Who Was Jesus? Part 12

As discussed previously, the ascension of Christ is not mentioned by either of the two purported witnesses among the evangelists, Matthew and John, and the authenticity of the brief references in Mark and Luke is dubious. Rather than serving as a "historical" event, perhaps the ascension was added to the gospel tale also to testify against the Docetists that Christ did in fact possess a physical body. In addition, when we factor into the equation the words of Justin Martyr concerning the ascensions of other G.o.ds of the Roman Empire at the time, we possess scientific and logical reasons to suggest that Christ's story was no more historical and no less mythical than theirs-and that their myths preceded the gospel tale.

As another example of the ascension to heaven in the tales of pre-Christian deities, Justin Martyr raises up certain "messianic prophecies" that he contends influenced the story of the G.o.d Bacchus/Dionysus: The prophet Moses, then, was, as we have already said, older than all writers; and by him, as we have also said before, it was thus predicted: "There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, was.h.i.+ng His robe in the blood of the grape." The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine [or, the a.s.s] among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven.1 In addition to the ascension, the vine, wine and a.s.s also play prominent roles not only in the Dionysus myth but in Jesus's story as well, a fact that obviously did not escape Martyr's notice and that he felt compelled to address, in another stunning admission as to the unoriginality of the gospel tale. The fact cannot be denied that this theme of a divine Son of a heavenly Father whose emblems included the vine, wine, a.s.s and ascension existed before the Christian era, for a variety of reasons, including the standard excuse given by the early Church fathers and many apologists today that the devil antic.i.p.ated Christ's coming and imitated certain aspects of his life's story before his advent. Moreover, Martyr specifically a.s.sociates the myth of Dionysus as having come from the "Mosaic prophecies" found at Genesis 49:10. Unlike various modern apologists, Justin does not deny that these correspondences between Jesus and Dionysus exist. Nor does he claim that the myth of Dionysus was based on that of Christ; he could not honestly do so, because the Dionysian myth preceded the Christian era. The same a.s.sertion can truthfully be made of the other correlations Martyr raised in his apology. Note that Martyr does not give a scriptural precedent here for Dionysus's ascension into heaven, which is nonetheless obviously pre-Christian.

Certain other apologists point to the Old Testament verses at Isaiah 14:12-14 in support of the notion that the ascensions of pre-Christian G.o.ds and heroes were based on the Jewish scriptures, rather than the other way around. Such a development would be very surprising, however, since the Jewish scriptures were zealously guarded from outsiders, who were not considered worthy of reading them. Nor is there any evidence of the Jewish stories being shared abundantly throughout the pre-Christian world, which was barely aware of the existence of Jews, Hebrews or Israelites until a few centuries prior to the Christian era. Moreover, today we know that Moses was not "older than all writers," as a.s.serted by Justin. In fact, mainstream, scientific scholars.h.i.+p does not attribute the writing of Genesis to the Jewish lawgiver, and modern archaeology has proved that the writings of the Sumerians, for one, are far older than the alleged time of Moses. Additionally, in the Greek poet Homer's Iliad, composed beginning around 800 bce, various G.o.ds are depicted with a number of the same characteristics as found in the much later Christianity, including the ascension of the immortal G.o.d Mars/Ares-who had been wounded in the stomach with a spear-into the "broad heavens," to reside with his father Jove/Zeus.1 It is in regard to these "sons of Jove" that Justin Martyr also refers when he is admitting these all-important themes found within Christianity existed prior to the Christian era. In addition, this famous author, Homer, is likely among those to whom Dr. Moreland referred when he remarked that the New Testament writers utilized the works of the Jewish, Greek and Roman historians.

