Six Reasons Why I’m Not a Christian

I did think my blogging days were well & truly over. I’d said all I wanted to say about Christianity and its dubious origins, and I’d relegated myself to a casual blog reader who left occasional comments. However, recent unprovoked abusive comments from a certain blogger [see here and here] have caused me to saddle up and respond to this unwarranted & totally unprovoked abuse [see below for a flavour of these comments]

if you and s****** want my vote for most profoundly ignorant bloggers on WordPress”

“don’t have time to endlessly entertain your silliness”

reduces your credibility to less than worthless”

you seem more like an angry lunatic

“Sorry, Ken but you are a dime a dozen internet atheist and not worth the time”

I’ll start this blog by clarifying the central issue causing all this animosity. Christians claim Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem 2000 years ago & then resurrected from the dead. I’m happy to accept Jesus was crucified as claimed, but I do not accept he was then resurrected. I reject the Christian resurrection claims for the following six reasons.

  1. The resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem.

Anyone who actually looks closely at Christianity soon realises that the only evidence for the resurrection claims is the evidence found in the New Testament Gospels. There is no other credible evidence available. This does not bothered Christians. They claim the very existence of these Gospels proves Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem, because their existence cannot be explained any other way. This simple argument has held true for centuries, despite numerous efforts to discredit it. However, as I’ve already demonstrated in an earlier blog, the existence of these Gospels does not prove conclusively that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem.

  1. Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus.

The New Testament portrays this conversion as a divine encounter with “a resurrected Jesus” and Christians reject totally all suggestions that this was just a sensory hallucinatory experience triggered by TLE. We can’t blame Paul for thinking it was a divine encounter, because back then they knew nothing about TLE, but today there is a growing mountain of medical evidence that enables us to explain Paul’s so called divine experience in a simple & rational manner. Christians, however, still prefer to stick to their 2000 year old supernatural interpretation, of what we now know is a fairly common occurrence. See “Resurrection! What Resurrection?” in The Christianity Myth for more details on this topic.

  1. Claims made by Peter & by Paul.

Christians accept that Paul never met Jesus whilst he was alive. They also accept Paul’s knowledge of events in Jerusalem came directly from Peter when they first met, some three years after Paul’s conversion experience on the road to Damascus. Paul summarised what he learned from Peter in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9. He later relays this second-hand hearsay information to his early Christian communities. Established Christian apologists like Habermas do not dispute this chain of events. On the contrary, many of today’s Christian scholars believe it strengthens their resurrection argument, because it links the resurrection claims found in the Gospels directly to a reliable & reputable eye witness, namely Peter. I address the veracity of Peter’s claims in section 5.

  1. New Testament Chronology.

Professor Taboo’s excellent table in the section called “The Gospel Jesus v The Jewish Jesus” provides us with an excellent up to date summary of the relevant chronology. The dating of the Gospels indicates that all resurrection accounts found in these Gospel must be second hand hearsay accounts based on Paul’s earlier claims in 1-Corithians 15: 3-9. This assertion explains why all four Gospels portray the resurrection as a near invisible event noticed only by a handful of Jews, despite the fact it allegedly happened in a city teeming with Jews. Most Christians seem oblivious of this point.

  1. Veracity of Gospel resurrection claims.

Given the chronology involved [see point 4], I think we can safely assume that all four resurrection accounts found in the New Testament Gospels are based entirely on Peter’s original claims, which Paul later passed on to his early Christian communities. This simple chain of events highlights Christianity’s Achilles heel [see my earlier blog for more details]. Because Christians automatically assume the alleged resurrection actually happened, they never stop to question the veracity of Peter’s original claims. They just tacitly assume he told the truth, & then hope nobody notices. Who knows, maybe they just do it unconsciously. However, Peter’s claims are in fact, just uncorroborated & unsubstantiated claims. Therefore, I think we can say with some certainty, that all four Gospel resurrection claims are based entirely on unsubstantiated & uncorroborated claims made 2000 years ago by a peasant fisherman from Galilee. Christians have no choice but to just ignore this awkward fact and again hope no one notices [again I’ve dealt with this issue in more detail in an earlier blog ].

  1. The Gospel gap.

There is a 40-60 year gap between the alleged resurrection of Jesus c 30 AD and the appearance of the four canonical gospels c 70-90 AD. Explaining this gap has always been a thorny issue for Christians, because their starting point must be “the resurrection actually happened”. Therefore, logic dictates that someone somewhere should have recorded the alleged event whilst eye witnesses were still around. But they didn’t, and Christian scholars still struggle to explain why several adult generations passed by before the Gospels finally appeared.

But if you change the starting-point to “the resurrection never happened” and then divide this awkward gap into two separate periods, a pre gospel period [c 30-70 AD] and a gospel period [c 70-90 AD], there is no problem explaining the dating of the gospels. No gospels were written in the Pre-Gospel Period [c 30-70 AD] because there was no resurrection to write about. There was just Paul going round the pagan world establishing his early Christian communities. He established these nascent Christian communities because he genuinely believed Peter’s claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. Paul tells these communities about the death & resurrection of Jesus, but he tells them absolutely nothing about Jesus’ life prior to his crucifixion in Jerusalem. Later, after the death of all concerned, it was inevitable that Paul’s newly converted pagans would eventually want to know more about Jesus’ life prior to his death. Cue the Gospel Period [c 70-90 AD] and the appearance of the gospels, all of which appeared when they did in response to growing demands to know more about Jesus. This simple rational explanation yet again challenges Christian assertions that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem [see Pre-Gospel Period & Gospel-Period in The Christianity Myth for more details].

All six points listed above are totally compatible with the evidence as I understand it. The various weaknesses I’ve identified in the orthodox version of events are only weaknesses for those insisting that Jesus was resurrected. If you assume Jesus wasn’t resurrected, as I do, then all these weaknesses just disappear, and you end up with a simpler and more pragmatic explanation of all the know facts and, as a bonus, no divine interventions are needed to make this simpler explanation work.

Thus there are now two alternatives to chose from.

The orthodox Christian version requires acceptance of two divine interventions, one in Jerusalem and one on the road to Damascus. It also requires acceptance of the fact that all resurrection claims found in the Gospels are based entirely on Peter’s original uncorroborated and unsubstantiated claims.

My simpler alternative version requires acceptance that Paul’s conversion experience was a simple hallucinatory experience triggered by a common medical condition call temporal lobe epilepsy, and acceptance that Peter just lied to Paul about this Jerusalem resurrection. [I’ve already dealt with all this stuff in much greater detail in my book The Christianity Myth which can be read here free of charge]

So in effect I’m challenging the credibility of the orthodox version of events & offering instead an alternative explanation which I personally think better explains the known facts. Christians of course can choose to reject any or all of the above six points and continue to stick to their current position. That’s not a problem. What is a problem is the unwarranted abuse from certain Christian bloggers. If you insist on claiming I’m just some idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, then I’m going to insist you put your money where your mouth is. I’ve now made it as easy as I can for you to respond. I’ve set out my store, and I’ve lined up all my ducks in a row. Feel free to drop by anytime and point out where you think I’m going wrong. My comment section is there, ready, willing & waiting. Feel free to refute any or all of the weaknesses I’ve highlighted. Prove me wrong & you’ll have my eternal gratitude. Those who feel their necessary response is too substantial for my comment section, can leave a heads up in the comments section, together with a relevant link.

Ignoring this challenge will be taken both as an apology, and as an admission that there are no absolutes where religion is concerned. All world views are just personal choices. We all chose to believe what we want/need to believe, based on the evidence we chose to accept/reject. These personal choices are invariably conditioned/influenced by prevailing cultural values, as this video on Professor Taboo ‘s blog demonstrates so succinctly. Some of us may not like to admit this awkward truth, but both the questions posed in this video and the claims made in this video are abundantly self evident. The time has come to stop hurling childish abuse, to stop making facetious claims & spouting empty rhetoric and to start behaving like adults. If the relevant Christians want to draw a line under their unwarranted animosity, then fine, all you have to do is admit none of us possess knowledge of the absolute truth & accept that some of us prefer to let the evidence dictate our world view, whilst others prefer to let their world view dictate the evidence.

Post Scripts

Hope Professor Taboo doesn’t mind my plagiarizing some of his material. I discovered his blog a few days ago, after he dropped by and left some favourable comments. Having read his material I think we complement each other quite well. He seems to relish details. I on the other hand prefer to stand back and look at the bigger picture.

The Isaiah 53:5 Project recently posted a very good blog pointing out the dangers of confirmational bias. I even commented positively, saying I wished I’d written it. In this blog, he rightly says

// Despite our best intentions, it’s easy to unconsciously buy into beliefs that feel right in our hearts, even though they are objectively false. But it’s precisely when we’re sure that we’ve cornered the truth that we should take a step back, breathe deeply, and open our minds as far as we can//

Given these words of wisdom, I find it difficult to understand his abject hostility, both to me personally & to my blog. He seems to simply characterise evidence in one of two ways. If it affirms his world view he calls it evidence. If it conflicts with his world view he calls it rubbish. It’s ironic but he appears to be doing the very thing he so rightly warns us about.



Why You cannot prove Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem


Two billion Christians believe Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. They believe this because the Gospels say he was resurrected, and because they believe the existence of these Gospels actually proves Jesus was resurrected. However, the  existence of these Gospels does not actually prove Jesus was resurrected, because their existence can readily be explained without assuming Jesus was resurrected,

The following argument compares two very similar scenarios. The first scenario is the current orthodox scenario advocated by most biblical scholars. The second scenario is an almost identical scenario advocated by yours truly. Both scenarios produce exactly the same final outcome, but the two slight variations I introduce in my scenario have enormous implications.

Orthodox Scenario             

C 30 AD        Jesus resurrected in Jerusalem

C 36 AD         Peter tells Paul about the resurrection [their first meeting]

C 40-65 AD   Paul propagates Peter’s claims [1 Corinthians 15: 3-9]

C 70-90 AD   Gospel authors immortalise Peter’s claims in their gospels

Alternative Scenario          

 C 30 AD        Jesus not resurrected in Jerusalem

C 36 AD          Peter lies to Paul about an alleged resurrection in Jerusalem

C 40-65 AD    Paul unknowingly propagates Peter’s lies

C 70-90 AD    Gospel authors unknowingly immortalise Peter’s lies in their gospels

So either Jesus was resurrected & Peter didn’t lie to Paul [orthodox scenario] or Jesus wasn’t resurrected & Peter did lie to Paul [alternative scenario]. Both scenarios produce exactly the same final outcome, namely Gospels portraying a resurrection in Jerusalem. In the orthodox scenario the resurrection accounts are based on Peter’s original claims, and in the alternative scenario they are based on Peter’s lies.  Because both scenarios produce exactly the same final outcome, and because we have no other information to go on, we cannot now differentiate between these two possible scenarios.


To validate the orthodox scenario &/or to reject the alternative scenario you must either prove Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem or prove Peter didn’t lie to Paul.

Since both scenarios result in exactly the same Gospels, depicting exactly the same resurrection in Jerusalem, the existence of these Gospels does not prove Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem, nor does the existence of these Gospels prove Peter didn’t lie to Paul.

There is no other reliable evidence available to corroborate Peter’s claims. Nor is there any means of substantiating these claims. Therefore the orthodox scenario cannot be validated and the alternative scenario cannot be rejected.

Therefore you cannot prove Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. QED

So now the million dollar question is “Did Peter tell the truth about the Jerusalem resurrection when he & Paul first met?” Unfortunately, we will never know for certain, because the only evidence available is the so called Gospel evidence, & this Gospel evidence is now called into question. Some Christians try to assert that Paul actually validates the resurrection in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9, but actually, in this citation, Paul is just reiterating what he learned from Peter.

Personally, I’d like my chosen world view to be based on something a little more substantive, than uncorroborated & unsubstantiated claims made 2000 years ago, by an illiterate peasant fisherman from Galilee. In my opinion, given the two possibilities outlined above, it’s far more likely that Peter just lied to Paul about the resurrection in Jerusalem, & Paul then propagated these lies unknowingly. I can’t prove Peter lied of course, anymore than Christians can prove he didn’t lie, but I can think of very plausible reasons why he probably did lie. These reasons are outlined in  The Christianity Myth, a very short book explaining how Christianity really started. Click here to read this book free of charge.


Was Jesus Resurrected in Jerusalem?

Mythicists like Richard Carrier argue that Jesus probably never even existed. I don’t subscribe to this minority view for two reasons. One, there are now much easier ways to explain what did or didn’t happen in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, and two, Occam’s razor suggests the best explanation is invariably the simplest explanation.

Most biblical scholars, including many who are not Christian apologists, now accept that the following facts are almost certainly true:

C 30 AD                  Jesus crucified in Jerusalem

C 33 AD                  Paul converted on the road to Damascus

C 36 AD                  Paul learns of the resurrection in Jerusalem

C 50 AD                  Paul meets Peter in Jerusalem for the second time

C 54 AD                  Paul writes 1-Corinthians

C 70-90 AD            Gospel authors write gospels

The current Christian argument supporting Christian claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem is presented very succinctly by Gary Habermas in a U-Tube video called The Resurrection Evidence that Changed Current Scholarship. In this fairly long video, which is just one of many similar videos, Gary Habermas argues that the resurrection accounts found in the gospels, all of which appeared within 40-60 years of the actual resurrection, can truly be trusted, because they are all based on very reliable eye witness evidence that was relayed to the gospel authors by a very reliable intermediary.

It is claimed that the resurrection accounts in the gospels are reliable because they are all based on information provided by Paul in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9. It is further claimed that this information in 1-Corinthians is itself reliable, because it is based on what Paul was told c 36 AD, when he first met Peter in Jerusalem. In other words, the resurrection accounts in the gospels are all based on eye witness accounts provided by Peter at that first meeting. You could even say the gospel authors just immortalised Peter’s claims in their gospels.

On the surface, this Christian argument appears very powerful, but it does have a very small, but very significant flaw. This flaw is the subject of this short blog.

We know this first meeting in Jerusalem took place c 36 AD, because in Galatians 1: 18, Paul tells us that this meeting occurred about three years after his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. We can also infer with some confidence, that this meeting was when Paul first learned of the resurrection in Jerusalem. However, because there’s no independent evidence to verify the veracity of what Paul was told, we cannot know for certain, that Paul was told the truth about the Jerusalem resurrection. In the above Christian argument, it is just tacitly assumed that Paul was told the truth about the Jerusalem resurrection. Now although this seems to be a perfectly rational thing to do, albeit unconsciously, I can think of at least one very plausible scenario that could have resulted in Paul being told a cock & bull story about a resurrection that never happened, but you’ll have see The Christianity Myth for more details.

