A Critique of Gary Habermas’ Fatally Flawed Argument

Gary Habermas is a Christian scholar, leading Christian apologist and he also stars in several U-Tube videos, including one called the resurrection evidence that changed current scholarship.

Habermas takes it for granted that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem and he spends an hour trying to convince us he’s right. His argument is based on the following events.

Event 1:     Jesus is resurrected in Jerusalem c 30 AD

Event 2:     Paul meets the resurrected Jesus c 32-33 AD

Event 3:     Paul visits Peter & James c 35-36 AD

Event 4:     Paul visits Peter, James & John c 49-50 AD

Event 5:     Paul writes Galatians c 54 AD

Event 6:     Paul writes 1-Corinthians c 55 AD

Event 7:     Mark’s gospel appears c 70 AD

Event 8:     Matthew’s gospel appears c 80 AD

Event 9:     Luke’s gospel appears c 85 AD

Event 10:    Acts of the Apostles appears c 90 AD

Event 11:    John’s gospel appears c 95 AD

All the above consensus dates are well established and well documented, based in part on evidence provided by Paul in Galatians and 1-Corinthians. In Galatians 1: 11-24 Paul tells us about his first meeting with other apostles c 35-36 AD, and in Galatians 2: 1-10 Paul tells us about his second meeting with other apostles fourteen years later. In 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9 Paul tells us what he learned from other apostles during his first visit to Jerusalem. Habermas claims that Galatians 2: 6 proves all the apostles, including Paul, were preaching the same gospel. Habermas also tells us that expert scholars now believe the basic gospel elements [simple creedal statements characterizes as deity, death & resurrection] could have been in circulation only six months after the alleged resurrection of Jesus c 30 AD.

Having now summarised Habermas’ argument [see video for details], let’s have a closer look at what he claims.

First he claims Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem c 30 AD. There is some scant independent evidence which suggests a historical Jesus was probably crucified in Jerusalem c 30 AD, but the only evidence for the alleged Jerusalem resurrection is that found in the New Testament itself. This NT evidence consists of three gospel accounts, all proclaiming the resurrected Jesus was  seen by numerous alleged eye witnesses [Mark doesn’t qualify because it was amended later for consistency]. Also, we have Paul’s testimony to this resurrection in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9 which states:

“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 Cephas [Peter], and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters 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”.

Now it’s a forgone conclusion that the late dating of the gospels [c 70-95 AD], more or less proves that the resurrection accounts found in these gospels must be second-hand hearsay accounts, based entirely on Paul’s above claims which he obviously made many times whilst establishing his many early “christian communities”[see also section below dealing with gospel dates].

The total lack of credible independent evidence does not bothered Christians. They claim the very existence of the gospels proves Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem, because their existence cannot be explained any other way. This claim has held true for centuries, despite numerous efforts to discredit it, but it is no longer a valid claim, because  the existence of these gospels no longer proves conclusively that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. For more details on this topic see earlier blogs called Why you cannot prove Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem and Was Jesus Resurrected in Jerusalem?.

Second he claims Paul met the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus c 32-33 AD. There’s no doubting Paul genuinely believed he met the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus. However, unlike Paul 2000 years ago, we now fully understand the true nature of Paul’s conversion experience and today we can explain it in a simple & rational manner. Today’s medical literature is full of similar conversion experiences, all of which, we now know are caused by psychotic hallucinations triggered by temporal lobe epilepsy. I’ve already dealt with this issue in greater detail in an earlier blog called Religiosity-Biology or Brain washing? Given today’s medical & scientific evidence, I think we can now safely assume that Paul did not meet the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus, not that Christians will ever agree of course.

Third he claims Paul visits Peter & James c 35-36 AD. Our knowledge of this first meeting comes from Galatians 1: 11-24, and in Galatians 1:18-19 Paul specifically says:

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 [This wording is taken from the N.I.V Bible].

So, having told us when & where this meeting happened, Paul tells us he stayed with Peter for 15 days & he also tells us that, at some point during this stay, he also met James. Paul doesn’t indicate when & how long James was present, and he says absolutely nothing about what actually transpired at this meeting. We have to infer what transpired at this first meeting, and today we now accept the obvious conclusion, namely that, at this meeting, Paul told Peter & James about his meeting with the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus c 35-36 AD, and Peter & James, in turn, told Paul about how they had witnessed the alleged resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem c 30 AD.

So Paul entered Jerusalem c 35-36 AD believing Jesus had been resurrected on the road to Damascus for his own personal benefit, and 15 days later, he left Jerusalem believing Jesus had also been resurrected in Jerusalem for the benefit of the apostles. Habermas works hard to suggest Paul deliberately visited Peter & James, to check out this Jerusalem resurrection. However, it’s doubtful Paul knew anything about this Jerusalem resurrection before he arrived in Jerusalem, and it’s thus reasonable to assume that Paul just accepted  Peter & James’ hearsay claims at face value. This would be a perfectly reasonable thing for Paul to do, given his own personal experience on the road to Damascus, and given the status of both Peter & James.

However, if we assume that Paul just accepted these hearsay claims at face value, we must address another significant problem, one that Habermas again fails to address. Paul specifically states in Galatians 1: 19 that he saw nobody else during his 15 day stay with Peter, so how do we now verify Peter & James’ 2000 year old hearsay claims? The answer is simple – we don’t, because we can’t.

Therefore, we are forced to accept that Peter & James’ claims about an alleged resurrection in Jerusalem are, at best, unverified & unverifiable claims, and at worst, they may be just downright lies. Why, you might ask, would Peter & possibly James [see next paragraph] deliberately choose to lie to Paul about an alleged Jerusalem resurrection that never happened? Well, if you read The Christianity Myth you’ll find out.