Instead of dismissing these pre-Christian themes or making irrational and unscientific excuses such as "the devil got there first," it would seem sensible to suggest that there is another reason for the ascension and other motifs in certain mythologies, based on visible natural phenomena, for example. The pertinent verses at Isaiah 14:12-14 that discuss ascending into heaven purport to represent the bragging of the character "Heylel," translated as Lucifer, the "Light-Bearer." Per Strong's (H1966), however, Heylel or Helel could also refer either to a king of Babylon or to the "morning star," i.e., the planet Venus. In fact, one of Venus's epithets in Greek was "Phosphoros," or "Light bearer." The RSV translates the term "Helel" at Isaiah 14:12 as, "O Day Star, son of Dawn!" In the Septuagint (3rd-1st cent. bce), the word "Helel" is rendered as "(H)eosphoros," which just happens to be the name of a very old Greek G.o.d/t.i.tan who served as one aspect of the planet Venus. This G.o.d Eosphoros is mentioned in Homer's Iliad (23:226) and in Hesiod's Theogony (378), dating to the 9th and 8th centuries bce, respectively. In determining the origins of the ascension in Isaiah, then, we may be compelled to seek a meaning beyond its appearance within the Old Testament, as the "morning star" was certainly known and visible to the ancient Gentiles aside and apart from the Jewish scriptures. In reality, it would appear that the Isaiah pa.s.sage regarding Heylel or Helel was influenced by Greek mythology concerning the planet Venus, rather than the other way around.

Even if, against reason, we ignore the evidence from Homer, Justin Martyr and others of the ascension theme in pre-Christian cultures, we may surmise, particularly in consideration of the sloppy and haphazard manner in which the motif is introduced into the gospel story, that this pericope was adopted from the Old Testament, from the ascension into heaven not only of Heylel but also of Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), witnessed by his successor Elisha.1 This a.s.sertion would once again demonstrate that the Old Testament was used as a blueprint in the creation of the gospel tale, with the authors simply cutting and pasting relevant pa.s.sages, rather than recording actual historical events. Such an a.s.sumption ranks as far more logical than the improbability that Jesus's ascension represents a historical event.2

The Sayings of Jesus?

If the gospels truly represent the testimony of the advent of G.o.d on Earth, it would seem to be the epitome of blasphemy for a scribe decades and centuries later to change willfully not only the various pericopes but also the very words of the Lord Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ really said these words, what business is it of the later scribes and copyists to change them? Yet, we find this type of blasphemous alteration to be the case in numerous instances, after some political or propagandistic purpose. How can this fact be explained? If the gospels were written by the people whose names are appended to them, under the direction and guidance of G.o.d himself, via the Holy Spirit, why did they need to be changed by "other ancient authorities?" Are all these later scribes likewise working under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit? And which version is correct? Did the Holy Spirit get it wrong the first time when inspiring the evangelists? But, if Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit, why would he make mistakes in his words to begin with, such that he needed scribes down the road to alter or fix them?

Could all these seemingly sacrilegious and audacious alterations to Jesus's own words not be an indication that the story is allegorical and that the scribes were aware of this fact, such that they felt no fear or other factor that would prevent them from making such changes to "G.o.d's Word?"

We have already seen the several examples of verses and "prophecies" used in the creation of Christ's sayings and speeches, including the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed, as the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states: ...there is hardly a word which has been handed down as coming from Jesus which was not spoken or could not also have been spoken by Jewish teachers.1 The sayings of Christ have been boiled down by various scholars as representing the one place where we may find a "historical Jesus." Yet, as demonstrated, there is little new or original in Jesus's sayings that indicates a single individual about whom we can create a scientific biography. In other words, the rehashed, pieced-together sayings and speeches found in the New Testament are more reflective of the politics of the day than of a man named Jesus.