This ignored uncertainty about the veracity of what Paul was told at that first meeting c 36 AD raises an interesting dilemma for Christians. If Paul was lied to about the resurrection in Jerusalem, Paul would not know he had been lied to. He would simply propagate the lies unknowingly, and the gospel authors would then immortalise these lies unknowingly. The final outcome would still be exactly the same, but there would now be two possibilities to consider. If Paul was told the truth at this first meeting, the gospels would portray a resurrection that did actually happen, but if Paul was not told the truth, then the gospels would actually portray a resurrection that never happened. How do we differentiate between these two possibilities? Quite simply, we don’t, because we can’t. Those who actually knew the truth about this Jerusalem resurrection are long dead, and there is now no way we can verify the veracity of the resurrection claims made at that first meeting in Jerusalem. You either make a tacit assumption to believe Paul was told the truth, or you simply accept there’s no absolute proof this resurrection ever happened.

So was Jesus resurrected in Jerusalem as Christians claim? Paul obviously thought so, and so did the gospel authors, but was their belief based on fact, or was it based on bogus allegations? We’ll never know because even today, the resurrection allegations made at that first meeting in Jerusalem remain both unverified and unverifiable. Therefore, we can never say with any certainty that Jesus was in fact resurrected in Jerusalem. However, looking on the bright side, we can now use this uncertainty to topple the last remaining bastion of Christian support for this Jerusalem resurrection. We can now deny this resurrection ever happened and still explain the existence of the gospels, a feat thought impossible until now.

So, the Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem is indeed a simple matter of faith. A faith based entirely on a simple tacit assumption that Paul was told the truth at that first meeting in Jerusalem. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again now. This simple tacit assumption is Christianity’s unspoken and unacknowledged Achilles heel and all fellow atheists should strive to point this out to Christians whenever the opportunity arises.

Personally, I’d like my world view to be based on something a little more substantial than unverified allegations made 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.


The Christianity Myth


Read The Christianity Myth free of charge, & discover why Christians are wrong when they claim Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. 

© 2014 K. A. G. Thackerey. All rights reserved


This very short book addresses two fundamental questions. First, are Christian claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem 2000 years ago well founded? Second, if not, how come 2000 years later, we have a major world religion based entirely on a false premise? Christians may well find themselves challenged by my attempts to answer these questions.

Orthodox Christianity requires acceptance of two alleged divine interventions, the first in Jerusalem & another some time later on the road to Damascus. However,  after reviewing evidence used to support these claims of divine intervention, I conclude that Christianity’s origins can better be explained without resorting to divine interventions.

Throughout the book, I use the term historical-Jesus whenever referring specifically to a purely historical, mortal character called Jesus, and I use the term Gospel-Jesus whenever referring specifically to the Jesus found in the New Testament Gospels. This Gospel-Jesus is the Jesus that Christians claim was resurrected on the third day after his crucifixion. I deliberately use these more specific terms to minimise confusion.

Numerous hyperlinks [coloured text] can be found throughout the text body. Click on any of these links for further information on the subject in question.

The Journey Begins

At the start of 2012, I was a life-long indifferent agnostic, who attended a Christian church on a regular basis, simply because my spouse was a life-long Methodist. I attended regularly for over 30 years, hoping that one day I would see the light. When I started attending church I was an ill-informed agnostic, and thirty years later I was a better informed agnostic. However, I did meet a lot of very nice people, many of whom became friends.

In January 2012, largely because my spouse was fed up with all my questions, I attended the ubiquitous Alpha Course, to  try and find out why the people around me in church got it, and I still didn’t get it, even after 30 years of exposure. I turned up at the first session of the course, expecting to find myself surrounded by like-minded people looking for answers. I also thought that there might be a few people from other faiths, who were checking out Christianity to see if it offered something better. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I found myself surrounded by Christians seeking to learn more about Christianity, many of whom I already knew. But my surprise didn’t stop there. I soon realised that I knew more about the New Testament than they did, but I must confess that I did bone-up on the subject beforehand, because I didn’t want to appear too ignorant when I first showed up.

Most of the Christians on the course seemed to have little or no in-depth knowledge of their faith. They seemed perfectly happy with the cosy Christian dogma, that all regular church-goers eventually soak up if they attend church long enough. They also seemed to take comfort in a kind of herd-instinct mentality, thinking so many of us have believed the gospel story to be true for so long, that surely we can’t all be wrong. This general ignorance intrigued me, because I had never considered the possibility that someone could, or would, believe in something they knew little about. But I suppose that’s really what faith is all about, a desire or even a need to just believe in something, even if you don’t fully understand the nuts and bolts of what you believe in.

After several weeks of exposure to this general ignorance, I decided to look into first century Christianity, mainly to better understand the origins of the New Testament, but also to better understand why so many people, with so little knowledge of this New Testament, profess to be Christians. I started my quest by reading most of the New Testament for the first time in my life. I started at the beginning with the Gospels, and then progressed to Paul’s epistles, and it sort of made sense until I realised that Paul’s epistles were actually written well before said Gospels. I’d always assumed the New Testament was presented in chronological order, but I later learned that even the Gospels weren’t in chronological order. This sounded a little suspicious and I decided to read more on the subject.

I first read Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman [1]. This very interesting book soon made me aware of all the in-consistencies and contradictions that can be found in the New Testament, especially the two conflicting stories about Jesus’ birth, and the apparent confusion about the exact time of Jesus’ death.

In Matthew’s Gospel, Mary & Joseph are living in Bethlehem where Jesus is born of a virgin birth. Three wise men from the east follow a “wandering star” to Bethlehem where they offer gifts and pay their respects to baby Jesus. Herod, fearful of potential opposition, orders the slaughter of all male children who are aged two and under, but Joseph is warned of this in a dream and they all safely flee to Egypt. Later, after the death of Herod, Mary, Joseph and Jesus relocate to Nazareth, and Jesus is presumably a young boy by the time they first arrive in Nazareth.

In Luke’s Gospel, Joseph & Mary live in Nazareth, not Bethlehem, and because of a Roman census they go to Bethlehem where we have a virgin birth. Luke outlines the usual nativity account, detailing no-room-at-the-inn, the stable, a meek and mild Jesus in the manger, the animals and the shepherds summoned by angels. No mention of any wise men and no wandering stars. After the virgin birth, Joseph & Mary stay in Bethlehem for a few weeks, to carry out Jewish formalities like circumcision, and then they return back to their home in Nazareth with baby Jesus.

So were Mary & Joseph from Bethlehem and forced to flee to Egypt before relocating to Nazareth as in Matthew, or were they from Nazareth but travelled to Bethlehem for the birth and then returned to Nazareth as in Luke? I was very surprised to learn about all these inconsistencies, and I wondered why, even after attending church regularly for 30 years, I had totally failed to pick up on any of this. However, once these issues had been pointed out, it became fairly obvious why the Gospels weren’t in chronological order. Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, had obviously been deliberately inserted between Matthew and Luke, to separate the two totally conflicting stories about the virgin-birth of Jesus, and hence minimise any potential confusion. This ploy was very simple and very effective, because all the Christians I knew were just as unaware of the conflict as I was before reading Jesus Interrupted [1].

Potential confusion about the exact time of Jesus’ death was less of a problem, because it requires some effort by the reader, to even appreciate that there is an in-consistency, and you have little chance of picking up on this, unless you appreciate that the Jewish day starts at sun-set. The confusion arises, because the synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark & Luke] suggest that Jesus died in the early hours of Saturday morning [The Jewish Sabbath], whereas John’s Gospel claims it was on Friday afternoon, which was still The Day of Preparation [The Day of Preparation is the Friday before the Jewish Passover celebrations start. It’s when Jews traditionally sacrificed their lambs in readiness for the Passover Meal on Friday evening].

My becoming aware of these serious discrepancies about Jesus’ birth, and the exact time of his death, made me realise for the first time, that the cosy version of first century events, that we all soak up by going to church, was anything but cosy. It was in fact beginning to look distinctly dodgy. It was now definitely time for more research, and these days, it is amazing how quickly you can find out about anything via the internet. However, you have to be constantly aware of hidden agendas, and you have to ensure you keep an open mind, and look at things from different perspectives. You also need to be constantly aware of confirmational bias, a common potential problem associated with any research,

I supplemented my internet research by consulting A Guide to the Bible [2] A History of Christianity  [3] Nothing but the Truth  [4] and Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity  [5]. These books, all by Christian apologists, obviously presented early Christianity from the Christian perspective. I relied on the internet to get alternative opinions on the subject. Obviously,  my first main task, was to find out as much as I could about this Gospel-Jesus, since he was center-stage in all this.

The Search for Jesus

The question “Did Jesus ever exist, and if he did, was he the divine being described in the Gospels?” has been hotly debated for over 200 years. If the Gospel-Jesus did perform any of the many miracles that are mentioned in the Gospels, miracles that were apparently witnessed by dozens, if not hundreds of people, then surely the events would have been noted by contemporary writers. Likewise, there should be some records of the large disturbance this Gospel-Jesus created on entering Jerusalem, and the large disturbance this Gospel-Jesus created when he appeared at the temple. Also, he supposedly attracted the attention of the top rabbis and the Roman governor of the area. On the face of it, there should at least be some independent historical records around, to validate the many claims made about this Gospel-Jesus in the Gospels.

Apparently we do have vast amounts of surviving Roman documentation from the period in question, including from authors who were known to have lived, both at that time, and in that region, but none of this surviving documentation mentions a Gospel-Jesus. It seems that the only evidence we do have for this Gospel-Jesus, is the evidence we find in the New Testament itself. Many Christians dispute this claim, because they fail to differentiate between the Gospel-Jesus of the New Testament on the one hand, and any other historical-Jesus that may, or may not, have lived about the same time. This common failure to distinguish between these two possibilities, causes most of the disagreements about Jesus.

My research so far, indicated that the Gospel-Jesus appears to exist only in the New Testament, but was there ever any other historical-Jesus, who was not the Gospel-Jesus? It was fairly obvious from the start, that evidence for a mortal historical-Jesus was going to be difficult to come by, because early Christianity would almost certainly have trampled anything not coinciding with their notion of a Gospel-Jesus. If there ever was a historical-Jesus, then I had to accept that I was not going to find much evidence for his existence. If he did ever exist, then he would have been just one of tens of thousands of ordinary mortal Jews around at the time, and you would not expect him to leave any discernible historical footprint.

However, looking on the bright side, if this historical-Jesus was a Galilean Jew with radical views, then you could reasonably expect that he might eventually be noticed by the Jewish establishment, especially if he proved extremely popular with his fellow Jews. If his popularity eventually became a threat to the Jewish establishment, this in turn would increase his chances of being crucified to shut him up, but even if he was crucified, I thought it very unlikely that anybody would have bothered to record the event for posterity. However, as it turned out, my natural scepticism was misplaced, because there are in fact, four separate, independent historical references to a character called Jesus, namely Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and the Younger Pliny. These four references were cited during the Alpha Course, and I now realise that they are often cited by Christians trying to prove the existence of their Gospel-Jesus.

Josephus was a Jewish historian, and in his Antiquities of the Jews written c 94 AD, he mentions the crucifixion of a charismatic Jesus in Jerusalem. In Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 Josephus writes:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day”.

For centuries the church establishment cited this passage for he appeared to them alive again the third day to confirm the 3rd day resurrection of their Gospel-Jesus in Jerusalem, but many secular scholars now believe that this reference to the Jerusalem resurrection is a forgery [interpolation] which was added later for obvious reasons. However, Josephus’ reference to the crucifixion of a charismatic character called Jesus [the historical-Jesus] is generally thought to be genuine.

In addition to Josephus, we have three other independent historical sources, that either mention a character called Jesus, or refer to the existence of Christians. The Roman historian Tacitus, in Book 15, Chapter 44 of his Annals, written c 116 AD, refers to a character called Christ [meaning Jewish Messiah], and mentions his execution in Jerusalem and the existence of early Christians. Suetonius mentions Christiani [followers of Christ] in his Life of Claudius, which was one of the books in The Twelve Caesars series written in 121 AD. Pliny the Younger (c 61-c 112 AD) was a lawyer and magistrate in Ancient Rome, and he records that he pursued suspected Christians according to Roman law.

The four historical references cited above, all appeared many decades after the crucifixion of Jesus c 30 AD. The only contemporary of any such historical-Jesus who actually left us with any written records, was the Apostle Paul, who put a lot of effort into establishing fledgling Christian communities based on a character called Jesus, but only after he had stopped persecuting the followers of a character called Jesus. This would suggest that a Jesus character must have existed around that time. We also know that the Jews ultimately rejected a character called Jesus on the grounds he was not, as some claimed, their long-awaited saviour Messiah. And if this isn’t enough supporting evidence, even Islam recognises Jesus as a major Prophet, although I suspect, that was only because Christianity was already well established throughout the Rome Empire, when Islam first came into being early in the 7th century AD.

Coupling these known aspects about Jesus, with the scant historical records that do exist [Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and the Younger Pliny], records that you would not normally expect to exist, and you can just about conclude that a historical-Jesus did in fact exist around the period of interest. However, except for Paul’s Epistles, none of this flimsy evidence, remotely suggests that this historical Jesus was the Gospel-Jesus cited in the New Testament. As already stated, there appears to be nothing other than the New Testament itself, to indicate that this Gospel Jesus ever existed.

After looking at the details of these historical records, I concluded that, on balance, there probably was a historical-Jesus who lived around the time of interest. I concluded that he was probably just as Josephus recorded in his Antiquities of the Jews viz. a charismatic mortal Jew [the historical-Jesus] with very radical views, who was eventually crucified by the Romans. The very fact that there are a few flimsy records of someone, who at the time was effectively a historical nobody, testifies to the extent of this Jesus’ popularity.

I also began to suspect that there must be some link, connecting this historical-Jesus, to the Gospel-Jesus who featured in the gospel stories written several decades later. It was far too much of a coincidence, to have both these characters floating around in first-century Palestine at this time. Could we, I thought, simply be looking at a potential case of mistaken identity? If so, who was being mistaken for whom, and why?

Resurrection! What Resurrection?

If Jesus was indeed just an ordinary mortal, just a Jewish preacher from Galilee, then it’s pretty obvious he wasn’t resurrected after his crucifixion. However, we have four independent Gospels consistently claiming that Jesus was in fact resurrected in Jerusalem on the 3rd day, and we also have Paul independently validating this Jerusalem resurrection in 1-Corinthians 15:3-9. This passage, written by Paul c 54 AD says:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God”.