Galatians 1: 19 also raises another issue not addressed by Habermas. In this verse, Paul specifically says he saw none of the other apostles, only James, the Lord’s brother. Now given the alleged circumstances surrounding this 15 day stay with Peter, Paul’s claims seem very unusual. we know the alleged resurrection occurred only 5-6 years earlier, and we know it was allegedly witnessed by over 600 people, most of whom were presumably still living in Jerusalem, and many of whom were now probably members of the alleged early Jerusalem church allegedly led by Peter & by James. Under these circumstances, it seems incredible that Paul saw none of the other apostles & none of the many alleged witnesses. However, if the alleged resurrection never actually happened, then this state of affairs would be perfectly acceptable. One is then left wondering whether Paul really did meet James at this meeting. The belated reference to James could so easily be just a simple interpolation, added later to obviate any suggestion that Paul met only Peter at this first meeting. A simple 1:1 meeting without any witnesses would weaken the orthodox model of Christianity significantly.

Now according to  Wikipedia, the earliest reasonably complete version of Galatians dates to approximately 200 AD, approximately 150 years after the original was presumably drafted. This papyrus is fragmented in a few areas, causing some of the original text to be missing but according to the Wikipedia entry, scholars can be rather certain about what the original text probably said. This state of affairs leaves plenty of scope for somebody to add this potential interpolation sometime during that first 150 years. The motive is obvious. Without this belated reference to James, this meeting becomes a simple 1:1 meeting with no other witnesses. In which case, it’s not unreasonable to consider a scenario in which there was no resurrection, no eye witnesses and no James to worry about. In this alternative scenario, Paul would still meet with Peter, but there would be no other witnesses, and verse 19 would simply say “I saw none of the other apostles“. Purely speculative of course but it would make more sense. However, I’m not expecting the Christian mindset to pursue this possibility any time soon.

Fourth he claims Paul visits Peter, James & John c 49-50 AD. Galatians 2: 1-10 deals with Paul’s second encounter with other apostles, and it confirms that this time Paul met with Peter, James & John. Habermas claims Galatians 2: 6 also proves all four apostles were preaching exactly the same gospel. The N.I.V version of Galatians 2: 6 states:

As for those who seemed to be important —whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message“.

In this short verse, Paul is effectively saying “As for those who seemed to be important – all probably Jews but I don’t care – those men added nothing to my message”. Habermas maintains the phrase “those men added nothing to my message” [he actually uses the phrase “they added nothing to me”] means that Peter, James & John had nothing new to add to Paul’s message. However, Habermas’ interpretation totally ignores the tensions existing between Paul and the other apostles. These tensions, all centred round the relevance of circumcision and the Jewish law, are a common theme found in Paul’s epistles.

For example, in Galatians 2:14-16 Paul says

“When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas [Peter] in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.”

And later, in Galatians 5:2-6, Paul also says

 “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love”.

 [Being justified refers to the state of being alright in God’s eyes]

And in Philippians 3: 1-3 Paul warns:

“Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh”.

Other instances confirming these tensions between Paul & the other apostles, include Galatians 2: 1-5, Galatians 3: 1-5, Galatians 3: 11-13, Galatians 3: 23-25, Galatians 5: 11, Galatians 6: 11-15, 1-Corinthians 7: 17-20, Romans 2: 25-27, Titus 1: 10-11 and Titus 3: 8-11. [Titus was one of Paul’s cohorts & Titus is not one of the seven genuine Pauline epistles].

These tensions all point to the existence of essential differences between Paul’s message & the message being preached by the other apostles. Paul had a universal message, which he aimed at Jews & Gentiles alike, and Paul believed Jesus was the son of God, sent to save mankind. The other apostles believed Jesus was the long awaited Jewish Messiah, sent by a Jewish God to save the Jewish people. According to these other Apostles, only circumcised Jews, and those prepared to be circumcised and become Jews, could be saved, and then only if they obeyed the Jewish law.

Again Habermas totally ignores these obvious tensions, and he does so because he wants to interpret the phrase “they added nothing to me” as meaning Peter, James & John had nothing new to add to Paul’s message. However, in the light of these tensions between Paul & the other apostles, a more logical interpretation of “they added nothing to me” would be Peter, James & John had nothing relevant to add to Paul’s message. Habermas is thus cherry picking his data to prove what he wants to prove, & he seems blind to this more rational interpretation of Galatians 2:6. This is not really surprising, because apologists are renowned for their habit of letting their own emotional needs cloud their intellectual objectivity.

Claims 5-11 – Dating of Canonical Gospels & Relevant Epistles. 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 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 totally oblivious of this point, but then most Christians know little or nothing about the origins of their faith.

If we accept the gospel resurrection claims are based on Paul’s claims in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-9, then we must also accept that these same gospels claims are based entirely on Peter’s [& possibly James’] unverified hearsay claims, made in Jerusalem some 5-6 years after the alleged resurrection. As indicated earlier [see section dealing with Habermas’ third point], at best, this means the resurrection claims found in the gospels are based on unverifiable claims, and at worst, it means these resurrection claims could be based on downright lies.

Christianity also fails to explain the existence of the gospel gap, a problem that has plagued Christianity for centuries. The gospel gap is the 40-65 year gap between the alleged resurrection c 30 AD and the appearance of the four canonical gospels c 70-95 AD. Scholars & apologists readily acknowledge the existence of this gospel gap, but so far none have successfully explained its existence.

Given the above weaknesses of the orthodox model of Christianity, and its abject failure to answer many other obvious questions, perhaps the time has now come to discard the old orthodox model and embrace a new revised model that rectifies most, if not all, of these problems. Christians will never do this of course, because it means accepting a very unwelcome truth about the alleged resurrection, and for Christians at least, this is definitely a bridge too far . However, for those able to bring a little more objectivity to the table, my revised model of first century Christianity may prove more satisfying intellectually.

Details of this revised model can be found in an earlier blog called The Christianity Myth. I would also recommend reading Professor Taboo’s excellent in depth examination of Paul’s pivotal role in the development of early Christianity, especially his section called “The Gospel Jesus v The Jewish Jesus” which can be found in Saul the Apostate Intro to Part 2.