Over the centuries, there were many other changes in the gospel ma.n.u.scripts based on doctrinal and political differences that developed within the church and its many branches, both orthodox and "heretical." For example, other verses tampered with to emphasize a political or doctrinal agenda include those which could be interpreted to indicate that Jesus was not always divine but had become "christed" through his baptism or other means. This perspective of a human Jesus becoming a divine Christ not at birth but later in life has been deemed "separationism."2 Statements also seem to have been inserted in order to combat tendencies brought about by the apostle Paul, one such "anti-Pauline commentary" evidently appearing in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus is made to exhort his followers to adhere to the letter of the Mosaic Law, which Paul seems to abrogate on several occasions. The insistence of the immutability of the Mosaic Law at Matthew 5:19, for instance, seems to have been interpolated in order to combat Paul's laxity regarding the law.1 In consideration of all the various discrepancies, problems and patent propaganda, it can be logically wondered whether the New Testament represents a "historical record" or "factual biography" of a stunningly miraculous life, or simply a propaganda tool for the priesthood to lay down its doctrines and dogma as they developed over the centuries. If the latter is true, even if the priesthood was under divine guidance, could we honestly claim that the New Testament as it stands const.i.tutes a reliable biography of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who purportedly walked the Earth 2,000 years ago? At most, we could say that the NT represents an inaccurate portrayal based on the best or worst wishes of its composers. At the least, we would have to entertain the thought that the gospel story is fictional. Indeed, examining all these discrepancies, problems and errors in what is supposed to be an accurate and inerrant portrayal of actual historical events, one is prompted by honesty and logic to ask whether or not the evangelists and later scribes were just making it up as they went along!

Conclusion

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

2 Peter 1:16 There are many millions of people today who believe as they have been taught that the gospels are historical texts, infallibly inspired and inerrant, containing the sayings and deeds of the Son of G.o.d, who came to Earth 2,000 years ago in order to provide redemption and salvation. Because of the difficulties in believing all the miracles ascribed to Jesus, there are also many millions of people who do not believe Jesus is the Son of G.o.d who supernaturally confers anything upon anyone. This latter category of people usually perceives the gospel story as containing some history, including a general outline of the life of a man called Jesus, with the addition of a number of fables and fairytales.

There is a third school of thought, however, that sees no evidence for either of the first two premises: In fact, this group apprehends that the story of Christ as recorded in the disparate and divergent gospels has so many difficulties, inconsistencies and fallacies that it cannot be taken literally. This faction avers that the gospels are works of fiction, much like Gulliver's Travels or any other clearly fict.i.tious tale placed within a historical setting, and, shocking as it may sound, that no such historical person as Jesus Christ ever existed in the first place. This thesis evinces that the evidence shows most of the sayings, personality characteristics and biographical details found in the New Testament were cobbled together from earlier, pre-existing texts and traditions surrounding a variety of individuals, including both men and G.o.ds, both Jewish and Gentile, found widespread around the Roman Empire of the time.

Fingerprints of the Christ?

To begin with, while alike to the point where the synoptics largely const.i.tute unoriginal copies of each other or common source-texts, the canonical gospels nevertheless diverge so widely in a variety of places, even in the same pericope, as to cast doubt upon the historicity of the tale and the inerrancy of the texts. In fact, so many problems and difficulties are presented by the four differing accounts-reflecting the obvious disharmony of the gospels-that a complex process of textual harmonization has been developed over a period of centuries. Hence, the gospels as they are represent a disharmonious mess that hardly appears to be "infallibly inspired" and "inerrant."

Moreover, the argument comparing the abundance of New Testament ma.n.u.scripts with the relative lack thereof for other books of antiquity const.i.tutes a logical fallacy. First, there was no concerted effort to proselytize these other books and to spread them around the world. Secondly, when Christians gained in power, they frequently destroyed whatever texts they could find, especially the writings of competing sects and religions. Thirdly, book industry statistics have demonstrated a tendency for fiction to vastly outsell non-fiction, meaning that the most abundantly printed texts have been fictional. If a concerted effort to publish a book and the abundance of its copies serve as indications of its veracity, then The Da Vinci Code-which contradicts the gospel story-would also need to be considered "true and historical fact." Moreover, there are thousands of ancient texts revolving around Egyptian religion as well, which would mean, by the abundance argument, that it too represented the "true religion." In reality, the abundance of ma.n.u.scripts testifies to the power of religion but it does nothing to prove the veracity of the New Testament.