Nobody in their right minds, would ever suggest that Paul lied about this resurrection in Jerusalem, but here I was, effectively questioning the veracity of the Gospel claims. So how do we square this circle? Obviously, it was now necessary to establish whether there was any independent evidence to support the resurrection claims found in the New Testament. Surely, if a Gospel-Jesus had been resurrected in Jerusalem at the beginning of the Passover celebrations, then the event would have gone viral in no time, and both the Jewish and the Roman authorities should have recorded something about the event. If they did, then surely the early church fathers would have preserved these records, just as they preserved the Pauline epistles.

However, I was not very hopeful about finding any independent evidence to support the resurrection claims, because I was already aware of the forgery found in Antiquities of the Jews, written by Flavius Josephus some 60 years after the alleged event. This Antiquities forgery would surely not have been necessary, if independent evidence for this Jerusalem resurrection had ever existed.

Again, we do have plenty of reliable Jewish records and Roman records for this period but, as already mentioned, only the forged reference in Antiquities of the Jews mentions anything about a Jerusalem resurrection. It appears, therefore, that the only evidence for the Jerusalem resurrection, is the evidence found in the New Testament itself. Most Christians would regard this as adequate proof of the Jerusalem resurrection, but I was not so easily satisfied, let alone convinced.

At this stage in my investigation, I was beginning to suspect that Paul may eventually turn out to be the most important character in the New Testament. Paul eventually managed to rationalise his own experience on the road to Damascus, by concluding that Jesus was God’s son, who had been sent to earth, to save all those prepared to acknowledge him as their lord and saviour. Paul also eventually concluded that he, Paul, had been specially chosen by God, to do God’s work. As far as I could see, Paul seemed obsessed with this Jesus character, and his validation of the Jerusalem resurrection in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9 was becoming increasingly difficult to understand, given there seemed to be no independent evidence to confirm this alleged Jerusalem resurrection.

Given my doubts about the veracity of the alleged resurrection in Jerusalem, I decided it was now time to look at the other alleged resurrection, the one that apparently occurred on the road to Damascus. The Acts of the Apostles describes the orthodox version of events on the road to Damascus, but the account is neither self-consistent, nor apparently is it very reliable, written as it was some sixty years after the event. We know Paul initially viewed Jesus, as a radical Jew who was crucified because his teachings upset the Jewish establishment. We know this Pharisee, and zealous persecutor, suddenly stop persecuting Jesus’ followers, and then spent the rest of his life, trying to convert the world to a new belief system based entirely on this same Jesus. We also know (1-Corinthians 9:1 and Galatians 1:15-16) that Paul claims he met with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul admits he never knew the living Jesus, but he definitely knew Jesus was dead. He may even have witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion. He did, after all, have more than a passing interest in the man, and Paul would certainly have been present in Jerusalem for that fateful Passover.

Already dubious about the New Testament claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem, I was beginning to question both Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, and his apparent validation of a Jerusalem resurrection that appears never to have happened. Focused as I was, on Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, I vaguely remembered many years ago, reading about something called the God spot, and some suggestion that Paul may have just hallucinated on the road to Damascus. This raised intriguing possibilities. Did Paul really meet with Jesus on the road to Damascus as he claimed, or did he just hallucinate and think he met Jesus?

Further delving, and I eventually found two reports, one by Landsborough in 1987 [6] and one by Brorson & Brewer in 1988 [7], both of which, suggested that Paul may have just hallucinated on the road to Damascus as a result of temporal lobe epilepsy. Apparently, focal epileptic seizures starting in the temporal lobes are fairly common occurrences, and potentially at least, anyone could have a single epileptic seizure at some point in their life. Most of these epileptic seizures follow a pattern very similar to that experienced by Paul. That is, they happen suddenly, without any warning, last only a relatively short period of time, and then just stop by themselves.

Further digging on the subject of temporal lobe epilepsy, revealed that in 1970, Dewhurst and Beard published a paper called “Sudden religious conversions in temporal lobe epilepsy”. This they published in the British Journal of Psychiatry [8]. This very comprehensive review paper, demonstrated that religiosity of the epileptic was a recognised medical phenomenon, even as far back as the mid 19th century. Highlights from Dewhurst and Beard’s review paper are given below. They summarise scientific reports that mention religious experiences triggered by epilepsy. These early reports were all published well before the advent of sophisticated brain imaging techniques.

In 1872/73, Howden [9] reported a conversion experience in which the patient believed that he was in Heaven. In 1899, Mabille [10] discussed religious hallucinations associated with epilepsy. In 1919, Boven [11] stressed the intensified piety of the epileptic after a severe seizure, and mentioned a 14 year-old boy who, after a seizure, saw God and the angels, and heard a celestial fanfare of music. In 1955, Karagulla and Robertson [12] discussed four temporal lobe epileptics with visual hallucinations. One of them had a seizure pattern which included a vision of Christ coming down from the sky.

More recent reports listed by Dewhurst and Bear include the following. In 1963, Beard [13] reported the conversion experience of a man who considered that he had received a message from God to mend his ways and help others, and the fact that he had been singled out in this way meant that he was God’s chosen instrument. The man completely believed in the validity of everything he had seen and heard during the acute phase, and specifically rejected the idea that the experience could have been the product of a disordered mind. In 1963, Slater and Beard [14] reported that mystical delusional experiences were remarkably common, and that patients were convinced of the reality and validity of their religious experiences. In 1963, Christensen [15] reported on the religious conversions of 22 men, all professionally engaged in the field of religion. Christensen also defined conversion, as an acute hallucinatory experience, occurring within the framework of religious belief, and characterized by its subjective intensity, apparent suddenness of onset, brief duration and observable changes in the subsequent behaviour of the convert. Finally, in 1966, Sedman [16] mentioned states of ecstasy, in which the victim sees the Heaven open, hears God speaking, and feels himself transfigured, and even believes that he is God.

Such, apparently, is the power of one’s mind to deceive one’s senses. I was particularly struck by obvious similarities with Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus. In particular, the conversion experience of a man who considered that he had received a message from God to mend his ways and help others, and the fact that he had been singled out in this way meant that he was Gods chosen instrument. The man completely believed in the validity of everything he had seen and heard during the acute phase, and specifically rejected the idea that the experience could have been the product of a disordered mind” as reported by Beard [13].

Also, Christensen’s definition of conversion [15] as an acute hallucinatory experience occurring within the framework of religious belief and characterized by its subjective intensity, apparent suddenness of onset, brief duration and observable changes in the subsequent behaviour of the convert could have been describing Paul himself. I also thought that Slater and Beard’s report [14] that mystical delusional experiences were remarkably common and that patients were convinced of the reality and validity of their religious experiences” was also highly relevant.

Since the publication of Dewhurst and Beard’s 1970 review paper [8], medical understanding of temporal lobe epilepsy has come on in leaps and bounds, thanks in part, to the development of more and more sophisticated brain imaging techniques. The two papers I mentioned earlier, by Landsborough in 1987 [6], and by Brorson & Brewer in 1988 [7], had obviously re-ignited a long-standing debate, about whether Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus was the result of temporal lobe epilepsy.

Since then, scientist like Dr Michael Persinger, Ph.D., professor of Neuroscience and Psychology at Laurentian University in Canada, and like Dr Vilayanur Ramachandran, Ph.D., director of the Brain and Perception Laboratory at the University of California at San Diego, have regularly reported on, and/or lectured on, new developments in this field which, collectively, now constitute a new field of brain science called neurotheology viz. the cognitive neuroscience of religious experience and spirituality.

In 2009 Dr Persinger [17], working at Laurentian University, reported that 80% of normal people felt a sensed presence within the room, when their temporal lobes were stimulated with magnetic fields. He also found that very religious people, with temporal lobe sensitivity, had a religious experience when their temporal lobes were stimulated with magnetic fields. Working in parallel, at the University of California, Dr Ramachandran and his team studied the brains of people with temporal lobe epilepsy, and found that the extent of a person’s religious belief, may depend on how enhanced is this part of the brain’s electrical circuitry. Perhaps the most sensational headline in this scientific field, occurred back in 1997, when Dr Ramachandran’s team of neuroscientists first announced the discovery of the god spot or God Module in the brain. This announcement was widely reported in the world media, including the American press e.g. by Steve Connor (LA Times) [18] and by Robert Lee Hotz (Seattle Times) [19].

It was dim memories of this announcement of the God Module some 15 years earlier, that first started me down this road of investigation. Little did I realise at the time, where this investigation would quickly lead me, courtesy of the internet and associated search engines. I quickly discovered that a lot of relevant scientific information was posted on atheist websites, but that’s only because these atheist websites have a vested interest in promoting this type of research. Christian websites rarely acknowledge any scientific developments, and when they do, it’s usually only to rubbish them, especially if they have anything to do with Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus. Personally, I found atheist websites often saved me a lot of time having to re-invent the wheel. Anyone thinking that using information posted on atheist websites, automatically biases the results, can always check things out for themselves. Any internet search engine will deliver more than enough information about temporal lobe epilepsy and religious conversions to satisfy even the most sceptical person, provided of course they have an open mind on the subject.

Dr Ramachandran’s findings, back in 1997, pointed to a region of the brain, that when stimulated, creates hallucinations that are interpreted as mystical or spiritual experiences. It was claimed, that this God module may be responsible for man’s evolutionary instinct to believe in religion. This god spot is affected by epilepsy, and it is often stimulated naturally during meditation and prayer. It can also be affected by externally applied electromagnetic fields. Those who responded to this external stimulation, tended to explain their hallucination experiences in terms that were related to their own personal beliefs. Typical examples include visits from angels, visits from lost loved ones, an extraterrestrial encounter, a higher plane of consciousness and even visits from God.

It is now widely thought, that hallucinations occurring as the result of temporal lobe epilepsy, may be the real cause of mystical, spiritual and paranormal experiences, such as out-of-body experiences, and feelings of a presence in the room. It was suggested, that such experiences may explain why so many epileptics become obsessed with religion. However, most scientists today, including Ramachandran, think the idea of a single God module in the brain is far too simplistic. Nevertheless, it is now possible, to routinely induce epileptic-like religious experiences in perfectly normal people. Obviously, those with strong emotional needs to maintain the religious status quo, will have great difficulty accepting the implications of these new studies, but for the rest of us, they offer a chance to look anew at the origins of religions.

So did Paul really see Jesus on the road to Damascus, as described in Acts, or did he just think he saw Jesus? If the experience was just a hallucination, then Paul would have no idea that it was unreal. As far as Paul was concerned, it would definitely have been a real experience, and one of divine intervention. Those affected by these epileptic fits are known to have personalised experiences, so it is probably no great surprise, that the focus of Paul’s personal experience, was the man who had virtually taken over his life. Paul was obsessive about his religion [a zealous Pharisee], he was obsessive about his persecution of Jesus’ followers, and he was soon to become obsessive about his subsequent ministry to the Gentiles [non Jews].

Based on what we now know about temporal lobe epilepsy and the associated hallucinations, I was inclined to think that Paul did in fact just hallucinate on the road to Damascus. Sometime later, I watched Derren Brown [20], as he effortlessly instilled an intense religious experience into the mind of a self-professed atheist. After twice watching him do it, I still wasn’t sure exactly what he did, or how he did it, but it did convince me of the latent power of one’s mind to deceive one’s senses. This graphic illustration, more or less convinced me that Paul did in fact just hallucinate on the road to Damascus.

This hallucination idea may have offered a potential explanation of Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, but it did nothing for the original alleged resurrection in Jerusalem. This Jerusalem resurrection, was apparently witnessed by many worthy individuals, and any suggestion of mass hallucinations was, I thought, stretching things a bit too far.

Christianity Beckons

So where had my investigation taken me so far? By now, I had serious reservations about the veracity of the Gospel claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem, even though there were four independent Gospels consistently making the same claim. I was also now convinced that the second resurrection on the road to Damascus never happened, but I was happy to accept that Paul thought it did. However, there was still one apparently intractable problem, namely Paul’s apparent validation of the Jerusalem resurrection in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9. As I’ve already said, nobody in their right mind would accuse Paul of lying, let alone question his integrity, and I was beginning to think I would just have to accept the Gospel claims, even though there appeared to be no independent evidence to support these claims. I was in fact, on the verge of becoming a Christian, and for a very short period, I did actually acknowledge, somewhat reluctantly, that I was a Christian.

Normally that should have been the end of the matter. However, for me at least, accepting that I was a Christian, meant coming to terms with the fact that an omnipotent, all-seeing being, was going to be watching me 24/7, and not only that, accepting that this being, was going to be aware of my innermost thoughts for the rest of my life. This prospect made me very uneasy. There had to be something I’d missed, something that would overcome the apparently intractable problem of explaining the Jerusalem resurrection, and Paul’s apparent validation of it in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9.

It is generally accepted, even by Christians, that Paul had no first-hand experience of this Jerusalem resurrection that he later validated in 1-Corinthians. He didn’t even know Jesus, although he may well have witnessed his crucifixion. So what made him believe this Jerusalem resurrection actually happened? The answer to this question can be found in Galatians 1: 11-24, written by Paul c 54 AD. This passage summarises Paul’s movements after his experience on the road to Damascus, and it states:

 “I want you to know brothers that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from birth (i.e. circumcised) and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they praised God because of me”.

So, immediately after his experience on the road to Damascus, Paul went to Arabia and then back to Damascus, and he had no contact with anybody including other Apostles for about 3 years. This claim is later disputed in Acts, but Acts was written many decades after Paul’s death, and it is thought by many to be a very unreliable source of information about Paul. Paul then visited Jerusalem some three years after his experience on the road to Damascus, and he stayed 15 days with Peter, and he also met Jesus’ brother James.

This first meeting with Peter must have been where Paul first learned of the Jerusalem resurrection. Paul presumably visited Peter to tell him about his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, & Peter in turn, told Paul all about the earlier resurrection in Jerusalem. Paul would have readily accepted what Peter told him, and he would have done so, partly because Peter was a highly respected patriarch of the early Jerusalem church, and partly because Paul already knew, that he personally, had already experienced something very similar on the road to Damascus. So, contrary to what I thought originally, Paul’s claims in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9, are not based on actual first-hand experience of the Jerusalem resurrection. They are based entirely,  on what he learned from Peter when they first met in Jerusalem [Galatians 1: 11-24]. Some time later, I  eventually learned that more knowledgeable Christians readily accept this fact.

This may have sorted out my initial problem, namely understanding why, in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9, Paul appeared to be validating the Jerusalem resurrection, but in doing so, it immediately raised another problem. All my findings to-date, had more or less convinced me that this Jerusalem resurrection never actually happened, because it was the historical-Jesus who was crucified in Jerusalem. So, if the historical-Jesus was never resurrected in Jerusalem, why did Peter tell Paul that he had been resurrected? Did Peter just lie to Paul about this resurrection? If so, why did he do it? My investigation was obviously not going any further until I could answer these questions. I needed a plausible and rational reason why Peter would deliberately choose to lie to Paul, about a Jerusalem resurrection that never happened.