And finally, a few comments triggered by Habermas’ closing comments about a very early “deity, death, resurrection” gospel message, and his claim that this gospel message was being preached by all apostles more or less immediately after the alleged resurrection. My understanding is that the alleged “true nature of Jesus”, the one now portrayed in Nicene Christianity, took some considerable time to evolve. The fluidity of early ideas about Jesus’ true nature manifests itself in the four canonical gospels which were only adopted sometime after the first Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Mark’s gospel c 70 AD portrays Jesus as a simple envoy sent to warn of the impending apocalypse. Matthew’s gospel c 80 AD & Luke’s gospel c 85 AD both upgrade Jesus to the son of God, born of a virgin, and John’s gospel c 95 AD elevates Jesus to God, the word made flesh. How all this ties in with Habermas’ claims eludes me.

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.

Conclusions                          

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.

 

Featured

The Christianity Myth

517IsBb0cZL._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_

This updated version of The Christianity Myth explains how Christianity really started, explains why divine interventions are totally unnecessary and explains why we now have four Gospels proclaiming a Jerusalem resurrection that never happened.

It concludes with a simple counter argument that completely destroys the veracity of Gary Habermas’ current argument that the Gospel evidence can be trusted.

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

 Introduction

This quick & easy cogent read offers a decent overview of first century Christianity and it challenges the central tenet of Christianity, namely Christian claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. The book also explains why we now have four New Testament Gospels proclaiming a Jerusalem resurrection that never happened. It’s a unique explanation that is fully compatible with the “sympathetic manner” advocated by J. N. D. Anderson in his now classic analysis of resurrection conspiracy theories. The book also challenges that small but significant group of people who claim Jesus never existed. These Jesus deniers go to great lengths to devise complicated, alternative models of early Christianity, all of which are designed to explain both the paucity of contemporaneous records, and the real purpose of the gospels. The book concludes with an argument that demonstrates why Gary Habermas’ argument is not as solid as he maintains.

Christians will find this a very challenging read, but those able to bring more objectivity to the table should find the read both interesting & informative. This blog is actually a revised & updated transcript of a book published in 2014. It gathers together all factual information relevant to the alleged Jerusalem resurrection, and it establishes a relevant timeline. Other far more knowledgeable authors have already done this, and done it in far greater detail, but this unique book does what most of these other authors fail to do. It examines the authenticity and the veracity of the assembled data to see if it will withstand close scrutiny. It then uses the results of this close scrutiny to ascertain what really happened 2000 years ago. The primary goal of this book is not to reinforce existing orthodox dogma, nor to maintain the existing status quo. The primary goal of the unique book is to ascertain the real reason why, 2000 years ago, many people came to believe Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem.

I confess I’m neither a trained theologian nor a classical biblical scholar, but thirty years working in research & development has equipped me with the research skills needed to put first century Christianity under the microscope. I’m probably better qualified to do this than all theologians and most biblical scholars, because, unlike them, I have no personal emotional need to preserve the status quo. My complete emotional detachment, and my professional awareness of the dangers posed by confirmational bias, ensured I remained totally objective throughout my investigation.

The 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? After detailed scrutiny of all the relevant data, I conclude we can explain the origins of Christianity without resorting to divine intervention. This radical and more pragmatic explanation of what really happened 2000 years ago, challenges the very veracity of Christian claims that Jesus is the son of god, and it does so, because it explains the origins of Christianity without any need to believe in gods and without any need for divine intervention from said gods. The outdated super naturalism of the 2000 year old orthodox version of events is simply discarded and replaced with a refreshing dose of simple pragmatism. The end result is a simpler, no nonsense explanation of how Christianity really started.

A few housekeeping notes before I continue:

  • This blog is an updated transcript of a very contentious book published in 2014. The revised transcript takes several hours to read, but those seeking intellectual enlightenment rather than emotional gratification, will find it’s well worth the effort. If it’s not convenient to read this blog right now, just bookmark it for latter.
  • Throughout this revised transcript, I deliberately use the terms historical-Jesus and Gospel-Jesus to minimise confusion.
  • All cited biblical passages are taken from the N.I.V Bible.
  • Coloured text are hyperlinks – click on them for more information.
  • Bracketed numbers [x] are references in the reference section.

The Journey Begins

Many people claim Christianity is based on incontrovertible evidence that has survived the test of time. Others claim Christianity is just a myth-based fantasy aimed at the gullible. At the start of 2012, I was a life-long indifferent agnostic who saw Christianity as something intriguing and potentially satisfying, yet not totally convincing. Most of my early life was spent ignoring Christianity, and most of my later life was spent paying lip service to its existence. I 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.

Then, 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 also hoped my new found knowledge would finally persuade me to become a Christian. Unfortunately, it didn’t work. Instead, a slightly informed church-going agnostic ended up as a much better informed church-going atheist.

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 soon learned that neither the Gospels nor Paul’s epistles are presented in chronological order. Paul’s epistles are in fact presented in length order rather than chronological order. This sounded a little strange, so 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. In short, you need to be constantly aware of confirmational bias. This is a tendency, often an unconscious tendency, to automatically favour anything that strengthens your existing view, and to automatically reject/ignore anything that opposes your existing view.

Confirmational bias is a potential problem in any research, but it is an endemic problem in research associated with emotive subjects like religion. A typical example of conformational bias can be found on page 165 of Jim Wallace’s book Cold Case Christianity. In a section headed “Paul Quoted Luke’s Gospel In His Letter To The Corinthians” Wallace compares two almost identical accounts of the Eucharist [Lord’s Supper], one found in 1-Corinthians written by Paul, the other found in Luke’s Gospel. Without any justification whatsoever, Wallace simply claims Paul must have copied an earlier Luke, and in doing so, Wallace totally ignores the fact that the accepted dating of these two scripts indicates that Luke must have copied an earlier Paul. Wallace simply ignores all this because he wants  to “prove” Luke’s Gospel predates Paul’s 1-Corinthians, and he does it blatantly, knowing that the vast majority of his uninformed Christian readers will swallow it.

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.

