testament. He had visions & got the revelations according to scripture. How could he write so much during all the traveling etc…

      1. The Testimonium Flavianumin Josephus’s Antiquities is a big fat forgery. The entire passage is deliberately inserted by Church Father Eusebius in order to usurp anyone who questions Christ’s existence. In fact the TF passage is analyzed by Dr. Paul Hopper, a renowned linguist from Carnegie Mellon University and found out that the TF passage has a lot of grammar mistakes to be considered genuine. Check out Acharya’s analysis of his paper.

        Hopper: http://goo.gl/4dCM3E
        Acharya S: http://goo.gl/Q2i971

        With regards to the John the Baptist mention in Josephus, here’s the reason why it can’t be considered as proof.

        And where is the Baptist? In Christian mythology there is hardly a more commanding figure short of Jesus himself. The forerunner, the herald in camelskin coat, the scourge of the unrepentant, the voice crying aloud in the wilderness. Until the Gospels appear, John is truly lost in the wilderness, for no Christian writer refers to him.-Earl Doherty

        John is nowhere to be found outside the gospels, except for a passage in Josephus’s Antiquities (XVIII, v, 2). Yet, this Josephan “John the Baptist” is never connected to Christianity, and his story is somewhat different from that which ended up in the later gospel account. Moreover, the chronology in Josephus does not match that of the eventual gospel tale, and the entire story is suspected as a forgery. (Emphasis added) – The “Historical Jesus?”, Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha, and Christ Unveiled

      2. I might do a lengthy post in the forum about the commonly offered proofs for Paul’s historicity but it may take me a week because I got a new job and place, so keep an eye on that one. Here are the commonly offered proofs for Paul the apostle’s historicity.

        -Clement of Rome’s epistle to the Corinthians (late 1st/early 2nd century);
        -Ignatius of Antioch’s letter To the Romans (early 2nd century);
        -Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (early 2nd century);
        -The 2nd-century document Martyrdom of Polycarp.

        These testimonies aren’t enough to validate his existence, for one thing, they serve too late and . Secondly, there are no well-corroborated archaeological evidence that Paul the apostle of Jesus had been to places like Corinth, Colossae, Ephesus, Thessaloniki, etc or any document that he had been incarcerated. The only definite account of Paul’s life is contained within the Acts of the Apostles, allegedly written by Luke. Unfortunately, Acts of the Apostles raises a red flag because it is a work of “late 2nd century Pseudepigraphy” and it lacks originality like Paul’s conversion. Early Christians are actually quite adamant of the epistles, the only time the hesitation ended is during the time of “Irenaeus of Lyons” and “Tertullian of Carthage”. This is the time when they are stomping Gnosticism like bugs. At the meantime, you may want also to check out Earl Doherty’s rebuttal against Ehrman’s trashy book “Did Jesus Exist” here; chapter 17 to 19 as Ehrman upholds that Paul and the epistles are proofs for an evemerized Jesus.

        Now, you might encounter apologist like the crackpot “David B” who will accuse you of drawing conclusions from “Argument from Silence”. In this regard, silence becomes valid for we are not talking of a typical guy who passes the street and living a normal life. We are talking of a man who is responsible for the expansion of Christianity as we have it right now. A man who had been to many places in the Levant and Mediterranean and preached among the people and caused so much trouble with the pagans that they have to plot his death. And yet,we do not have any records of him until approximately 100 years after his death around year 67 CE.

        1. Congrats, Jon, on another intelligent and erudite post. You are on your way to becoming one of the better mythicists out there, surpassing those with PhDs or Masters who will remain nameless…

          Keep it up.

          1. Probably not. I can only speak three languages and German and Koine Greek are quite difficult languages. I’m no historian, classicist, nor a biblical scholar so I can only share things that I have been truncated/simplified for the layperson. In fact, reading Dr. Hopper’s paper gives an impression that its target audience is for the trained scholar. As you mentioned in some other posts, mythicism takes years of training akin to a doctor becoming a surgeon. But nonetheless, I have my thanks to mythicists like you for giving me my ticket out of Christianity.