After yet more mulling, I eventually  concluded that the most likely reasons why Peter lied to Paul, were the usual age-old reasons behind many lies, namely self-preservation and personal greed. Remember, we are now considering events in Jerusalem some three years after Paul’s Damascus road experience, and at this particular point in time, we are not talking about Peter the patron saint of the Roman Catholic Church. We are talking about a Peter living in Jerusalem just a few years after the crucifixion. We are talking about Peter the Jew, who regarded Jesus as the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. We are in fact talking about an unsophisticated, illiterate, peasant fisherman from Galilee [not derogatory, just fact], who was propelled by circumstances, into a position of power and authority, and who was now probably living a very comfortable life-style financed by the Jewish tithe system. In short, we are talking about a character that probably lied whenever it suited him, just as he did several years earlier when he denied knowing Jesus.

So the next question was all too obvious. What circumstances would have motivated Peter to lie to Paul? This was a difficult one to crack for some time, mainly because I was unconsciously looking at the problem from the normal, orthodox top-down perspective, the one that everybody automatically defaults to without realising it. When it finally occurred to me to look at the problem from the bottom-up, things looked quite different. There was Peter, living in Jerusalem only a few years after the crucifixion of the historical-Jesus, one of the patriarchs of the early Jerusalem Church, and suddenly, up pops Paul, claiming that he had met with the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus some three years earlier. Out of the blue, there was someone implying that they had been specially chosen by God, to meet a man who was long dead by crucifixion, but now resurrected. Out of the blue, there was a man potentially threatening Peter’s authority, as one of the leaders of the Jerusalem Church. Out of the blue, there was a man potentially threatening Peter’s comfortable lifestyle, a lifestyle financed by the tithes Peter received from his fellow Jews.

Would Peter just sit back and do nothing in the face of these potential threats from Paul? Personally, I don’t think so. As in all such circumstances, self preservation would have kicked in immediately, and Peter would have striven to neutralise these threats to his authority and associated lifestyle, and he would have tried to do so without admitting that he knew nothing about a resurrected Jesus. As it turned out, all Peter had to do to neutralise the threats and maintain the status quo, was tell a simple lie. He falsely claimed that he and many others had already seen the risen Jesus well before Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus. At a stroke, Peter neutralised the perceived threats from Paul, and also downgraded Paul’s status, from that of specially chosen one to that of junior partner. Peter’s solution to the potential challenges to his authority and associated life style, was both brilliant in its simplicity, and, under the circumstances, entirely par for the course given his earlier background as a peasant fisherman.

Of course, it goes without saying that I can’t prove any of this speculative supposition, anymore than Christians can disprove it, because there are no records whatsoever of what transpired at this first meeting. All we know for certain, is that Peter and Paul first met in Jerusalem some three years after Paul’s conversion experience on the road to Damascus. So, just like everything else associated with the New Testament, we all have two choices. We can either choose to believe only what can be proved, deduced or rationally inferred, or we can choose to believe only what we want to believe.

The Pre-Gospel Period

Two thousand years down the road, we can never know with any certainty, how the consequences of Peter’s lies played out in the next 30 or so years, prior to his alleged death in Rome c 65 AD. This brief period, sandwiched as it was between the crucifixion of the historical-Jesus in Jerusalem c 30 AD, and the appearance of the first gospels c 65 AD, can conveniently be called the pre-gospel period.

Orthodox Christianity implies that, shortly after Jesus’ miraculous resurrection in Jerusalem, his Jewish followers gathered together in Jerusalem to form the first Christian church led by Peter and by Jesus’ brother James. In reality, the early Jerusalem Church was more Jewish than it was Christian, and it took several decades for Jewish followers of a Messianic Jesus to either die out or morph into nascent Christians. The new and revised concept of Jesus as the Son of God came much later, and when it came, it stemmed, not from Jerusalem, as orthodoxy proclaims, but from the early Christian communities that Paul established in the pagan world. Orthodox Christianity would also have us believe that this is the period when, according to tradition, the Twelve Apostles miraculously converted from Jews to Christians, and then rode forth from Jerusalem, to successfully launch Christianity onto the unsuspecting world – with just a little help from Paul of course.

In truth, nobody really knows anything for certain, about this short pre-gospel period sandwiched between the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem and the appearance of the first gospels. Virtually everything known about this very short period is just speculative supposition, based entirely on stories written many years later, although many now chose to assume that these stories are historically accurate. The truth is, we don’t know with any certainty, what actually happened to many of these Apostles. Most of them just faded into obscurity, leaving little or nothing behind other than a collection of old according to tradition stories. These stories were, in effect, the early church’s way of saying “we don’t really know what happened to them, but this is what we’d like you to believe”. We do know that these Apostles failed to sell their Messianic Jesus to their fellow Jews. We also know that Paul did succeed in selling his version of Jesus to the pagan world, thus ensuring Christianity eventually prevailed. However, the Acts of the Apostles, which was written well after the death of all concerned, would have us believe otherwise.

Over the last 200 years, this short pre-gospel period has been subjected to extensive and detailed scholastic study,  and much of this scholastic effort has been expended trying to shoehorn ancient documentation into the orthodox model of early Christianity, without ever stopping to consider whether this preconceived model of Christianity is the correct one. Many scholastic interpretations have been automatically biased, by the interpreter’s preconceived desires to maintain the orthodox status quo. Many other interpretations have been clouded by the almost universal use of a top-down perspective, which forces those adopting this perspective, to view everything, albeit unconsciously, through the lens of Christian orthodoxy. Christian scholars in particular, have clutched at anything, and everything, that helped them preserve the status quo, and time and time again, they have allowed both their rationality and their logic, to be subjugated by their inner need for reassurance that their lives have purpose and meaning.

Winston Churchill once said “Never in the field of human conflict, was so much, owed by so many, to so few”. Today, we could realistically paraphrase this by saying “Never in the field of biblical scholarship, has so much, been written by so many, about so little, for so long”. If we look objectively at this short pre-gospel period, from a bottom-up perspective, without any pre-conceptions, and without any emotional need to preserve the orthodox status quo, we can reasonably say the following:

First, we can say with some certainty, that a historical-Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem c 30 AD.

Second, we can define Paul’s movements immediately after his experience on the road to Damascus. We know [Galatians 1:11-23] that Paul first went to Arabia, and then back to Damascus, and he had no contact with anybody, including other Apostles, for about 3 years. Paul then visited Jerusalem for the first time, and he claims (Galatians 1:18-19) that he stayed 15 days with Peter and he also met Jesus’ brother James. This visit has already been addressed in more detail in the preceding section.

Third, we can establish from Galatians 2:1-10, that Paul met Peter again for a second time in Jerusalem, about 14 years after their first meeting. This second meeting, known historically as the Council of Jerusalem, was convened c 50 AD to discuss the relevance of circumcision, and it’s importance in the scheme of things. Paul states in Galatians 2:1-10:

“Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance [circumcision]—those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do”

So, having failed at this second meeting to reach agreement on the relevance of circumcision, Peter and Paul agreed to go their own separate ways, Peter et al to minister unto the Jews, and Paul to minister unto the Gentiles [non-Jews]. This state of affairs lasted more or less until both Peter and Paul died in the mid 60’s AD. Their deaths marked the end of this short pre-gospel period, and by the time the first gospels started to appear several years later, we can reasonably assume that all relevant individuals associated with early Christianity were dead

We know the Council of Jerusalem was convened c 50 AD. We know from Paul, that this second visit to Jerusalem occurred 14 years after his first visit to Jerusalem. Therefore it follows that Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem must have been in 36 AD. We also know that Paul’s conversion experience on the road to Damascus occurred at least three years prior to this first visit to Jerusalem. Therefore Paul’s conversion must have occurred in 33 AD or earlier. We also know that scholars have concluded that Jesus was most probably crucified, either at Easter in 30 AD, or at Easter in 33 AD. A 33 AD crucifixion gives Paul little or no time to persecute followers of Jesus. Therefore, the crucifixion most probably occurred in 30 AD.

Having now assembled what little is actually known, or at least accepted, about this pre-gospel period, and having supplemented it with a few things that can reasonably be deduced, what further information can we reasonably deduce about this short pre-gospel period?

Well first, we can comment on the extent of the commitment to Jesus, that Peter and the followers of Jesus would still have in 36 AD, some six years after the crucifixion. My guess is that, by now, they would probably be languishing in Jerusalem, unsure about their earlier beliefs, and wondering whether they had got it right about Jesus. By the time Paul first arrived in Jerusalem in 36 AD, they were probably beginning to question whether Jesus was, in fact, their long-awaited Messiah. So when Paul arrived with his news about Jesus being resurrected on the road to Damascus, this “good news” would almost certainly have revitalised all concerned, and galvanised them into more enthusiastic followers of a Jesus who, after Paul’s visit, was now resurrected and now definitely Christ their Messiah.

However, the most important comment we can make about this short pre-gospel period, concerns the nature of the messages being propagated by Paul on the on hand, and by the rest of the Apostles on the other. Had these messages been compatible, there would have been no need for the Council of Jerusalem c 50 AD. This meeting was necessary, because Peter and the other Apostles still considered that circumcision was essential for all followers of their Messianic Jesus, whereas Paul thought circumcision was irrelevant for the followers of his more orthodox Jesus. In other words, even at that late stage [mid first century], Peter and the other Apostles still believed Jesus was their long awaited Jewish Messiah, sent by a Jewish God, to save the Jewish nation. It seems they believed that only Jews who adhered to Judaic Law could be saved, although it appears they were prepared to include non-Jews who agreed to become Jews via circumcision.

History tells us that the Jewish nation eventually rejected the Messianic Jesus advocated by Peter and the other Apostles. They also rejected most of these Apostles, killing some of them off in the process. Others seem to just disappear without trace, leaving behind, nothing, other than a few traditional stories concocted by the early church fathers, to try and explain what happened to them. All this suggests that Peter and the other Apostles died, not as Christians as Christian orthodoxy would have us believe, but as Jews who still believed that Jesus was their Jewish Messiah.

The Christian God concept, and the concept of Jesus as the son of this Christian God, probably didn’t materialise until much later, and when these concepts finally did materialise, it was entirely due to Paul’s ministry efforts, as he travelled around the pagan world, innocently propagating Peter’s lies about a Jerusalem resurrection that never happened. Paul spent the latter half of his life, enthusiastically seeding early Christian communities, in all the political and commercial centres of the known pagan world. He did so, by promoting an insignificant mortal Jew called Jesus as the son of God. Unlike the other Apostles, however, Paul’s message was a universal inclusive message, aimed at anyone prepared to accept Jesus as their Lord & Saviour, and anyone prepared to believe that Jesus died for their sins, and was then resurrected to break the power of death, and to offer them a chance of eternal salvation. As far as Paul was concerned, both circumcision and adherence to Judaic Law were totally irrelevant.

The Gospel Period

I was, by now, firmly of the opinion that Jesus was nothing more than a very popular and very radical Jewish preacher [the historical-Jesus], who was crucified in Jerusalem c 30 AD. Being a mere mortal, he was obviously never resurrected, neither in Jerusalem, nor on the road to Damascus, but I was prepared to accept that Paul really did believe that Jesus had been resurrected for his personal benefit. I was also, by now, more or less convinced that Peter lied to Paul about a Jerusalem resurrection that never happened, simply to preserve his newly acquired position of authority and the associated life-style.

All very well I thought, but it still didn’t explain why we had four Gospels, each proclaiming that Jesus was in fact resurrected on the third day after his crucifixion in Jerusalem. Was I on the point of suggesting these Gospel claims were false? As far as I could see, there had been many earlier attempts to discredit these New Testament Gospels, but all such attempts had failed close scrutiny, and all such attempts had eventually been dismissed as ludicrous. However, it seemed very strange to me, that these Gospels didn’t appear until after all the main players [Peter, Paul, and James etc] were dead. Why didn’t someone put pen to paper whilst potential eye witnesses were still around? It wasn’t as if there was nobody around to write things down, because we have plenty of Jewish and Roman records of that period. So why did they wait more than 30 years after the crucifixion, until everyone concerned was dead, before writing the Gospels?

After thinking about this question for a few weeks, the penny suddenly dropped. The reason nothing was recorded earlier, was because there was nothing to record. Alright, a radical Jewish trouble-maker called Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem c 30 AD, but that was hardly newsworthy enough to record for posterity, although Josephus did make a passing reference to the crucifixion of a character called Jesus in his Antiquities of the Jews, written at the end of the first century.

Only two things of any relevance seemed to be going on during the 40 year gap, from the crucifixion in Jerusalem c 30 AD, to the appearance of the Mark’s Gospel, c 70 AD. Firstly, the Jewish followers of Jesus [Apostles] were trying to convince their fellow Jews that Jesus was their long-awaited Messiah, and secondly, Paul was off touring the pagan world trying to establish his early Christian communities. While on his rounds, Paul consistently told members of these early Christian communities all about the death and resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, and he also elaborated on the significance of these two events. However, he told them absolutely nothing about the living Jesus, because Paul never knew the living Jesus, nor was he particularly interested in the living Jesus. Eventually, however, it was inevitable that Paul’s newly converted pagans, now nascent Christians, would eventually start asking questions about this Jesus, who by now, was central to their new-found beliefs. Who was he? What did he say? Where did he go? What did he do? etc. and it was the growing need to answer these questions, that first catalysed the appearance of various gospels. The answer to my original question, “why wait over 30 years before writing the Gospels?” was thus a relatively simple one. The Gospels didn’t appear until they were needed.

Satisfying this inevitable growing demand for biographical information about Jesus, was going to require the wholesale fabrication of stories about Jesus’ life and his ministry years prior to his crucifixion. Dr Bob Potter [21] gives an excellent in-depth analysis of partial fabrications of the Gospels, which are known as interpolations, or forgeries added later, either to enhance consistency, or to reduce inconsistency. However, here I was, not just thinking of partial fabrication of one Gospel, but thinking of total fabrication of all the Gospels. Had I gone mad? I wasn’t the first to suggest this possibility by any means, but as I was all too aware, all previous suggestions along these lines had been shot down in flames and dismissed as ludicrous, on the grounds they would never have been able to get away with it.

However, if my ideas were correct, then this growing demand to know more about Jesus, would present each of Paul’s early Christian-communities with a common problem. Paul never enlightened them about the living Jesus when he established these Christian-communities, partly because he never knew this Jesus, but mainly because he wasn’t particularly interested in Jesus as a living person. Paul focused almost entirely, on the significance and meaning of Jesus’ death & resurrection. By the time the needs for biographical information about Jesus’ life started to materialise, there would have been nobody around locally, who knew anything about Jesus’ life before the crucifixion. Everyone who might have known something about Jesus’ life, was either dead by now, or living in far off Jerusalem. The early church fathers, of each of these early Christian communities, would therefore have had little choice, but to wing-it as best they could, using whatever inspiration they could muster.