Searching for Jesus

Over two billion Christians believe Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, but the question “Did Jesus ever exist, and if he did, was he the divine being described in the Gospels?” is still being hotly debated 2000 years later. 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 CE, 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 CE, 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 CE. Pliny the Younger (c 61-c 112 CE) 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 CE. 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 Roman Empire, when Islam first came into being early in the 7th century CE.

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 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 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?

The Jerusalem 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 CE 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.

Paul’s Conversion

By now, 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.

The God Module…….

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.

The Crucial Encounter…

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 claims he didn’t even know Jesus, and he claims he never met 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 CE. 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 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 says he stayed 15 days with Peter and during this stay he claims he met Jesus’ brother James.

However, Paul doesn’t indicate when exactly James was present, or how long he stayed, and he says absolutely nothing about what actually transpired at this meeting. We are just left to infer what happened at this first meeting, and today we now accept the obvious conclusion, namely, that at this meeting, Paul told Peter & James about his meeting with the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus three years earlier, and Peter & James, in turn, told Paul about how they had witnessed the alleged resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem c 30 CE. We assume Paul knew nothing about this Jerusalem resurrection before he arrived in Jerusalem, and we also assume Paul just accepted Peter & James’ hearsay claims at face value. This would be a perfectly reasonable thing for Paul to do, given his own personal experience on the road to Damascus, and given the status of both Peter & James.

 So, contrary to what I originally thought, Paul’s claims in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9, are not based on actual first-hand knowledge of the Jerusalem resurrection. They are based entirely, on what he learned from Peter & James when they first met in Jerusalem. I later learned that more knowledgeable Christians readily accept this fact. My eventual recognition of the true significance of 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9 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 & James tell Paul that he had been resurrected? Did they just lie to Paul about this resurrection? If so, why did they do it? My investigation was obviously not going any further until I could answer these questions. I needed to explain why Peter & James would deliberately conspire to deceive Paul by lying to him about a Jerusalem resurrection that never happened.

Complex Conspiracy or Simple Interpolation?

Explaining this possible conspiracy proved to be a very intractable problem with no obvious solution, and I was on the point of giving up & accepting I must be wrong, when I suddenly realised that only one thing was dictating my need to consider potential conspiracy theories. This one thing was Paul’s simple claim that he met James whilst staying with Peter.

In Galatians 1: 18-19 Paul specifically states:

“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”.

Casual readers probably wouldn’t attach much significance to that last simple phrase “only James, the Lord’s brother“.  Initially, I thought it was just a simple after thought. However, on further reflection, I realised it was probably one of the most significant phrases in the New Testament, because without it, Paul’s first meeting with Peter reverts to a simple 1:1 meeting without witnesses. This would mean Paul’s entire knowledge of the alleged resurrection in Jerusalem was based on one man’s uncorroborated and unsubstantiated hearsay claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. This uncomfortable fact, if true, would be extremely embarrassing for Christians, and very awkward for Christianity, because it would seriously undermine Christianity’s credentials, and further weaken an already weak orthodox model of Christianity.

This simple phrase “only James, the Lord’s brother” is not only highly significant, it’s also extremely convenient both for Christians and Christianity, so convenient  in fact, that I began to suspect it’s authenticity. On further refection, I eventually concluded that Paul’s claim that he met James but none of the other apostles is actually very surprising, given this meeting actually occurred in Jerusalem only 5-6 years after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. According to Christians, this supernatural event was allegedly witnessed by over 500 people, including by Peter, James and the other apostles, and presumably most of these alleged witnesses were still living in Jerusalem at the time of Paul’s visit. Many of these alleged witnesses were also presumably now members of the early Jerusalem church led by Peter & by James. Under these circumstances, Paul’s claim that he saw no one other than Peter & James during his 15 day stay in Jerusalem seems incredible, so incredible in fact, that I began to wonder whether Paul really did see James during his stay with Peter.

If you combine the enormous significance and enormous convenience of that simple phrase “only James, the Lord’s brother” with the ease with which it could have been inserted sometime later, and then add in this surprising lack of visitors throughout Paul’s 15 day stay with Peter, then in my opinion, you have more than enough reason to start questioning the authenticity of this simple phrase, and thus, to start querying James’ presence at this meeting. As it turned out, this speculative interpolation idea is well within the bounds of possibility, because our earliest reasonably complete version of Galatians dates to approximately 200 CE. This leaves 150 years for someone to add a simple interpolation designed to obviate any suggestion that Peter & Paul’s first meeting was a simple 1:1 meeting with no witnesses. There’s already been considerable debate concerning possible interpolations in Galatians 1:19, but so far, this debate has focused entirely on querying the identity of James, rather than questioning his presence at this first meeting. As indicated earlier, it’s obviously not in Christianity’s interest to query James’ presence at this first meeting. Christianity, therefore, has no incentive to recognize this interpolation, and certainly no wish to acknowledge it.

However, the surprising lack of visitors, the transforming nature of that second statement, its extreme convenience and the ease with which it could have been inserted into the text anytime during that 150 year time gap, all suggest this simple phrase “only James, the Lord’s brother” is indeed just a simple interpolation designed to rectify what, for early theologians/scholars, was a very awkward situation. Once this problem was recognised, it was probably only a matter of time before someone was tempted to add this simple interpolation. Having James as a single solitary witness to this first critical meeting in Jerusalem, was obviously not ideal, but it had to do, because restrictions imposed by Paul left them with no choice. Paul had already dictated who witnessed this alleged resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-9.

“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”.

Paul had also specifically stated in Galatians 1: 19 that he met none of these other apostles.

“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“.

Those wishing to engineer this critical interpolation were thus faced with Hobson’s choice. A simple process of elimination left James as the only other potential candidate to “act as a witness” at this crucial meeting.

[It’s worth noting at this point, that the total absence of visitors, including James, during Paul’s 15 day stay with Peter, is exactly what one would expect following the crucifixion of the historical-Jesus, because in this alternative scenario, there would be no resurrection to witness, and hence no witnesses and no visitors to worry about].