Furthermore, not only are the gospels anonymous but also the dates at which they unmistakably emerge in the historical record are far too late for them to serve as the writings of "eyewitnesses" or even companions to eyewitnesses. When scientifically scrutinized, the historical record clearly demonstrates the emergence of the gospels at the end of the second century.

Additionally, even though many times in the gospels Jesus was claimed to have been famed far and wide, not one historian of the era was aware of his existence, not even individuals who lived in, traveled around, or wrote about the relevant areas. The brief mentions of Christ, Christians or Christianity we possess from non-Christian sources are late and dubious as to their authenticity and/or value. Nor is there any valid scientific archaeological evidence demonstrating the gospel story to be true or even to support the existence of Jesus Christ. Despite this utter lack of evidence, Christian apologists and authorities make erroneous and misleading claims that there are "considerable reports" and "a surprisingly large amount of detail" regarding the life of Jesus and early Christianity.

Although it is widely believed that the character of Jesus Christ is unique and original, the fact is that many of the details of his life and virtually all of the sayings can be found in the Old Testament as concerns other "types of Christ" and a.s.sorted scenarios. In this manner, it can be logically suggested that the Old Testament served as a blueprint for the New. Indeed, even though apologists raise the issue of Old Testament prophecies as having been fulfilled in Jesus's life, what is more probable is that the writers of the New Testament constructed Christ's life precisely in order to follow these scriptures. It is a fact that the gospel writers refer repeatedly to certain events and sayings as "fulfillment of prophecy" found in one Old Testament book or another. It would be more rational to suggest that, rather than G.o.d descending on Earth to fulfill these supposed prophecies-and many of them certainly are not in reality prophecies at all-the authors of the gospels cut and paste the most germane scriptures that they considered to be characteristics of the coming messiah, weaving them together to create a fictional figure called "Jesus the Christ."

In addition, a scientific a.n.a.lysis and forensic investigation of the content of the gospels reveals a plethora of questions, impossibilities, difficulties, inconsistencies, illogic, fallacies, errors and repulsive doctrines. These numerous difficulties in turn cast doubt upon both the historicity and inerrancy of the New Testament. Moreover, the excuses proffered by apologists in maintaining biblical inerrancy at any cost frequently appear illogical and disreputable. For example, it is a.s.serted that only the originals or autographs of the gospels were absolutely inerrant but that the copies are "adequate." In response to the query as to why the originals no longer exist, it is claimed that G.o.d destroyed the originals or autographs of the gospels in order not to tempt people to "tamper" with them. The fact remains, however, that the copies were tampered with, so destroying the originals made no difference, which the omniscient G.o.d surely would have known. In reality, the earliest extant ma.n.u.scripts of the New Testament const.i.tute some of the most flawed, riddled with errors-how could this be, and why would G.o.d allow such a development? Logically, honestly and with an eye to integrity, perhaps a better suggestion would be that the autographs were destroyed because they would prove not to be the inerrant products of infallibly inspired apostles and eyewitnesses to Christ's alleged advent. The main problem with the doctrine of inerrancy is that in order for it to work, we must constantly avoid serious issues that strongly suggest it to be false-and these confidence-destroying instances are not inconsequential. They are, in fact, numerous and significant.

After investigating this subject thoroughly, it becomes surprising that scholars and others can study biblical criticism yet still resolutely cling to their beliefs, which are frequently founded upon highly tenuous premises, as we have seen throughout this present work. The less "conservative" scholars will incorporate more of the logical and scientific criticisms into their a.s.sessment, while the conservatives obstinately defend the indefensible, including nonsensical tales, obvious inconsistencies, and puerile and deleterious interpretations of reality. This phenomenon can be explained not as a result of rational, scientific thought but by euphoria and childlike glee at the idea of miracles and magic: Blind believers become giddy with the supernatural and lose their natural sense.