However, it was all very well postulating that the Gospels were fabricated-to-order, to satisfy a growing demand, but what would these fabrications entail, and would they be feasible? In essence, was there enough suitable material around at that time, to make it possible for the church fathers to construct suitable stories to satisfy these demands? It was time to look more closely at the actual material contained in the Gospels, and compare it with similar material that was already around before these Gospels were written.

I eventually established that there were three main sources of inspiration, available to the people charged with the task of fabricating suitable accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry. The main source of available material would have been the existing Jewish scriptures, what we now call the Old Testament. This information could have been supplemented with traditional oral stories about the historical-Jesus, notably from something we now call the Q-Gospel [22]. There was also a distinct possibility, that some of the ideas inserted into these newly fabricated Gospels, were derived from, or at the very least influenced by, already existing pagan beliefs such as Mithraism.

So far so good I thought. I had the distinct possibility, that in the second half of that first century AD, there would have been many motivated believers, ready, willing and able, to fabricate suitable Gospel stories to order. A lot of information found in these Gospels probably did originate from the Jewish Scriptures, either directly, or indirectly via the earlier Pauline Epistles. A classic example of borrowed material, is the “love thy neighbour” theme from Leviticus 19:18, which appeared first in Galatians 5:14, and later in Matthew 7:12, 22:39. More themes taken from the Pauline Epistles include, “the apocalyptic message” found in early gospels (1-Thessalonians 4:14-17), “the Lord’s Supper” (1-Corinthians 10:16-22), “the third-day resurrection and sightings” (1-Corinthians 15: 3-9), “accepting authority” (Romans 13:1-3) “love thy neighbour again” (Romans 13:9-10) and “the essence of John’s Gospel” (Philippians 2:5-11).

Other Gospel themes that were probably developed directly from the Jewish scriptures, include the crucifixion account in Mark, which seems to have been inspired by both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, and the portrayal of Jesus as the Lamb of God that we find in John, which was also probably inspired by Isaiah 53. Other themes borrowed from Jewish scripture include “born of a virgin” (Isaiah 7:14), “was crucified” (Psalm 22:11-18), “the blood atonement” (Leviticus 17:11), “rose from the dead” (Psalm 16:10), “ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God” (Psalm 110:1), “Jesus the begotten Son” (Psalm 2:7), “God among His people” (Isaiah 9:6; & 40:3), “only begotten Son” (Genesis. 22:2), “return of Christ” (Zechariah 14:1-5 & Micah 1:3-4), “Son of God” (Psalm 2:7) and “baptism” (Exodus 40:12-15 & Leviticus 16:4).

Another rich source of inspiration, that was almost certainly used by the church fathers, was traditional oral information about the historical-Jesus, which some of today’s scholars think may have been contained in something we now call the Q-Gospel [22]. Theoretically at least, this Q-Gospel was a very early oral gospel, and some modern scholars suggest that it may even have pre-dated Mark. This reconstructed Q-Gospel, distilled from the synoptic gospels [Matthew, Mark & Luke], does not describe any biographical events such as Jesus’ birth, his selection of the 12 disciples, his crucifixion, or the resurrection. Instead, it appears to be just a collection of Jesus’ sayings and quotations, that eventually found their way into the synoptic Gospels. Whether this theoretical Q-Gospel distilled by scholars from the Synoptic Gospels, ever existed as a single oral text is highly debatable. Personally, I think this theoretical oral text is more likely to be just a composite text, containing details from many individual traditional oral stories about an historical-Jesus, that were simply combined together during the extraction process.

Because this charismatic historical-Jesus attracted a large Jewish following, many oral stories about his teachings and sayings would still have been circulating among his Jewish followers, even decades after his crucifixion. These stories would mostly be hearsay by the time the Gospel authors took any notice of them, but long-established oral traditions among Jews, would have ensured that much of the material contained in these oral stories was still factually correct. Therefore, we can be confident that at least some of the information found in the synoptic Gospels is factually correct, because it relates to the historical-Jesus. However, people being people, we also have to assume that a certain amount of random embellishment took place from time to time, at each telling of the story.

Earlier, while examining the case for Jesus’ existence, I mentioned that I thought it was too much of a coincidence to have two different types of Jesus [viz. a historical-Jesus and a Gospel Jesus] floating around at the same time. I suggested then, that somewhere along the road, there was probably ample room for a simple case of mistaken identity to creep in. This assimilation into the Gospels, of oral stories about a historical-Jesus, is obviously where this simple case of mistaken identity occurred.

The third potential source of inspiration available to the early church fathers, was rival pagan mystery religions, the best known of which, was based on Mithras, the sun-god of ancient Persia. Mithraism preceded Christianity by roughly six hundred years, and it flourished as late as the second century AD. How much influence, if any, this Mithraism had on the ensuing Gospels, is debatable. Most Christians maintain that Mithraism had zero influence on newly emerging Christianity, and some more desperate Christians, even suggest it was the other way round. However, there are  many non-Christians who claim that the influence of Mithraism was significant.

Christians may insist that Mithraism played no part in Christianity’s early development, but nobody can deny, that there are many disturbing similarities between  Christianity and pre-existing Mithraism. Mithras was referred to as “the good shepherd”, “the way, the truth and the light” and also “the redeemer”. He was considered to be a great travelling teacher who performed miracles, and he was identified with both the lion, and the lamb. His principal festival was held on what we now call Easter, at which time he was resurrected, and his sacred day was Sunday, “the Lord’s day”.

The International Encyclopaedia states: “Mithras seems to have owed his prominence to the belief that he was the source of life, and could also redeem the souls of the dead into the better world. The ceremonies included a sort of baptism to remove sins, anointing, and a sacred meal of bread and water, while a consecrated wine, believed to possess wonderful power, played a prominent part.

 Chambers Encyclopaedia says: “The most important of his [Mithras] many festivals was his birthday, celebrated on the 25th of December, the day subsequently fixedagainst all evidenceas the birthday of Christ. The worship of Mithras early found its way into Rome, and the mysteries of Mithras, which fell in the spring equinox, were famous even among the many Roman festivals”.

Trying to assess the extent of any pagan influence, 2000 years later, is always going to be difficult, especially if you automatically default to a top-down perspective, and look at things from a 21st century viewpoint. However, it is somewhat less difficult, when the problem is viewed from a bottom-up perspective.

When the gospels were first written, in the second half of that first century AD, nascent Christianity was still in its infancy, and the cultural norm throughout the Roman Empire, was pantheism [tolerance of all gods]. Both the gospel authors and the new pagan converts would, therefore, have belonged to a totally different mindset, one that regarded demigods and virgin births etc as normal. Under these circumstances, it was probably inevitable, that some pagan influences spilled over into the newly evolving, monotheistic spin-off from Judaism, that we now call Christianity. Apart from anything else, the newly converted pagan audiences would probably have expected it, because it was part and parcel of their cultural heritage. However, we can never know for sure, how much of fledgling Christianity was in fact derived from pre-existing pagan rivals. Today, after centuries of cultural brainwashing by the Christian Church, we conveniently forget that both Christianity, and what we now call paganism, did in fact share a common heritage. Therefore, there will always be a question mark around this issue of pagan influence.

The Canonized Gospels

I was, by now, entirely persuaded that sufficiently motivated, creative writers, who believed that Jesus was the son of God, would have had little difficulty fabricating suitable stories for the benefit of the newly converted and unsophisticated pagans. Each of Paul’s newly established communities, probably produced their own version of events, and those appearing later, were undoubtedly influenced by what had gone before. Four of these many fabricated versions were eventually adopted as “official” Gospels, and these eventually ended up in the New Testament. The rest were consigned to the dustbin of history.

This common need to fabricate Jesus’ life-story, explains why all the Gospel stories contained details of the crucifixion & resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem, details which originated from Paul [see 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9] and his original ministry. It also explains the diversity of various other details found in each of these fabricated Gospel stories. All Gospels appearing during the gospel-period [c 65 AD-c 100 AD] would have been honest attempts, by leaders of recently converted pagans, to fabricate stories that befitted their perceptions of a divine Jesus. At no time, was there ever any suggestion of a conspiracy to deceive anyone. All gospels, were honest and genuine attempts, by the early church fathers, to provide Jesus’ missing biographical background for the benefit of their newly converted pagans.

One of the earliest gospels to appear, but not necessarily the first gospel, was The Gospel of Mark (c 65-70 AD). This was an early attempt to establish what would later become orthodox Christian dogma. Mark originally stopped at the empty tomb [Mark 16: 8], but sometime later, for obvious reasons, it was extended  [Mark 16: 9-20] to include various sightings of a resurrected Jesus, and a brief reference to Jesus’ ascension to heaven. This 12 verse add-on [interpolation] is essentially a quick paraphrasing of the last chapter of Luke’s Gospel.

I couldn’t help noticing in the earlier stages of my investigation, that the four official Gospels seemed to increase progressively, both in their degree of boldness, and in their degree of sophistication. Mark was a relatively basic attempt to explain Jesus’ ministry years, and it portrays Jesus as a simple envoy, sent by God to offer enlightenment about the impending apocalypse. The other two synoptic gospels [Matthew & Luke], appearing about ten years after Mark, presumably from different early churches, both went a stage further than Mark, and portrayed Jesus as the son of God, born of a virgin. Unfortunately, neither of these two authors knew that their conflicting accounts of the virgin birth, would later appear side by side in the newly canonized New Testament. The potential embarrassment caused by having these two conflicting accounts of Jesus’ birth, was mitigated to some extent, by inserting Mark between Matthew & Luke.

John, the last of the four official Gospels c 95 AD, drops the virgin-birth idea and portrays Jesus as the word made flesh [God], and as The Lamb of God who willingly goes to his death, to absolve the world of sin, to break the power of death and to offer mankind a chance of everlasting salvation. John underlines this Lamb of God theme, by having Jesus die on Friday afternoon, the Jewish Day of Preparation, instead of in the early hours of Saturday morning, as per the three earlier synoptic Gospels.

The ascension of Jesus to heaven, first found in Luke, and later reinforced in Acts, was another common feature of pagan belief systems that was incorporated into the Gospels. It was added primarily to underline the divinity of Jesus, but it also offered a very convenient way to dispose of Jesus after his miraculous resurrection. Unfortunately, Luke’s Gospel and Acts fail to agree when this ascension to heaven actually occurred. Luke’s Gospel alleges it occurred on the same day as the resurrection [Easter Sunday], whereas Acts states it occurred forty days after the resurrection. This is a remarkable discrepancy given the momentous nature of the alleged event. It is even more remarkable, given the fact that Luke and Acts were both allegedly written by the same author. [Please note I have ignored the brief reference to Jesus’ ascension found at the end of Mark’s Gospel, because it was not present in the original version of Mark, but added later for obvious reasons].

It was now fairly clear to me, why there were many gospels around by the end of that first century AD, and why the Jerusalem resurrection, and the multiple post-resurrection sightings as advocated by Paul in 1-Corinthians 15:3-9, were a common feature of all such gospels. Each version was customized by each early church, in a slightly different fashion, and four of these versions were eventually canonized and became part of the New Testament. The rest, including the gospels of Thomas and of Mary, were apparently consigned to the dustbin of history, but even now, I have no real idea why. Presumably, it was all down to political wrangling and power struggles, with the usual winners and losers that you always get in such circumstances.

No Going Back

I was now nearing the end of a journey which started in January 2012, when, as an curious agnostic, I attended a Christian sponsored Alpha Course looking for answers. Here I was, in January 2014, now a committed atheist, but one who was happy to accept that a historical Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem some 2000 years ago. This crucifixion should have been the end of the matter, but sometime after this crucifixion, [it seems nobody knows exactly how long after] Paul hallucinated on the road to Damascus, and convinced himself that he saw this dead Jesus. Three years later, Peter, on hearing Paul’s good news about a resurrected Jesus, trumped Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, with a simple lie about a similar experience in Jerusalem. Believing Peter’s lies to be true, and with Jesus now elevated to divine status, Paul then spent the rest of his life, touring round the pagan world, enthusiastically promoting this insignificant, mortal character called Jesus, as the son of God.

The very short pre-gospel period [c 30 AD-c 70 AD] was a period of fluidity and rapid change, during which Jesus’ real identity was hotly disputed. We had Jewish followers of a Messianic Jesus, led by Peter and by James, and we also had Jewish and Gentile followers of a more conventional Christian Jesus, led by Paul. The followers of the Messianic Jesus eventually lost out, because most Jews refused to accept that Jesus was their long-awaited Jewish Messiah. By the end of this short pre-gospel period, Jewish followers of a Messianic Jesus, had either died out, or morphed into quasi-Christians.

 In the second half of that first century AD, after the death of all concerned, and in response to ever-increasing demands to know more about a Jesus who was apparently resurrected in Jerusalem, fabricated gospel stories started to appear throughout the pagan world. Initially, the centre-piece of these gospels, was the crucifixion and apparent resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem. The story of these events was augmented with copious parables, and various miracles, both of which were common features in pagan religions. Later appearing gospels, were extended to include even more elements of paganism, elements such as virgin births and post-resurrection sightings. These post-resurrection sightings eventually became a standard feature of all subsequent gospels. Thus, this gospel period was essentially a period of rapid change, and vigorous cross-fertilization of ideas, as leaders of Paul’s early Christian communities, each made honest attempts to fabricate stories befitting their perceptions of a divine Jesus.

By the end of that first century AD, thanks entirely to Paul’s heroic efforts, fledgling Christianity was safely established in small Christian communities dotted throughout the pagan world. Ex-pagan members of these Christian communities may initially have been quasi Christian-pagan hybrids, who eventually morphed into more conventional Christians. Alternatively, and in my opinion far more likely, this newly formed Christianity, was just another new pagan religion, albeit a more sophisticated one, that managed to outlive the others, simply because it eventually found favour in Rome. I will revisit this contentious suggestion later, and discuss it in greater detail.