So who could have engineered this simple yet crucial interpolation? We know Paul died c 65 CE, and most early interest in Jesus, would almost certainly have focused on the newly emerging gospels rather than Paul & his epistles. I also think  any early interest in Paul’s epistles, would almost certainly have focused on the meaning & significance of Paul’s resurrection claims, rather than on the details of Paul’s movements. Therefore I think we can safely eliminate the second half of the first century, and restrict our search to the second century. It would also be logical to focus our attention on the first half of this century, because this suspected interpolation would then have been far easier to engineer. There would have been far fewer, if any, “unmodified examples” of Paul’s epistles in general circulation in the first half of the second century.

Enter Marcion. If anyone in the first half of the second century was going to “modify” Galatians 1: 19 it was almost certainly Marcion. He joined the Roman church c 135-140 CE and declared Christianity was a distinct from in opposition to Judaism. Marcion believed Jesus was the savior sent by the newly established Christian God, and Paul the Apostle was Christ’s only true apostle. He rejected the Hebrew Bible and saw the wrathful God of Israel as a lower entity. Marcion’s ideology was defined by his canon [thought to be the earliest cannon] which consisted of ten Pauline epistles and an edited version of Luke’s gospel. Conflicts soon arose and Marcion was eventually excommunicated in 144 CE. Marcionism was denounced as heresy and his writings are now lost, but we can deduce a large part of ancient Marcionism using what later critics, especially Tertullian, said about Marcion and his heretical ideas.

We accept Marcion drastically edited Luke’s gospel to better fit his radical new ideology. Presumably he did this to edit out everything relating to Judaism. In doing so, he demonstrated his cavalier attitude to inconvenient facts. Also he was very well versed in Paul’s epistles, and I think we can safely assume he was almost certainly the first one to recognize the existence of this problem in Galatians 1:19. He was also one of the few people knowledgeable enough to fix it. So, in my opinion, Marcion was definitely the right man, in the right place, at the right time, albeit with the wrong attitude and the wrong motives.

So, to the already existing good reasons for believing it was the historical-Jesus who was crucified in Jerusalem, and to the already existing good reasons for believing Paul just hallucinated on the road to Damascus, we can now add the newly developed equally good reasons for believing Peter and Paul’s first meeting in Jerusalem c 36 CE was a just simple 1:1 meeting without witnesses. Combining all three of these very rational beliefs, with the universal acceptance, that Paul’s entire knowledge of the alleged Jerusalem resurrection was derived directly from Peter at this meeting, leads to a fairly obvious conclusion,namely that Peter must have lied to Paul about this alleged Jerusalem resurrection. Christians howling in protest at this outrageous suggestion should note that we end up with Christianity and the associated New Testament, regardless of the veracity of Peter’s claims. I will revisit and further develop this very contentious statement later.

A Simple Lie that Changed the World

Claiming Peter lied to Paul simply because it was the logical thing to do, was never going to convince Christians. It may be a logical conclusion, given the assembled evidence, but what I needed was evidence to prove Peter lied to Paul. The problem was, there was no evidence he lied. Before sighing with relief, Christians should also note the complete lack of reliable independent evidence to prove Peter didn’t lie to Paul. [I’m ignoring the so called “evidence found in the gospels” for reasons that become apparent later]. For now, I’ll just point out that Christianity takes the alleged Jerusalem resurrection as a given, and then tacitly assumes Peter told the truth. There’s no reliable independent evidence to support this unacknowledged tacit assumption, and most Christians don’t even realise their world view is based entirely on it. This is yet another outrageous claim that I revisit later.

So, let’s return to the current problem, and look at why I think Peter lied to Paul about a Jerusalem resurrection that never happened. Explaining this in a rational manner proved to be yet another tough nut to crack. I obviously needed a simple solid explanation that was both plausible and rational. Eventually I concluded that most lies are triggered by simple self preservation and/or simple personal gain. However, in this particular case, here I was, actually questioning the integrity of one of Jesus’ main apostles, a man regarded by Christians as a paragon of virtue. Obviously my accusing Peter of lying to Paul was never going to end well, but then the penny suddenly dropped yet again. I realised I was making the same mistake everyone makes. I was looking at the situation from the top down instead of from the bottom up. Was Peter really the paragon of virtue portrayed by orthodox Christianity when viewed from the bottom up? Remember, we are now considering events in Jerusalem just three years after Paul’s Damascus road experience, and only 5-6 years after the alleged resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem. At this particular point in time, we are not talking about Peter the patron saint of the Roman Catholic Church. We are talking about Peter the Jew, a man living in Jerusalem just a few years after the crucifixion of the historical-Jesus, and a man who believed this Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. We are in fact talking about an unsophisticated, illiterate, peasant fisherman from Galilee [not derogatory, just fact], someone who had recently been propelled by circumstances, into a position of unexpected power and authority, and who was now probably enjoying 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 thrice 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 yet again unconsciously looking at the problem from the usual top-down perspective, the one everybody automatically defaults to without realising it. This top-down perspective invariably clouds the issue, because it forces one to view things, albeit unconsciously, through the lens of orthodox Christianity. 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 these 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.

My claim that Peter lied to Paul about the Jerusalem resurrection may be pure speculation on my part, but this speculative claim is completely compatible with all the known facts. We know Paul entered Jerusalem c 35-36 CE believing Jesus had been resurrected on the road to Damascus for his own personal benefit, and we know that 15 days later, he left Jerusalem believing Jesus had also been resurrected in Jerusalem c 30 CE for the benefit of the other apostles and many others. As I implied earlier, it doesn’t matter whether Peter lied about the resurrection in Jerusalem or told the truth. As long as Paul left Jerusalem actually believing Jesus had been resurrected in Jerusalem then the final outcome is the same either way. Orthodox Christianity never questions the veracity of Peter’s resurrection claims. It just takes the Jerusalem resurrection as a given, and simply takes it for granted that Peter didn’t lie about this alleged resurrection. However, we have nothing that corroborates Peter’s hearsay claims, and there’s no records of what actually transpired at Peter & Paul’s first meeting. Everything pertaining to this critical first meeting in Jerusalem is based entirely on speculative suppositions, be it the orthodox speculative supposition that Peter told the truth about the alleged resurrection in Jerusalem, or be it my alternative unorthodox speculative supposition that he lied about this alleged resurrection.