To emphasize, the compulsion to view the gospels as inerrant and every detail therein as fact leaves the believer in a compromising position, because, as we have seen, there is so much obvious disharmony within the Bible that, again, over the centuries it has been necessary to develop an entire field of scholars.h.i.+p specifically designed to harmonize the texts. Some of this effort has been successful, while the rest will never be resolved to the satisfaction of those who demand greater evidence and practicality. As an example of needing to compromise integrity, honesty and rationality in order to adhere to the doctrines of inerrancy and literalism, while many Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,"2 they have also been compelled to come up with the most tortured and specious reasoning to separate out their own faith as "true" and "unique." Others simply deny the correspondences by waving them away.

In this manner, in a section called "The Gospels Are Vastly Different from Folklore and Myth," Christian apologist Dr. Norman Geisler argues against the idea that the gospels largely represent fictional accounts. Says he, "According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact." He then compares the canonical texts to the "apocryphal Gospels of the 2nd and third centuries," with their "fanciful tales of Jesus' alleged childhood miracles..."3 In other words, unlike these other texts and stories, the gospels are not "fanciful." In consideration of the following aspects of the gospel story, it is difficult to see where Geisler and other apologists are able honestly to differentiate the story of Jesus from the myths and folklore of other cultures. Which of the following implausibilities of the gospel tale do not fall into the "myth and folklore" category?

* A virgin birth with an angel announcing it * Astrologers following a star * The heavens opening up, the Holy Spirit as a dove landing, and G.o.d's voice filling the air * Battling with the Devil * Changing water into wine * Calming a storm * Casting out demons into swine and causing the swine to drown themselves * Raising a dead girl * Instantly curing a 12-year hemorrhage through either touch or faith * Walking on water * Miraculously multiplying fish and loaves to feed mult.i.tudes * Using spit to cure a blind man * Transfiguring on the mount between Moses and Elijah * Raising a dead man * Destroying a fig tree by cursing it * Dead saints rising out of their graves and wandering around town * Jesus himself resurrecting from the dead * Angels appearing at Christ's empty tomb * Ascending physically into heaven As can be seen, there is plenty about the gospel tale that could be deemed "fanciful."

In a free society it is allowed that fundamentalist Christian preachers bring forth as fact that which cannot be conclusively proved and that which palpably stretches the credulity by bending natural laws and engaging in severe illogic, as well as adherence to repellant and disturbing notions. Unless such behavior const.i.tutes willful fraud, it is protected under the First Amendment of the American Const.i.tution, underscoring the freedom of speech so valued in civilized cultures. If, however, the educated elite know what is not true but present it as such in any event, are we not culpable of abusing the ignorance and gullibility of the innocents? Does such unethical behavior bode well for a society?

After discussing various churchmen who do not believe precisely as he does, in The Gospel and the Greeks conservative Christian scholar Ronald H. Nash writes: But how many serious blunders does a scholar have to make before his reputation is tarnished? If a scientist or even a historian made as many fanciful suggestions in his field that were as devoid of support as those of some of the theologians we have noticed, or if he begged as many crucial questions, his reputation would surely suffer. But sometimes in theology, it appears, the reverse often holds. I am not sure that this speaks well for theology and biblical studies as intellectual disciplines.1 Although Nash's criticisms are ostensibly aimed at individuals who do not believe in the received history of the gospels and the inerrancy of the Bible, after conducting a scientific investigation, we must ask the same of those who do believe the received history of the gospel story and inerrancy of the Bible.

Terror in the Name of G.o.d

Even if the gospel story were true, the whole premise remains grotesque and irrational: Why would G.o.d need to take birth on Earth as his own son in order to give his life gruesomely as a ransom to himself so that he could remove magically and mystically the sins of his own creatures, which he created so badly in the first place that he needed to fix them? As we have seen, there are a number of other disturbing characteristics and repulsive doctrines in the Bible that should not be ignored or explained away, as they have been over the centuries.