The rest, as they say, is history, but it does raise an interesting side issue for biblical scholars. New Testament scholars have always placed great store in the apparent age of the documents they study, and some of the earliest extant texts now available, appear to go back to the second century AD. These scholars claim, the fact that even these second century texts still portray Jesus as the Gospel-Jesus, adds weight to the truth of their claims about Jesus’ true nature. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, for these scholars at least, the Holy Grail would be the original gospel texts written in the second half of the first century.  If these original texts still portrayed Jesus as the Gospel-Jesus, then in their eyes at least, these original texts would be undeniable proof of Jesus’ true nature. However, The Christianity Myth scenariopredicates that even these original first century texts, will automatically feature accounts of the alleged resurrection of the Gospel-Jesus, even though it was the historical-Jesus who was actually crucified. Therefore, in my opinion, even finding original first century texts would not prove this Gospel Jesus ever existed. That’s because these Gospels are not, as orthodox Christianity maintains, historically accurate records of what did happen in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. They are just fabricated stories, recording what the authors of said Gospels, genuinely believed happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

Orthodoxy v 21st Century Re-interpretation

My 21st century re-interpretation of first century Christianity takes the orthodox version of events and simply reassesses how two facets of the orthodox argument are interpreted. These two facets are the nature of Paul’s conversion experience on the road to Damascus & the veracity of Peter’s original claims about the alleged resurrection in Jerusalem. By simply challenging how these two facets of orthodoxy are interpreted, it is possible to explain the origins of both  Christianity and the New Testament without recourse to divine interventions. The resulting more pragmatic interpretation of events highlights the fallacy of the classic Christian argument that the Gospel resurrection claims must be true, because Paul validates them in 1-Corinthians 15:3-9. It also offers plausible answers to many awkward questions that orthodox Christianity finds challenging. Questions such as:

Why did the world barely notice the alleged resurrection of JesusThis momentous event should have made local headlines at the very least. However, in all four Gospels, the resurrection is portrayed as a near invisible event, noticed only by a handful of Jews, even though it allegedly occurred in a city teeming with Jews. This is because Christianity had to weave its web using the material available, and the only material available, was that supplied by Paul in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9, all of which was based on Peter’s earlier lies.

Why is there no reliable independent evidence to support Christianity’s resurrection claims? Absence of independent evidence is exactly what one would expect if the resurrection never happened. This absence is only a problem for those claiming the resurrection did happen. There is just about enough reliable independent evidence to support the crucifixion claims, but there’s no reliable independent evidence whatsoever to support the resurrection claims. Both Josephus and Tacitus make brief mention of the crucifixion, but only because Jesus [the historical-Jesus] had a large Jewish following. In reality, this event was just another crucifixion, of just another Jewish radical threatening the Jewish establishment. Had Jesus risen from the dead as claimed, he would certainly have grabbed the attention of both the Jewish authorities and the Roman authorities, and we can take it for granted, that the early church fathers would have zealously preserved any relevant independent documentation, just as they preserved the Epistles and the early gospels. However, as I’ve said several times before, the only records of the resurrection of Jesus are those found in the New Testament itself.

Why does the Gospel Gap exist? There is a 40-60 year gap between the alleged resurrection c 30 AD and the appearance of the four canonical gospels c 70-90 AD. Explaining this gap has always been a thorny issue for Christians, because their starting point must be the resurrection actually happened. Therefore, logic dictates that someone somewhere should have recorded the alleged event whilst eye witnesses were still around. But they didn’t, and Christian scholars still struggle to explain why several adult generations passed by before the Gospels finally appeared. However, this gospel gap problem is readily explained when your starting-point is the resurrection never happened. No gospels were written c 30-70 AD because there was no resurrection to write about. During this period Paul told his early Christian communities all about the death & resurrection of Jesus, but he told them nothing about Jesus’ life prior to his crucifixion. The gospels simply appeared later c 70-90 AD in response to growing demands to know more about Jesus. This simple & rational explanation of the gospel gap yet again challenges Christian assertions that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem.

Why do the gospel accounts differ? Numerous gospels appeared during the gospel-period. They were produced by various early Christian communities, each seeking to offer a customised solution to the same problem, namely the complete lack of any biographical details about Jesus’ life. The two conflicting accounts of Jesus’ birth, which we find in Matthew and in Luke, were both early attempts to establish Jesus’ true credentials. To do this it was  necessary to satisfy three basic criteria. Jesus had to be born of a virgin to establish his divinity, he had to be born in Bethlehem to fulfil Jewish scripture, and he had to grow up in Nazareth because people knew that was where Jesus originally came from. Both accounts of Jesus’ birth satisfy these three criteria, but unfortunately, at the time of writing, neither author knew their conflicting accounts would eventually form part of what we now call the New Testament. The early Christian church reduced the potential embarrassment of having two conflicting versions of Jesus’ birth by inserting Mark between Matthew and Luke. These days, the two conflicting accounts are homogenized by the church into a single nativity story, a sort of evangelical smoothie, and every Christmas without fail, children of Christian parents are conditioned to accept this composite nativity story without question.

Why were Peter and Paul at odds with one another? They were at odds because they had totally different theological messages, which were aimed at totally different clients. After his experience on the road to Damascus, Paul concluded that Jesus was the son of God, who died on a cross to free people from their sins, and his resurrection broke the power of death and opened the way for everlasting life and salvation. Paul concluded that he had been specially chosen by God, to propagate this new-found message to Jews and Gentiles alike. His universal theology, stressed that circumcision and adherence to Judaic law were both irrelevant. Paul’s message was therefore completely at odds with the message being preached by Peter and his followers. Peter’s group believed that only circumcised Jews who adhered to Jewish Law could be saved. Hence the Council of Jerusalem, convened c 50 AD, to address the issue of circumcision and its relevance to fledgling Christianity. The opposing sides failed to agree, and both went their own ways.

Why did the Jews reject Jesus? After his crucifixion, some Jews refused to accept any suggestion that Jesus was their long-awaited Jewish Messiah. Many Jews saw Jesus as just another Jewish troublemaker from Galilee who the Roman authorities eventually crucified. After the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple in 70 AD, this belief was reinforced, and eventually it became more or less universal amongst Jews.

Why did Paul succeed and the other Apostles fail? Paul managed to sell his version of Jesus to the pagan world, because the pagan world was familiar with the resurrection concept, and because nobody in this pagan world had any first-hand knowledge of events in far off Jerusalem. Peter et al had a far more difficult time selling their Messianic version of Jesus to their fellow Jews, because too many of these Jews believed Jesus was just another Galilean fundamentalist, and they refused to accept him as their long-awaited Messiah.

Why was The Acts of the Apostles written? It was written mainly to record Paul’s journeys and missionary efforts, but it also served another purpose. By the time Acts was written, the Twelve Apostles were dead, the Jews had rejected Jesus and, apart from Paul, these Apostles had all turned out to be a bit of a disappointment. Unfortunately, the earlier gospel stories had already tied Jesus to his chosen disciples, who were later to become these failed Apostles. So, another purpose of Acts, was to re-brand these Apostles as the dynamic evangelical force that launched Christianity onto the unsuspecting world—with just a little help from Paul of course. Acts also takes the opportunity to paper over the obvious cracks between Peter and the more successful Paul.

Why was the Council of Nicaea necessary? Among other things, it was convened to address the diversity found in the numerous gospel stories produced by different churches. Not everybody was on the same page in the early stages of Christianity’s development, and views about Jesus differed. The first council, convened by Constantine-1 in 325 AD, was told to rationalise these differences and agree a standard version of Christianity. This first council didn’t get very far with the problem, and it took years of wrangling, and wheeling & dealing, before the dust finally settled on the first authorised canon, depicting what we now call Nicene Christianity.

As it stands now, I’m prepared to stack the simplicity of the pragmatic argument found here in The Christianity Myth, against the super-naturalism of the orthodox argument offered by the Christian church, and I will continue to do so, until somebody proves to me that the alleged Jerusalem resurrection actually happened, and by proof, I mean something other than the stuff you find in the New Testament. As far as I’m concerned, the Gospels are just 2000 year old stories, honestly written, by true believers, for the benefit of naive and unsophisticated pagan converts, converts who today, we would consider little more than children.

Journey’s End

I’ve come a very long way since starting this journey back in January 2012, when I attended that Alpha Course looking for answers. Here I was, two years later, a confirmed atheist, who was convinced that Paul just hallucinated on the road to Damascus. I can’t prove he hallucinated of course, and at present, this hallucination idea  is only of interest to a few academics studying temporal lobe epilepsy and it’s associated religious experiences. This hallucination idea is not a new idea. It  has been around for many years, but to date it has never been taken seriously. This is partly because academics do not wish to upset the Christian establishment, and partly because the existence of the Gospels couldn’t be explained, other than by assuming divine intervention. Now, however, the situation has changed. There is now a perfectly reasonable and perfectly plausible way of explaining the existence of these Gospels without assuming divine intervention. I’m therefore hoping this hallucination idea will now be re-evaluated in the light of these new developments. After all, what’s more likely to have happened 2000 years ago? Divine intervention? Or a simple hallucination on the road to Damascus, reinforced with a simple lie told in Jerusalem? For me it’s now a no brainer question, but then I don’t have any emotional baggage invested in the outcome. Nor do I have any over-riding personal need to preserve the status quo.

At this, the final stage of my journey, I was now firmly of the opinion that fledgling Christianity was just another new pagan religion, just the resulting by-product produced, when a temporal lobe aberration on the road to Damascus was inadvertently reinforced by a little white lie told in Jerusalem. This notion, will obviously offend established Christians, but those taking offence should be prepared to defend their faith, and hopefully, defend it with something a little more convincing than the usual claim that it’s true because it says so in the bible. Christians obviously have no problem accepting the New Testament at face value, including all the pagan super-naturalism associated with immaculate conceptions, virgin births, resurrections of the dead and ascensions to heaven. Neither do Christians appear to be concerned, that Christianity is but one of many belief systems, all of which claim to be the one and only true faith. Obviously these competing belief systems can’t all be right, but they could all be wrong, and probably are.

I was, by now, totally convinced that gospel fabrication would have been a relatively simple matter, for highly motivated, creative writers, who believed that Jesus was in fact the son of God. Total fabrication of these Gospels, has always been deemed impossible in the past, because it was always assumed that such fabrications needed, of necessity, to be part and parcel of some great unexplained conspiracy. I now beg to differ. The existence of said Gospels can now readily be explained, not by divine intervention, and not by conspiracy theories, but by simple deceit and Paul’s understandable failure to recognise said deceit. Several centuries later, four of these fabricated gospels and some of Paul’s Epistles made it into the New Testament.

Consequently, I now see this New Testament in a totally new way. Orthodox Christianity has always implied that, shortly after Jesus’ miraculous resurrection in Jerusalem, his Jewish followers gathered together in Jerusalem to form the first Christian church, led by Peter and by Jesus’ brother James. Orthodox Christianity also implies that the twelve Jewish Apostles miraculously converted, more or less overnight, from Jews who believed that Jesus was their long-awaited Messiah, to Christians who believed that Jesus was the son of God, before successfully launching Christianity onto the unsuspecting world – with just a little help from Paul of course. In reality, the early Jerusalem Church was more Jewish than it was Christian for some considerable time, and it took several decades for Jewish followers of a Messianic Jesus, to either die out, or morph into Christian followers of a Gospel-Jesus who was seen as the son of God. This concept of Jesus as the son of God, probably stemmed, not from Jerusalem, as orthodox Christianity tries to suggest, but from Paul’s early Christian communities.

Centuries of church dogma have elevated the status of Jesus’ Apostles to something verging on sainthood, and according to this dogma, many of these Apostles allegedly died as martyrs. But, contrary to what orthodoxy would have us believe, we actually know very little about these Apostles, and much of what the church claims to know is thought to be dubious. Even Peter’s alleged death in Rome is not backed by reliable evidence. So in actual fact, we don’t actually know, with any certainty, the eventual fate of any of these Apostles. Many of them just faded into obscurity, leaving behind nothing other than a collection of according to tradition stories. Loosely translated, these stories mean we don’t really know what happened to them, but this is what we’d like you to believe. That these Apostles died for their beliefs is undoubtedly true, but the real question is, what beliefs did they die for? Many of the Twelve Apostles appear to have died at the hands of their fellow Jews, who rejected their claims that Jesus was their long-awaited Jewish Messiah. This would suggest that they died, not as Christians who believed Jesus was the son of God, as implied by orthodoxy, but as Jews who believed Jesus was their long-awaited Jewish Messiah.

The Spread of Christianity

Paul is arguably the most important person in the New Testament, because it was Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus that eventually transformed the historical-Jesus into God’s only son, sent to earth to save mankind. It could be said, that without Paul, there would have been no Christianity and no New Testament. Paul not only developed orthodox theology more or less single-handed, he spent most of his adult life planting the seeds of fledgling Christianity, in all the important political and cultural centres of commerce and trade, thus ensuring the rapid dissemination of Christianity throughout the known world.

Christianity may have just started when a little pebble was dropped into a small pond,but the ripples so produced are still affecting the world some 2000 years later. According to orthodox Christian dogma, Christianity’s initial success can be attributed to the universal, inclusive nature of the Christian message, and to the effectiveness of Jesus’ Apostles. However, this is only partly correct. Christianity did spread quite rapidly, but only because of Paul’s heroic efforts and the all-embracing inclusiveness of Paul’s universal message. This universal message rapidly gained widespread acceptance among the weak and oppressed masses, who took comfort from the promises of eternal jam tomorrow, to make up for all the short-term pain of today. However, the enduring success of fledgling Christianity is really down to a much simpler, more sinister, and generally unacknowledged reason, namely simple political pragmatism. Politically astute rulers in Rome soon realised, that the rapid spread of early Christianity among the oppressed masses, presented them with a golden opportunity, to impose a very simple, very cost-effective method of self-regulating crowd-control. Politicians in Rome, simply controlled the religious leaders, and left it to these religious leaders to placate the masses. Initially, they placated the masses with promises of eternal salvation, but only for those who behaved themselves and accepted their lot in life. Later, these promises of eternal salvation, were supplemented with threats of eternal damnation for all those who dared to transgress.

This successful pragmatic marriage, between the emotional needs of the many and the political needs of the few, proved to be Christianity’s salvation, and throughout the 4th century AD, Christianity was gradually transformed from an outlawed pagan-like belief, to the official religion of the Roman Empire. In 313 AD, Constantine-1 issued the Edict of Milan, which proclaimed that Christianity was to be tolerated alongside the many other pagan beliefs. In effect, this simply legalised Christianity. In 325 AD, Constantine-1 convened the First Council of Nicaea, and told Christian leaders to sort out the huge diversity associated with early Christianity. In 380 AD, Emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which established Nicene Christianity as the one and only official religion of the Roman Empire and, just to round things off, in 391 AD, the worship of all other pagan gods was made illegal throughout the Roman Empire.