          2. You’re welcome. You are a great student, in any event, which honors the teacher. Not everyone with a PhD or Master’s is as erudite at Hopper, and we have plenty of examples of those with higher degrees who are incompetent, including within the field of Jesus mythicism. I can name names! 😀

            Also, I know mythicist scholars, researchers and writers who do not operate in any languages other than their native tongue. Most do not work in multiple languages as I do, so you in some cases you’re ahead of the game.

            I’m glad you are enjoying this subject and feel freed by it. That’s a great place to be in.

  6. Excellent work Acharya. I don’t think you get the credit you deserve by your peers in the mythicist community. However as much as I enjoy your work I also like to read what other mythicist’s have to say concerning the origins of Christianity and compare them all. One mythicist I’d like to mention is Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries). I’m also reading Herman Detering’s The fabricated Paul. I read the invention of Christianity by Alexander Drake, and I’m almost done reading Jesus as the Sun. I’ve seen a video of you and Joseph Atwill discussing the historical origins of Christianity. In the video Joseph said the invention of Christianity was a government project by the Roman aristocracy. I know iv’e said a lot things what I’m trying to get at is a simplified way to understand how Christianity came about from a historical perspective. I came to realize like the Christians in many aspects, there exist’s til this day no consensus in the mythicist community on how Christianity begin outside of Jesus being mythological, any thoughts on why that is ?

    1. You may want to check out Acharya S’s views on Joseph Atwill’s thesis. She doesn’t concur with him except that Jesus is a mythical character.

      Acharya said:

      Please note that I do not concur with Atwill’s Josephus/Flavian thesis vis-a-vis the origin of the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There remains no clear, scientific evidence for the emergence of the canonical gospels as we have them until the end of the second century, when they suddenly burst onto the scene with a slew of commentary…but the facts indicate that the Vespasian/Titus cult was evidently involved with the cult of Chrestos, not Christos, at that time. The real effort to compose the canonical gospels, moreover, did not occur until the middle of the second century, with the publication of the “heretic” Marcion’s “New Testament” at Rome.

      One clarification: I do concur that Christianity was created significantly for political reasons, but there is no scientific evidence that the canonical gospels were written by any Flavians, whether Josephus or otherwise, as they do not emerge clearly in the historical record until the last half of the second century. The works of Josephus factor into the picture when the author of Luke-Acts apparently uses them in order to flesh out the tale with “real history.”

      (Emphasis Added)

  7. ~ The Golden Gate would have been the main view for Jesus’s Triumphal entry. But it’s unknown & there’s 2 entrances for the Temple, in which was said to be where God’s presence was. – “In Christian eschatology, sunrise in the east symbolizes both Christ’s resurrection at dawn on Easter Sunday and the direction of his Second Coming. Sanctuaries for Christian congregational worship at an altar are often arranged with respect to the east.”- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_%28Jerusalem%29 ~ The Sun would shine through / into the temple. Hence, Jesus as the Sun for the Triumphal entry.

    Mark 11:11 ►

    Young’s Literal Translation:
    “And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple, and having looked round on all things, it being now evening, he went forth to Bethany with the twelve.”

    ~ It was getting Dark & night time was to be, so the Sun goes away & with the 12 constellations that was the cosmic sky expressed below, brought to earth. Tomorrow was a new day for the “Sun of Man.”

    “He approached the city from the east, from the Mount of Olives, where the Jewish people expected the Messiah to appear – and where the sun rises.”

    ~ The “Sun” triumphantly coming from the east “where the Sun rises.” ¤ ◄ Ecclesiastes 1:5 ►

    New International Version:
    “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”

    The Jesus story.net basically agrees with our solar myth assertions & as well with the other link that explains how the sunlight would enter the temple & how Churches were constructed this way for that sole purpose. Lol There’s way too much to show Jesus is the personified Sun. A Anthropomorphized solar deity.

Comments are closed.