For example, because of the gospel story, early Church fathers such as Tertullian and Origen a.s.serted that Jesus's death at the hands of the Jews was the reason Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 ad/ce. This sentiment towards Jews as "Christkillers," along with the attendant excuse of "punishment from G.o.d" for the catastrophes and persecutions suffered by Jews, has been pervasive throughout the history of Christianity, ill.u.s.trating the need for honest and intense examination of Christian beliefs. No ideology with so much blood on its hands should be dealt with lightly, with kids' gloves, excused for anything so atrocious as the torture and deaths of millions. We of conscience are rightfully revolted by the evil and bloodthirsty behavior of Cambodia's Pol Pot in mercilessly slaughtering millions of people. Yet, if we attach a G.o.d of any sort to this bloodthirstiness, it becomes something "holy," as in "Holy Crusade," "Holy Jihad" or "Holy War." It is not a sane or healthy society that allows its hallowed spiritual inst.i.tutions and ideologies to be soaked in blood and gore. It is equally unsound for those individuals who survive these b.l.o.o.d.y campaigns that have killed their own ancestors to turn around and support their perpetrators by being active and obedient members of their organizations, especially when they are no longer compelled by force to do so.

As concerns the quote in the Second Epistle of Peter with the author proclaiming not to follow "cleverly devised myths," we reply that we think he doth protest too much! This opinion becomes especially true considering that only conservative Christians believe 2 Peter to have been written by the apostle himself, the apostolic authors.h.i.+p having been contested even in ancient times, with the epistle deemed pseudepigraphical along with so many other writings from that era. This fact means that, in representing himself as an "eyewitness" to the events in the gospel story, the writer of 2 Peter is clearly being mendacious. Hence, his protest of not following "cleverly devised myths" ranks as disingenuous and, in reality, indicative of the opposite: To wit, they were following myths-otherwise, why even bring it up?

To reiterate, this issue is not to be taken lightly, as the threat of the global destruction of civilization by religious fanatics looms larger by the day. The devisers of clever fables have, in fact, established a bizarre and dangerous fairytale that is setting up the entire world for a decimating holocaust, apocalypse and Armageddon the likes of which we have never seen before. With its constant portrayal of "End Times" scenes of death and destruction, the fundamentalist Christian perception of reality, which incorporates the Muslim and Jewish paradigms as well, const.i.tutes a deleterious delusion that teaches a variety of doctrines incompatible with the love for life but repeatedly calling for a cosmic battle that ends all life. With its eschatological doctrines of the Second Coming, Rapture and End Times, the Christian myth is, in the final a.n.a.lysis, unsustainable.

Vacuous Christianity?

In studying the gospel scenario in a manner as realistic and scientific as possible, we must factor in the entire environment into which it was placed, including both Jewish and h.e.l.lenistic milieus. The supernatural genesis of Christianity in a pristine vacuum untouched by the outside world ranks as simply ludicrous and utterly unsupportable by the facts of either the time or of human nature. The drama depicted by the Christian tale, as played out many times in the media over the millennia, plainly did not unfold in the manner in which it is believed. In other words, upon close inspection we remain left with a tale riddled with suspicious holes, indicating it did not happen as depicted.

The fact is that, when all the evidence is weighed, it would seem irresponsible and unscientific merely to a.s.sume the gospel tale as historical, either in part or as a whole. If we are to treat with disdain the myths of other cultures that possess a variety of similar themes and motifs as Christianity, are we not being hypocritical and arrogant, as well as culturally biased, to hold up the patent myths of the Judeo-Christian culture as "real" and "true?" In such an environment of mult.i.tudinous miracles, myths and fairytales, the most logical and honest perspective would be to approach the gospel story as if it is not historical until evidence is presented otherwise. This present book does not delve extensively into the extremely important field of comparative mythology in order to demonstrate other likely influences on the gospel tale.1 Suffice it to say, however, that such material is highly germane to this subject. Regardless of how much we study the Bible, without placing the Christ story within its historical milieu, surrounded by the myths and traditions of other supernatural G.o.ds, sons of G.o.ds and legendary heroes, we will never know who Jesus really was.