These rapid 4th century developments, all driven by political pragmatism, ensured Christianity’s long-term survival, and by the end of the 4th century AD, all other competing pagan beliefs had been more or less stamped out. With all competing pagan religions consigned to the dustbin of history, and with continued dominance of Christianity guaranteed, it was a simple matter for the newly formed Roman Church to quietly start the process of re-inventing itself as the one true non-pagan belief. The early Roman Church did not do this with any sinister intent to deliberately deceive. They did it because they genuinely believed that Jesus was the son of God who was resurrected in Jerusalem. They were obviously wrong then, and they are still wrong now, but that’s not the scary part. The scary part, is realising they could still be propagating this myth 2000 years from now.

Thus, during the first half of the first millennium, early Christianity eventually thrived and prospered under Roman patronage, as did the newly formed Roman Church. On the surface, the early Roman Church ministered unto the needs of the ever-increasing multitude of believers, but behind the scenes, this new religious class, quietly amassed power and wealth beyond people’s wildest dreams. As the Roman Empire slowly crumbled, Rome’s control of developing Christianity slowly weakened, and by the time the political classes in Rome began to suspect that the Roman Church was no longer theirs to control, it was already too late to retreat. Christianity had arrived big time, and it was there to stay. The wealth and power of the Roman Church continued to grow, and soon it became virtually impossible to challenge this Roman Church without putting one’s very soul in jeopardy. Proof of these outrageous claims would entail me writing another book, but it would probably be a wasted journey on my part, because I’m pretty sure that his path has already been well trodden, by other, far more knowledgeable authors. I just touch on these claims, to explain why the ripples from a tiny pebble dropped into a very small pond some 2000 years ago, are still being felt throughout the world today.

This newly formed Roman Church survived the eventual demise of the Roman Empire, and it continued to prosper, remaining paramount until the end of the first millennium. Then, in 1054 AD, increasing theological differences led to an East-West split, and Christianity polarised into the Western Church centered on Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, centred on Constantinople [now Istanbul]. There then followed a long period of expansion and consolidation, which today we can characterise as the Crusade era.  The Crusades were a series of religiously inspired military campaigns, which were carried out against both pagans in Europe, and Muslims in The Holy Land. During this Crusade era, which lasted for several centuries, the Roman [Catholic] Church continued to amass further power and wealth, and alongside this growth in power and wealth came a growth in greed, avarice and corruption. Eventually, in the early sixteenth century, the widespread corruption, now running rampant throughout the Roman Church, precipitated a second major schism. This time it was a North-South divide, and it resulted in the formation of the Protestant Church.

After the Protestant Reformation, Christianity continued to grow, and from time to time it sub-divided and further diversified, as various minority factions split off from larger factions and chose to go their own way. Today there are over 43,000 different denominations of Christianity, ranging from the traditional bells & smells  Christianity found in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and High Anglican Churches, to the more informal clap-happy Christianity found in the newer Evangelical Churches. The vast majority of these different denominations are small & insignificant branches of Christianity, but, paraphrasing an old cliche, their very existence ensures that there are now plenty of courses for different horses.

And so, against all the odds, something that probably started out as nothing more than a new, and slightly more sophisticated pagan belief system, based entirely on a simple case of mistaken identity, managed to survive and become a major world religion. Today, Christianity has more than 2 billion believers, all of whom still entertain a belief in the super-natural, even in this day and age. However, in the more prosperous and more sophisticated nations, Christianity’s growth has now peaked, and the number of believers in these more developed countries is now in decline. However, Christianity is still thriving and expanding in those parts of the world where poverty and ignorance still prevail. Hopefully, as world living standards and world education standards improve, religions will eventually run out of places to hide.

Post Mortem

It’s now time to look back at this investigation, review the findings and, where appropriate, consider their implications. Broadly speaking, all religions, past and present, developed for more or less the same basic reasons, and they all served the same general purposes. They acted as a mechanism for defining what was desirable and what was undesirable, and  many offered promises of eternal jam tomorrow to all those who acquiesced. They also provided the glue necessary for social cohesion within a tribe, but only at the expense of generating derision and division, between tribes daring to be different. They also proved very useful ploys, used by leaders in times of stress, to unify, and to provide cost-effective crowd control. Today, the net gain of all of this is well into negative territory. Most people can be good without a god breathing down their necks, and those who can’t be good, take-no-notice anyway. For most people, morality is simply a case of loving your neighbour as yourself, and doing unto others as you’d like them to do unto you.

I do not claim to be a theologian, nor do I claim to be an historian, and I’m certainly not a biblical scholar. And I certainly didn’t set out to deliberately trash Christianity. I just put first century Christianity under the microscope, and then concluded there was a much simpler way to explain things, one that joined all the dots, dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s, and did so without any need for divine interventions. However, my alternative explanation of first century events is a bit like good old fashioned English Marmite. Some will love it for its pragmatic simplicity, and others will hate it for daring to suggest they are just misguided, self-deluded pagans, seeking reassurance that their lives have purpose and meaning. All of us experience just a fleeting glimpse of reality before descending into an eternity of oblivion. To think otherwise, is just wishful thinking by those unable to accept their own brief mortality.

More knowledgeable scholars, especially those desperate to maintain the status quo, will no doubt have a field-day nit-picking at the material found here in The Christianity Myth. However, nothing they can say or do will change the simple fact, that 2000 years ago, the combination of two otherwise mundane events probably produced Christianity and the associated New Testament, without any need for divine intervention.Granted, my controversial version of events is somewhat speculative in nature, but it’s no more speculative than the orthodox version of events. Christians will of course dispute this, but actually, when it comes to first century Christianity, we know very little for certain. I think we can be reasonably sure that a charismatic historical-Jesus did exist. We don’t know exactly when he was born, or exactly when he was crucified in Jerusalem. Nor do we know exactly when Paul was converted on the road to Damascus, or what exactly happened to most of Jesus’ Apostles. All anyone can do in these circumstances, is extract what little factual evidence can be extracted after 2000 years, and then use this very limited factual evidence, to form opinions about what might, or might not, have happened. Once you start introducing mythical deities and pagan super-naturalism into the equation, all rationality evaporates, and objectivity is taken hostage by personal needs to address personal agendas.

The whole essence of the argument found in The Christianity Myth hinges entirely on Paul’s experience on that road to Damascus. Did Paul really see the resurrected Jesus? Or did he just believe he saw the resurrected Jesus? If you still think he did see the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus, then for you, there is no need for Peter to lie, because for you Jesus was in fact the son of God, and for you Christianity is unchanged. However, if you now think Paul didn’t see the resurrected Jesus. If you now think he just hallucinated and thought he saw the resurrected Jesus, then for you, Christianity is just a simple by-product that was produced when  this simple hallucination on the road to Damascus was inadvertently reinforced by a simple lie told in Jerusalem. Either way we end up with orthodox Christianity and the New Testament, but my more pragmatic version of events, does so without any need for divine intervention. It even makes the need to believe in gods totally irrelevant.

The Christian church has a notorious history of entrenched opposition to changes in the status quo, and the implications of this 20th century idea that Paul just hallucinated on the road to Damascus, probably ranks alongside the 19th century suggestions about evolution, and the 16th century suggestions about a heliocentric “universe”. Both of these new ideas severely challenged prevailing perceived wisdom, but over time, the church eventually adapted, and time has now largely eroded the church’s irrational resistance to these two psychological bombshells. However, the current bombshell outlined here in The Christianity Myth, threatens the very raison d’être of the Christian Church. Eventual adaptation is not, therefore, an option this time round. If time does, yet again, eventually overcome irrational resistance, it can only be at the expense of Christianity’s eventual demise.

Scholars have spent the last two centuries, striving to prove the Jerusalem resurrection actually happened. They think that discovering references to the Jerusalem resurrection in earlier and earlier documents, adds more and more weight to their argument that Jesus was in fact resurrected in Jerusalem. However, as discussed earlier, all Gospel accounts of the Jerusalem resurrection, including those found in the original manuscripts, were based entirely on claims made by Paul, when he first established his early Christian communities. These claims, outlined by Paul in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9, were in turn, based entirely on the unsubstantiated hearsay evidence that Paul obtained from Peter when they first met. So, even finding the original first century manuscripts, wouldn’t prove Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. They would only prove that, 2000 years ago, some people who grew up with super-naturalism, readily believed that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. Today, many of us regard paganism, and the associated belief in the supernatural, as something long gone and forgotten. Christians, however, still seem prepared to entertain certain exceptions.

For centuries, the Christian Church justified its faith in Jesus’ resurrection, by pointing to supporting evidence found in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. Today, we now know this so called supporting evidence was falsified centuries ago, precisely because there was no genuine supporting evidence. So Christians now point to Paul’s apparent validation of this resurrection in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9. However, as already outlined above, this passage is just unsubstantiated hearsay evidence, based on what Peter told Paul when they first met in Jerusalem [Galatians 1: 18]. Nevertheless, Christians place great emphasis, on the fact that Paul was actively relaying Peter’s claims to his early Christian communities, only a few decades after the alleged resurrection in Jerusalem. Because Christians believe this resurrection actually happened, they never stop to question the veracity of Peter’s original unsubstantiated claims. They simply assume that Peter told the truth about this alleged resurrection, and then they justify their assumption by pointing to their Gospels, claiming they are historically accurate eye-witness accounts that corroborate Peter’s claims. In effect, Christians use their unfounded assumptions about the Gospels, to justify their equally unfounded assumptions about the veracity of Peter’s claims. Christians may claim Peter told the truth, but they can’t prove he told the truth. Nor can they use the Gospels to prove Peter told the truth, because the Gospels don’t corroborate Peter’s unsubstantiated claims, they just reflect them.

This tacit assumption, that Peter told Paul the truth about the Jerusalem resurrection, is Christianity’s unacknowledged Achilles heel. Once you recognise this fact, you understand why so many biblical scholars, and all Christian apologists, strive desperately to convince us that the Gospels really are, historically accurate, eye-witness accounts that can be trusted. Without these assurances, and the last time I looked, the jury was still out on this one, Christianity remains nothing more, than a simple, ancient belief system, based entirely on one man’s unsubstantiated claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. Christianity’s integrity is therefore entirely dependent on the veracity of Peter’s unsubstantiated claims. Ironically, however, the final outcome isn’t, because we still end up with Christianity and the New Testament, even if Peter lied about the Jerusalem resurrection. Christians brave enough to read this book will obviously find this a somewhat sobering thought.

Many changes to the New Testament have occurred down the centuries, mainly because of copying errors and/or because of translating errors. Whether accidental or deliberate, most of these changes have occurred at a nit-picking level, of interest only to biblical scholars. Ordinary Christians and other non-scholars are not really bothered by these nuanced changes. In broad brush-stroke terms, we mere mortals can assume the Gospels have remained virtually unchanged, since their inception some 2000 years ago. Except, that is, for the notable exception found at the end of Mark’s Gospel. The original version of Mark stopped at Mark 16: 8, with frightened women fleeing from the tomb, after being told that Jesus had risen from the dead. The last twelve verses [Mark 16: 9-20] were added sometime later, for obvious reasons. However, this fact is now openly acknowledged in the footnotes of many Bibles.

The four Gospels found in the New Testament were written c 65-100 AD, and the dating of these Gospels suggests they were almost certainly written by people who had no first-hand knowledge of events in Jerusalem. Most gospel authors probably weren’t even born when Jesus was crucified c 30 AD. These Gospels contain a lot of hearsay information derived from traditional oral stories about a historical-Jesus. They also contain Paul’s resurrection claims [1-Corinthians 15: 3-8], which were based entirely on Peter’s unsubstantiated hearsay evidence. So in effect, nothing found in the Gospels is actually based on first-hand knowledge. Therefore these Gospels cannot be cited as proof that the resurrection actually happened. Christians, however, have no choice but to ignore this fact, and rely on their age-old circular argument that says the resurrection happened, because it says so in the Gospels, and it says so in the Gospels, because the resurrection happened. Flawed as it is, this circular argument has nevertheless satisfied the needs of Christians down the ages, and it still seems to satisfy over two billion Christians today. They do not seem bothered by the irrationality of their circular argument, and they take comfort in their numbers, thinking we can’t all be wrong.

Past Christians can be excused their naivety, because they didn’t know any better, but today’s Christians live in a technological age, and knowledge is there for the asking. However, there’s none so blind as those unwilling to see, and most Christians happily accept the idealised Christian dogma that is routinely promoted by Christian churches. The churches do this deliberately, to protect their flocks from the unsettling warts n’ all reality of the Gospels. Fortunately, this warts n’ all reality has now been exposed by Bart Erhman [1], and every thinking-Christian should read his book Jesus Interrupted at least once, as should anyone thinking of becoming a Christian.

Ordinary Christians won’t agree with any this of course, because they have all the evidence they need in the New Testament. However, in reality they are just choosing to accept the New Testament claims as fact. Two billion Christians currently make this personal choice to believe the resurrection claims found in the Gospels, but they rarely accept, let alone acknowledge, that it is just a personal choice. But even 2 billion people believing something is true, doesn’t automatically make it true.

Both Christians and non-Christians can agree that Peter did actually know the real truth about the Jerusalem resurrection, but did he tell Paul the real truth? We will never know, because there isn’t a shred of reliable independent evidence to prove anything one way or the other. All we know for certain, courtesy of Paul’s Epistles, is that Peter and Paul met in Jerusalem some three years after Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus. It is now generally accepted, that this first meeting is where Paul told Peter all about his experience on the road to Damascus, and where Peter in turn, told Paul all about the Jerusalem resurrection. This Peter character is portrayed in the New Testament as a very important Apostle, but in actual fact, he was just an unsophisticated, uneducated peasant fisherman from Galilee, someone who probably lied any time it suited him. It is both fitting, and somewhat ironic, that the Roman Catholic Church eventually saw fit to canonize this Peter and appoint him as their patron saint, because it was Peter’s claims about the Jerusalem resurrection, that turbo-charged Paul’s obsessive belief that Jesus was the son of God. Without Peter’s claims, Christianity may never have happened.

I’m now hoping that some of the more secular biblical scholars will now be tempted to revisit the first century AD, and put some flesh on the bones of an argument that is only sketchily outlined here in The Christianity Myth. In some ways, The Christianity Myth is nothing more than a simple feasibility study, one designed to demonstrate the fallacy of Christian claims that Jesus was the son of God, who was resurrected from the dead after his crucifixion in Jerusalem. What’s now required, is a more in-depth evaluation of my basic argument, but this re-evaluation can only be done by scholars who can demonstrate both their objectivity and their impartiality.

Finally, there is the small matter concerning my earlier suggestion, that Christianity is just a slightly more sophisticated pagan religion masquerading as a non-pagan religion. This is not an original idea by any means and, over the years, many people have made similar claims. They all point to elements of Christianity that demonstratively have their roots in early paganism, but all suggestions along these lines invariably fall on deaf Christian-ears. Christians will not thank me for yet again drawing attention to this fact.