So was Jesus resurrected in Jerusalem as Peter claimed, or did Peter just lie to Paul? Obviously, I can’t prove my speculative supposition that Peter lied, anymore than Christians can prove their speculative supposition that he didn’t. Nor can I prove my speculative supposition that it was the historical-Jesus who was crucified in Jerusalem, nor my speculative supposition about the lack of witnesses to this critical first meeting in Jerusalem. However, I can point out that all my speculative suppositions are totally compatible with the facts, including the complete lack of any reliable independent evidence supporting Christian claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. Peter’s extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence to back them up, but all Christians offer is the evidence found in the New Testament itself, which I discount as irrelevant for reasons that become apparent later [see the Gospel Period section]. So we are left with a simple choice. We can chose to believe only what can be proved or rationally deduced, or we can chose to believe only what we want to believe.

Those who need to believe Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem [Heart-Christians] will no doubt reject all three of my alternative speculative suppositions out of hand, but those who just think/assume Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem [Head-Christians] may now want to reconsider whether they wish to continue subscribing to a world view that is effectively based on uncorroborated & unverified hearsay claims, made 2000 years ago by a peasant fisherman from Galilee, claims, which Paul simply accepted at face value, because they resonated with his own personal psychotic experience on the road to Damascus. Simply put, Peter convinced Paul that Jesus had been resurrected in Jerusalem and Paul then convinced the world……….this “Christianity Myth” subsequently proved to be the most successful myth ever created.

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 CE. This brief period, sandwiched as it was between the crucifixion of the historical-Jesus in Jerusalem c 30 CE, and the appearance of the first gospels c 70 CE, 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 more radical 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 mainly 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.

Conflicting Agendas

Orthodox Christian dogma would have us believe Paul preached the same gospel message as the other twelve Apostles, and also have us believe they were all equally responsible for spreading early Christianity. However, in Galatians 2:1-10 Paul describes his second meeting with other apostles as follows:

“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—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”

In this passage, Paul confirms he met with Peter, James & John and he also implies there were issues concerning circumcision. In Galatians 2: 6 Paul specifically states

As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message”.

In this short verse, Paul is effectively saying “As for those who seemed to be important – all probably circumcised Jews but I don’t care – those men added nothing to my message”.

Christian apologists like Gary Habermas claim that Galatians 2: 6 actually proves Paul and the other Apostles were preaching exactly the same gospel message. According to these apologists, the phrase “those men added nothing to my message” [Habermas actually uses the phrase “they added nothing to me”] means Peter, James & John had nothing new to add to Paul’s message, thus proving Paul was preaching the same gospel as Peter, James & John. However, this interpretation totally ignores the tensions existing between Paul and the other apostles. These tensions relate to differences of opinion concerning the relevance of circumcision and the Jewish law, and they are a common theme running throughout Paul’s epistles.

For example, in Galatians 2:14-16 Paul says

 “When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas [Peter] in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.”

And later, in Galatians 5:2-6, Paul says

 “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love”.

[The term justified, found in both the above passages, refers to a state of being alright in God’s eyes]

And in Philippians 3: 1-3 Paul warns:

 “Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh”.

Other instances confirming these tensions between Paul & the other apostles, include Galatians 2: 1-5, Galatians 3: 1-5, Galatians 3: 11-13, Galatians 3: 23-25, Galatians 5: 11, Galatians 6: 11-15, 1-Corinthians 7: 17-20, Romans 2: 25-27, Titus 1: 10-11 and Titus 3: 8-11. [Titus was one of Paul’s cohorts & Titus is not one of the seven genuine Pauline epistles].

These tensions all point to the existence of essential differences between Paul’s message & the message being preached by the other apostles. Paul had a universal message, which he aimed at Jews & Gentiles alike, and Paul believed Jesus was the son of God, sent to save mankind. The other apostles believed Jesus was the long awaited Jewish Messiah, sent by a Jewish God to save the Jewish people. According to these other Apostles, only circumcised Jews, and those prepared to be circumcised and become Jews, could be saved, and then only if they obeyed the Jewish law.

However, Christian apologists totally ignore these obvious tensions, and they do so because they wants to interpret the phrase “they added nothing to me” as meaning Peter, James & John had nothing new to add to Paul’s message. However, in the light of these tensions between Paul & the other apostles, a more logical interpretation of “they added nothing to me” would be Peter, James & John had nothing relevant to add to Paul’s message. This alternative & more appropriate interpretation of Galatians 2:6 is obviously completely unseen by those blinded by emotional needs to believe the alleged Jerusalem resurrection actually happened. This is not really surprising, because Christian apologists often let their own emotional needs cloud their intellectual objectivity.

Just Simple Arithmetic

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 CE.

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 claims he met Jesus’ brother James. This first visit has already been addressed in more detail in preceding sections.

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 CE, so that Paul could compare notes with Peter, James & John, and discuss  the relevance of both circumcision and the Jewish law. Again this second visit has already been addressed in more detail in  preceding sections.

We know the Council of Jerusalem was convened c 50 CE. 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 CE. 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 CE or earlier. We also know that scholars have concluded that Jesus was most probably crucified, either at Easter in 30 CE, or at Easter in 33 CE. A 33 CE crucifixion gives Paul little or no time to persecute followers of Jesus. Therefore, the crucifixion most probably occurred in 30 CE.

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 CE, 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 CE, 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 one 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 CE. 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 people eventually rejected the Messianic Jesus advocated by Peter and the other Apostles. Certainly, all ideas of a Messianic Jesus died out completely shortly after the sacking of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. Jews 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 orthodox Christianity would have us believe, but as Jews who still believed that Jesus was their Jewish Messiah.