Instead of a supernatural being from heaven, could Jesus actually be a fictional character created for political purposes? There is more than enough evidence to make such a suggestion, particularly in consideration of the Jewish environment of the time. The Jews were waiting-and agitating-for a messiah or messiahs, one peaceful and another warlike; yet, none powerful enough was forthcoming. Could it be that, as they had done in the past with certain biblical characters created for inspirational purposes, Jewish authorities took matters into their own hands in order to create a messiah of their own making? With the scriptures in front of them, as well as certain non-Jewish influences, it would be a simple matter of firstly cutting and pasting various "messianic prophecies" and a.s.sorted other appropriate pericopes in order to compete with the G.o.ds and heroes of other cultures. The next decades would be spent in a concerted effort that eventually included powerful Gentile leaders to place this fictional and created savior into history.

In discussing the scholars.h.i.+p that suggests Jesus to be as mythical as Hercules and other G.o.ds, many have expressed surprise at such an a.s.sertion, with some suggesting that the Christ of the New Testament possesses a personality "too definite and too coherent to be regarded as unreal."1 This contention const.i.tutes a logical fallacy, however, as the same argument could be applied to many mythical and literary figures, including Zeus, Gulliver, Tom Sawyer and Harry Potter, to name but a few.

It is because there appears to be so little honest admission-as well as, often, civil response-that many people feel put off and antagonistic toward biblical stories and doctrines. Instead of saying, "Well now, you're right-that doesn't sound too good," the rejoinder is all too often to attack the person making the observation. Judging by its "fruits," it seems to many people that Christianity teaches disrespect of human beings, such that its defenders feel they can personally attack those not convinced of the faith, addressing them with little respect and making offensive comments and insults. Among others, the Christian teaching that people are "born in sin" appears to make fervent believers hostile towards others. Other scriptures calling for the deaths and/or torture of "evildoers," as well as remarks concerning "anti-Christs" as at 1 John 4:3 or the condemnation of non-believers at Mark 16:16-categories consisting of people who do not believe in Jesus-have contributed to an atmosphere of hatred and prejudice against individuals who may be moral and ethical but who simply cannot believe in something that may in fact be spurious and thus go against their morality.

With so much of our global social structure based on holy writ of some sort or another, it is imperative that we examine thoroughly our sacred cows and not s.h.i.+rk from exposing them to the bright sunlight. In consideration of the current political climate, which includes an ardent movement to "fulfill prophecy" by bringing about Armageddon and all of the attendant "End Times" tribulations and horrors, the issue of who Jesus was is not to be taken lightly. We should not blindly follow mummified traditions and ancient texts that could very well prove to be misleading, misinterpreted and mythical. Leading our lives and creating-or destroying-our futures based on such texts is perilous and irresponsible. It is paramount, therefore, that we consider the possibility that, rather than being the omnipotent Son of G.o.d, Jesus Christ is a manmade, literary character devised for a variety of purposes that no longer serve the greater good of humanity.

Bibliography

"A Harmonized Chronology of the Resurrection," www.shoutingman.com/bible/harmony/resharmonyhandout.pdf "An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel," John Rylands University Library of Manchester,

rylibweb.man.ac.uk/data1/dg/text/fragment.htm

"Christian Authors Database: Bible Reference Authors,"

faith.propadeutic.com/authors/bibleref.html

"Dominus Flevit-the site where 'The Lord Wept,'"

198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/san/TSflevitmn.html

"From Jesus to Christ: Primary Sources,"

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/pliny.html

"From Jesus to Christ: The Story of the Storytellers,"

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html

"Jesus Outside the New Testament,"

www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/sources.html