Today I think of myself as a reluctant atheist. An atheist, because I now know that divine intervention and super-naturalism are not needed to explain the origins of Christianity. A reluctant atheist, because knowing this now makes it impossible for me to ever again wrap myself in the Christianity comfort blanket. A more strict definition of my current world view would be reluctant agnostic atheist, because although I’m personally convinced gods don’t exist, I accept that I will never be able to prove it, anymore than theists can prove their gods do exist. Of course, Christians will continue to say I’m wrong, because they know they are right, but who cares. The promise of an eternity of sycophantic worship and praise has no appeal for me whatsoever. Hell sounds more exciting! Of course, saying that automatically guarantees I will be condemned as a heretic, but that’s a small price to pay, if it also guarantees that they abandon all hope of ever saving me.

We now have two slightly different explanations of how Christianity first started. The orthodox explanation involves two divine interventions. My slightly different explanation involves no divine interventions. According to Occam’s razor, whenever there are two or more ways of explaining the same thing, the simplest explanation is usually thought to be the better explanation. However, Occam’s razor does come with an unspoken caveat. It assumes the relative merits of all explanations will be assessed in a purely objective manner. This may prove to be a bridge too far for most Christians, so I’ll leave readers to judge for themselves which is the simpler explanation in this case. For me personally, it’s a very simple choice because I have no personal need to preserve the status quo.

You may find my version of events persuasive, but I have to point out that I haven’t actually proved anything. I’ve just offered a more rational explanation of first century events. If you’re not comfortable with this more rational explanation, just play the trump card called faith, and continue to believe that God’s son died on a cross to forgive your sins, and continue to believe that he was then resurrected again to offer you eternal salvation. Personally, I’ve always felt you don’t need gods to be good. I’m happy to accept the virtues of the Christian ethos, and I let my conscience take care of all the moral stuff. I feel even more justified in doing this, now that I know we no longer need to invoke super-naturalism and divine intervention to explain what we find in the New Testament. Christians of course, will never admit they’ve got it all wrong, and I don’t blame them, because they have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. I’m happy to just settle for the intellectual satisfaction of knowing they’re wrong, even though it means I’ll never experience the emotional satisfaction they get from knowing they’re right.

This new version of first century events will obviously have great difficulty gaining traction against a 2000 year old Christian head wind, particularly after my earlier suggestion that Christianity is probably just a re-branded pagan belief system. Resistance to change is only to be expected, but history has demonstrated time and time again, that the perceived wisdom of the day, invariably turns out to be wrong. When the New Testament first appeared, most people believed the earth was flat, and the perceived wisdom of the day believed we all lived in a geocentric “universe”. Then, during the 16th & 17th centuries, despite enormous resistance from the Roman Catholic Church, perceived wisdom was forced to change, and mankind was relegated to a more humble position within a heliocentric “universe”. Today, we now accept that even this more humble position was a vast over statement of our real significance and today’s “known universe” has expanded to mind-numbing proportions. Against this background, any potential shift in perceived wisdom triggered by The Christianity Myth, pales into insignificance by comparison.

But, even if my ideas do eventually gain a little traction, there is still the prickly question of Islam, the world’s second largest religion, boasting 1.7 billion believers. Muslims regard their Qur’an [holy book] as the last of a series of divine messages, that started with messages revealed to Adam, and ended with messages revealed to Muhammad. According to Muslims, these verbal messages from God were revealed to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel. These messages started to arrive in 609 AD, and they continued at random intervals, until Muhammad’s death in 632 AD. Muhammad’s experiences whilst receiving these messages have now been well documented, notably by Ali Sina [23], by M. A. Sherlock [24] and by F. W. Burleigh [25]. These authors demonstrate that Muhammad’s many experiences, spread out over two decades, are not unlike Paul’s single experience on the road to Damascus. Similarities with the inception of Christianity are therefore all too obvious, and this fact has not gone unnoticed. So yet again, we are presented with two alternative possibilities. Either the Qur’an is the unalterable word of Allah, the one true god, as Muslims claim, or the Qur’an is just the demented ramblings of a deluded, chronic epileptic, suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy. Personally, I think this is yet another no-brainer choice, but then I wasn’t indoctrinated from birth, and forced to accept a belief system that advocates death for apostates.

Looking back at history, it is now possible to see many other such instances that probably resulted from similar experiences, notably Joan of Arc’ visions in 1429 and possibly John Wesley’s Aldergate experience in 1738. Thus, although it now seems very likely, that the origins of both Christianity and Islam can now readily be explained in terms of temporal lobe epilepsy, it will prove very difficult to convince those vested interests wishing to preserve the current status quo. I would like to think we are now in the process of turning the corner. These recent medical advances leading to a better understanding of TLE and the “religious side effects” cannot be ignored forever. However, I can understand the reticence of relevant members of the medical profession, and their reluctance to stick their heads above the parapet. The Vatican & Islam are both potent forces & you upset them at your peril, career-wise in the case of the Vatican, life-wise in the case of Islam.

Hopefully, the endless sectarian conflict, and the ever rising tide of secularism, will eventually coerce us into discarding all religions in favour of more user-friendly humanism. I won’t see it happen of course, nor will my grandchildren, and probably not even their grandchildren, but we can all live in hope. When that moment finally arrives, and it will arrive eventually, because it must, mankind will finally have come of age.

In the meantime, there’s one tiny aspect of The Christianity Myth argument that may be of interest, even to those not yet ready to give up on the alleged resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem. Orthodox Christianity maintains that Paul’s Epistles  just reflect a pre-existing oral gospel story that only gets written down after Paul’s death. However, in my version of events, Paul does not reflect anything. Instead, he more or less dictated much of the theology that appeared in the many gospel stories formulated after his death. This change in perspective could open the door to an entirely new debate about Paul’s pivotal role as the true father of Christianity.

Finally, the Duke of Wellington once said “Publish and be damned”. Well, I have published, and I probably will be damned, but better the possibility of infamy, with maybe just the slightest chance of leaving a very faint scratch on the fabric of time, than simply to pass by completely unnoticed.

If you found this book interesting, please recommend it using the share buttons below. Or Tweet your thoughts to @KenThackerey 

Click here to return to main blog

Click here to purchase a copy of  the book


[1] Jesus Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman, Published in 2010 by Harper Collins     [ISBN 978-0-06-117394-3]

[2] A Guide to the Bible by Alice Parmelee, Published in 1951 by English Universities Press Ltd

[3] A History of Christianity by Paul Johnson First Published in 1976, Republished by Peregrine Books in 1978

[4] Nothing but the Truth by Brian H Edwards Published in 2006 by Evangelical Press [ISBN 0-85234-614-X]

[5] Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity by Paul Barnett Published in 1999 by Inter Varsity Press [ISBN 979-0-8308-2699-5]

[6] Landsborough D, St Paul and temporal lobe epilepsy, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1987 Jun; 50(6):659-64.

[7] Brorson J R & Brewer K, St Paul and temporal lobe epilepsy, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988 Jun; 51(6):886-7.

[8] Dewhurst K & Beard A W, Sudden religious conversions in temporal lobe epilepsy, British Journal of Psychiatry 1970: 117: 497–507.

[9] Howden J C, The religious sentiments in epileptic, J Ment Sci 1872; 18: 491–7.

[10] Mabille H, Hallucinations religieuses et d_elire religieux transitore dan l’epilepsie. Ann M_edicopsychol 1899: 9–10: 76–81.

[11] Boven W, Religiosite et _epilepsie. Schweiz Arch f Neurol u Psychiat 1919: 4: 153–69.

[12] Karagulla S & Robertson E E, Physical phenomena in temporal lobe epilepsy and the psychoses. Brit Med J 1955: 748–52.

[13]  Beard A W, The schizophrenia-like psychoses of epilepsy. Brit J Psychiat 1963: 109: 113–29.

[14]  Slater E & Beard A W, The schizophrenia-like psychoses of epilepsy. Brit J Psychiat 1963:109: 5–112 & 143–50.

[15]  Christensen C, Religious conversion. Arch Gen Psychiat 1963: 9: 207–16.

[16]  Sedman G, Being an epileptic: a phenomenological study of epileptic experiences. Psychiat Neurol 1966: 152:1–16.

[17]  Persinger M, 2009, Are our brains structured to avoid refutations of belief in God? An experimental study. Religion, 39(1): 34-42].

[18]  Steve Connor, Los Angeles Times, Wednesday 29 October 1997

[19]  Robert Lee Hotz, via Seattle Times, Wednesday, Oct. 29, 1997

[20]  Derren Brown featured in Online ITV Channel 4 program

[21]  Dr Bob Potter,

[22]  The Q Gospel,

[23]  Ali Sina, Muhammad and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE)

[24]  M. A. Sherlock, Did the ‘Prophet’ Muhammad Suffer from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy?

[25]  F. W. Burleigh, Was Muhammad an Epileptic?

Click here to return to main blog

Click here to purchase a copy of  the book

Part 3: Christianity’s Achilles Heel

The Christian claim that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem is one of the central tenets of Christianity. If you ask a Christian why they believe Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem they will usually tell you because it says so in the Bible. Ask them why it says so in the Bible, and they will usually tell you because he was resurrected in Jerusalem. Most Christians fail to see the fallacy of this simple circular argument. They also fail to appreciate that the only evidence supporting this Christian claim is that found in the New Testament itself. This New Testament evidence consists of four independent Gospels, all of which claim Jesus was resurrected after his crucifixion in Jerusalem.

But who wrote these Gospels, and when, and why is this momentous event portrayed in these Gospels as a near invisible event noticed only by a handful of Jews? In short, was Jesus really resurrected in Jerusalem? Can these Gospel accounts be believed? Christian scholars claim these Gospels can be believed, because they are historically accurate eye witness accounts. But are they really eye witness accounts that can be trusted? There is still great uncertainty around this issue, because scholars still contest both the authorship of the Gospels and the actual dating of these Gospels. Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels is generally thought to be dated c 65-75 AD, Matthew & Luke c 75-85 AD and John is thought to be dated c 90-95 AD. Many scholars therefore suggest the Gospels are second-hand hearsay accounts written by unknown authors well after the death of all concerned.

Obviously, nobody can be absolutely certain about any of this, including the dating of these Gospels, and Christian apologists often exploit this uncertainty. A classic example can be found on page 165 of Jim Wallace’s book Cold Case Christianity. Here, Wallace tries to prove that Luke’s Gospel is a very early eye witness account. He does so by first comparing two almost identical accounts of the Eucharist [Lord’s Supper], one in Luke’s Gospel, the other in 1-Corinthians, and then he claims that Paul must have copied an earlier Luke, thus implying that Luke was written quite soon after the crucifixion. Wallace totally ignores mainstream opinion that Paul had died well before Luke was written, and thus Luke must have copied Paul. Apologists get away with this sort of thing all the time because their readers don’t recognize when they are being duped.

The consensus view of the Gospel’s dates suggests the Gospel accounts of the resurrection in Jerusalem are second-hand hearsay accounts rather than first-hand eye witness accounts. We thus need to ascertain the origin of these resurrection accounts. This is not as difficult as it may seem. The Gospel authors obviously learned about the Jerusalem resurrection from Paul [1-Corinthians 15: 3-9] and Paul in turn obviously learned about the Jerusalem resurrection from Peter, when they first met in Jerusalem some three years after Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. Thus Peter simply told Paul all about the resurrection when they first met in Jerusalem. Paul then simply passed on this good news to his early Christian communities, and hence to the Gospel authors. The Gospel authors then immortalized in their Gospels what Peter had told Paul about the resurrection .

This chain of events implies the resurrection accounts found in the Gospel are second-hand hearsay accounts, rather than first-hand eye witness accounts. “So what?” I hear Christians say. “Peter actually witnessed the resurrection, and both his and Paul’s credentials are impeccable. So effectively, the Gospel accounts of the Jerusalem resurrection are as close to being eye witness accounts as makes no difference”.

This is essentially the argument used by Habermas, a noted Christian scholar & apologist. In the video below, Habermas claims that we can believe the resurrection claims in the gospels because they are based on claims made by a very reliable eye witness [Peter] that are then relayed to the gospel authors via a very reliable intermediary [Paul].

Given the actual dating of the gospels, the chain of events suggested by Habermas is probably true, but what Habermas never addresses is the veracity of Peter’s original claims.  Because he believes the resurrection happened, Habermas tacitly assumes Peter told the truth. He has no choice because there is no other independent evidence available to verify the veracity of Peter’s claims. Peter’s claims are in fact both unsubstantiated claims & unverifiable claims.

So what if the resurrection  never happened? What if Peter simply lied to Paul about this Jerusalem resurrection? All Christian claims that the Gospels really are eye witness accounts, are thus based entirely on two tacit assumptions, the tacit assumption that the resurrection actually happened, and the tacit assumption that Peter told Paul the truth.  These tacit assumptions are Christianity’s unacknowledged Achilles heel. If there was no Jerusalem resurrection, and Peter simply lied to Paul when they first met, then Paul would never know Peter lied. Paul would, unknowingly, simply propagate Peter’s lies, and the Gospel authors would then,unknowingly, simply immortalize Peter’s lies in the ensuing Gospels.

So, simply by making two reasonable assumptions, one that the Gospels were written after the death of all concerned , and the other that Peter lied to Paul about the Jerusalem resurrection, it is possible to deny the resurrection and still explain the Gospel claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. All the other basic facts remain unchanged. Paul is still converted on the road to Damascus. Paul still visits Peter three years after this experience. Paul still leaves Jerusalem believing that Jesus is the son of God, and with his belief now turbo-charged by Peter’s news that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. Paul still passes on the good news to his early Christian communities. The unknown Gospel authors still propagate the good news in the ensuing Gospels and we still end up with Christianity and a New Testament. However,in this scenario, there is no need for any resurrection in Jerusalem.

Of course this is all pure speculation on my part, because we can never know for certain if Peter lied to Paul about the Jerusalem resurrection. However, this scenario  does better explain the known facts, and it does so without affecting the final outcome. My scenario not only explains the total lack of independent corroboration of this resurrection. It also explains the need to forge an entry in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. It also explains what Christians always fail to explain, namely why the alleged resurrection is portrayed in the Gospels as a near invisible event noticed only by a handful of Jews, despite the fact the resurrection allegedly occurred in a Jerusalem teeming with Jews. This is because the Gospel authors could only propagate in the Gospels what Paul told them when he established his early Christian communities. Paul summarizes this in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9.

517IsBb0cZL._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_Thus, the proper answer to the second question posed at the beginning of this post is

“Because Peter said Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem”

Christians tacitly assume Peter told the truth about the Jerusalem resurrection, but in The Christianity Myth, I assume Peter lied . If you want to know why Peter lied, you’ll have to read the book.


Click here to read it free of charge

Click here to return to main blog.