Paul’s radical views about Jesus, and his ideas about the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem, were not well received by his fellow Jews in the Levant. Eventually, therefore, Paul abandoned all hope of converting his fellow Jews, and he took his radical new ideas to the Gentiles in the pagan world. Many in the pagan world were happy to accept Paul’s new message, and Paul eventually managed to seed several early “Christian” communities, all of which were based on Paul’s Christian God concept, and the concept of Jesus as the son of this Christian God. The eventual spread of these new concepts 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.

After failing  to agree at the Council of Jerusalem c 50 CE, Paul and the other apostles agreed to go their own separate ways, with Peter, James & John continuing to minister unto the Jews, and Paul continuing to minister unto the Gentiles [non-Jews]. This state of affairs continued until Peter and Paul died in the mid 60’s CE. 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, including John & Jesus’ brother James,  were dead.

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 CE. 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, both in Jerusalem as Peter claimed, and on the road to Damascus for his personal benefit. I was also, by now, more or less convinced that Peter lied to Paul about this Jerusalem resurrection, and that he did so simply to preserve his newly acquired position of authority and the associated comfortable 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 40 years after the crucifixion, and wait 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 simple –  there was nothing to record. Alright, a radical Jewish trouble-maker called Jesus [the historical-Jesus] was crucified in Jerusalem c 30 CE, 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 CE, to the appearance of the Mark’s Gospel, c 70 CE. 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. 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 40 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.

Where There’s a Will…

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 feasible 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. One of these main source 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 CE, 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. Yet 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). However, at this point, it’s important  to note that the Jewish scriptures make no direct reference to Jesus. Early Christians appear to have simply mangled and twisted passages like Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53, and Psalm 22 to fit their emerging theology.

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 both 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.

Why Re-invent the Wheel?

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 CE.  Christians 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”.

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 Paul’s new pagan converts would, therefore, have belonged to a totally different mindset, one that embraced super naturalism on a daily basis, and one that regarded mythical deities, demigods and virgin births etc as normal. Under these circumstances, it was probably inevitable, that some pagan influences spilled over into the still evolving, monotheistic spin-off from Judaism, that we now call Christianity. Apart from anything else, Paul’s newly converted pagans would probably have expected it. They would certainly have been very relaxed about Paul’s claims that a man called Jesus had been resurrected from the dead in far off Jerusalem. There is also a possibility that some of these early pagan converts failed to fully appreciate that Paul’s newly introduced Jesus was suppose to be the son of the one true god, Paul’s god, the Jewish god, soon to be the Christian god. Some new converts may have failed to pick up on this radical new concept, and initially at least, thought he was the son of one of the many deities already inhabiting their pantheistic world. It’s a mute point, and any potential early misunderstandings would soon have been rectified. Paul’s radical new concept of Jesus, as the one and only son of the one and only true god, was certainly well & truly established throughout the Roman empire by 400 CE.

So, to my already existing suppositions, I now felt able to add a another supposition, namely an assertion that all four New Testament gospels were, of necessity, deliberately fabricated by members of Paul’s early Christian communities. How much influence, if any, Mithraism actually did have on the ensuing fabricated Gospels, is debatable, and trying to assess the extent of any pagan influence, 2000 years later, is always going to be difficult. We will never know for sure, how much of fledgling Christianity was actually derived from the already existing pagan rivals, so there will always be a question mark around this issue of pagan influence. Christians maintain Mithraism had zero influence on newly emerging Christianity, and some more desperate Christians, even suggest it was the other way round, but in so doing, they just demonstrate their abject ignorance. However, in my opinion, a certain amount of cross fertilisation of ideas was inevitable. Proving it, however, is another matter entirely. Today, after centuries of cultural brainwashing by the Christian Church, we conveniently forget that, 2000 years ago, Christianity, and what we now call paganism, did actually share a common heritage.

The Canonized Gospel

I was, by now, entirely persuaded that sufficiently motivated, creative writers, who actually believed Jesus was the son of God, would have had little difficulty fabricating suitable stories for the benefit of these newly converted, 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 the post-resurrection sighting details found in the canonized Gospels are all extremely similar in nature. Of necessity, these alleged post-resurrection sightings were all based on the limited details provided by Paul in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9. This sparse information, all of which originated from Peter, explains why all Gospels portray the resurrection as a near invisible event noticed only by a handful of Jews. The common need to fabricate Jesus’ life-story 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 CE-c 100 CE] would have been honest attempts, by leaders of recently converted pagans, to provide 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 CE). 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 CE, 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 CE, 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 eventually, four of these versions were 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, two years later, a committed atheist  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 CE-c 70 CE] was a period of fluidity and rapid change, during which Jesus’ real identity was hotly disputed. Initially, throughout the pagan world we had Paul’s newly established “early Christian communities” consisting of both Jewish and Gentile followers of a more conventional “Christian Jesus”, and in Jerusalem we had a community of Jewish followers of a “Messianic Jesus”, led by Peter and by James. Over the next few decades, these Jewish followers in Jerusalem gradually realised that Jesus was not their prophesied Jewish Messiah, sent by a Jewish god to save the Jewish people. He fulfilled none of the prophesied criteria, and the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE eventually made that abundantly clear. Jesus had already been rejected as a common criminal by most Jews, and eventually he was rejected even by these Jewish Jesus followers.  As these Jewish followers of a Messianic Jesus in Jerusalem gradually died out, and as Paul’s new and more radical notion of Jesus as the son of god, sent to earth to save mankind, gradually filtered back to Jerusalem from Paul’s newly established communities in the pagan world, the early Jewish Jerusalem Church gradually morphed into a more conventional “Christian Church”. This Jewish to Christian transition was probably complete by the end of that first century.  

In the second half of that first century CE, 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. 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 CE, 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 CE. 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.  According to these scholars, 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 stories, fabricated in good faith for very good reasons, that simply record what the authors of these Gospels, genuinely believed happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

Time to Choose – Old or New? 

Before comparing my revised model of Christianity with the 2000 year old orthodox model, I’d like to point out that a small but significant group of intellectuals actually question whether Jesus ever existed. They seem to be very perturbed by the scarcity of first century records and the paucity of second century ones. However, I don’t share their concern, because the non existence of evidence is not evidence of non existence, especially when this non existence of evidence is to be expected. The “lack of evidence” is exactly what one should expect given the nature of the beast. In 50 CE the nascent Jesus movement was too insignificant to register on the radar screen of anyone outside its influence. By 100 CE this new Jesus movement was beginning to attract a little interest, and by 150 CE, it was registering on a few radar screens. By  200 CE, this now far more significant Jesus movement, was attracting far more attention from those outside its influence.

These Jesus deniers [mythicists] have suggested numerous alternative explanations/models, usually fairly complex in nature, and all designed to explain both the paucity of early contemporaneous data, and what they claim is the real purpose of the gospels. One of the best Jesus-denier alternatives can be found in a book called Deciphering the Gospels by R. G. Price. These Jesus-denier alternatives usually require a lot of effort & some prior knowledge to fully understand, and my response to all of them is simple. Why buy a new wheel, when you can fix the old one?

So first let’s look closely at this “old wheel” and then look at how it can be fixed.  The 2000 year old orthodox model was developed in a pagan world that willingly embraced the supernatural to explain what they couldn’t otherwise explain. It can be  defined by the following seven orthodox claims:

  • 1.The Gospel-Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem.
  • 2. Paul interpreted his conversion experience correctly.
  • 3. Galatians 1:18-19 is totally authentic.
  • 4. Peter did not lie to Paul about the resurrection in Jerusalem.
  • 5. Paul & the other Apostles were all on the same page.
  • 6. The gospel resurrection accounts are all based on Peter’s eye witness evidence.
  • 7. The Gospel evidence can be trusted.

Christians should note that all seven orthodox claims are really just unacknowledged suppositions masquerading as the truth. In support of this outrageous suggestion, I offer the following observations:

  • 1. The assertion that Jesus was resurrected is based entirely on Peter’s unverified claims.  Don’t take my word for it. Watch Habermas himself argue this, but please note, at no stage in his presentation does Habermas actually question the veracity of Peter’s resurrection claims. His starting premise is the resurrection happened. He then links the gospel evidence back to Peter’s original claims, citing Paul as the reliable intermediary. Because he takes the resurrection as a given, he assumes Peter’s claims must true, but there’s still no credible independent evidence to corroborate Peter’s resurrection claim. So, the only “evidence” Christians have to justify their resurrection assertion, is the New Testament evidence, all of which is actually based on Peter’s uncorroborated & unverified claims.
  • 2. We can safely assume Paul was fully aware the sacred disease, a temporary, physical affliction that triggered religious revelations. The true nature of this affliction is now better understood, and now called temporal lobe epilepsy [TLE]. Paul’s awareness of the sacred disease, explains why he simply rationalised his experience as a divine intervention. It was the only way he could make sense of his experience on the road to Damascus.
  • 3. Christianity never questions the authenticity of Galatians 1:19, because it’s the only verse in the New Testament claiming Paul’s crucial first meeting with Peter was witnessed. It therefore provides flimsy validation of Peter’s otherwise unverified resurrection claims. However, as already explained earlier, the very strange circumstances surrounding this first critical meeting gives us ample reason to question the authenticity of this critical verse.
  • 4. Paul simply accepted Peter’s resurrection claims at face value, and then relayed them to his early Christian communities. His own earlier experience on the road to Damascus made Paul very sympathetic & very accepting of Peter’s hearsay claims. Later, unknown gospel authors then immortalised Peter’s claims in their gospels.
  • 5. The genuine Pauline epistles actually confirm that Paul and the other Apostles were definitely not on the same page. Any apologist claiming they were on the same page is either poorly informed, or deliberately being very economical with the truth.
  • 6. These resurrection accounts are actually based on Peter’s unverified hearsay claims, which Paul then propagated in 1-Corinthians 15:3-9.
  • 7. Christians have no choice but to trust their gospel evidence. It’s the only evidence they have. Linking the  gospel claims to Peter’s far earlier hearsay claims,  is Christianity’s way of trying to authenticate  the resurrection claims found in the gospels. Christians simply regard Peter’s unverified claims as reliable eye witness evidence, but it still doesn’t explain the awkward gospel-gap.

The new Christianity Myth model revises all seven orthodox claims  as follows:

  1. A historical-Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.
  2. Paul just hallucinated on the road to Damascus.
  3. Galatians 1:18-19 is only partially authentic.
  4. Peter lied to Paul about the alleged resurrection in Jerusalem.
  5. Paul & the other Apostles were not on the same page.
  6. The gospel resurrection accounts are all based on Peter’s lies
  7. The Gospel evidence cannot be trusted.

All seven claims defining the Christianity Myth model are acknowledged as just speculative suppositions. They have to be speculative, because we are considering events that allegedly happened 2000 years ago, and the available evidence leaves much to be desired. Orthodox Christianity has spent 2000 years trying to convince us otherwise, but  actually, we know very little about first century Christianity, and much of what we do claim to know, is actually based on a mixture of speculative supposition and wishful thinking. However, all seven Christianity Myth suppositions are fully compatible with the facts as currently accepted by mainstream scholastic opinion. These alternative claims also eliminate all need for super naturalism. Christians should also note the following more specific observations:

  1. The first claim is consistent with the very limited available evidence.
  2. The second claim is totally consistent with our current medical knowledge.
  3. The third claim is totally logical and fully compatible with the very unusual circumstances surrounding Peter & Paul’s first meeting in Jerusalem.
  4. The fourth claim is a logical conclusion dictated by the proceeding interpretations.
  5.  The fifth claim is totally consistent with the evidence found in Paul’s Epistles.
  6.  The sixth claim is the logical consequence of proceeding claims.
  7. The gospels simply provided the missing biographical details about Jesus’ life & they rationalised what the unknown gospel authors believed. These unknown authors  were simply trying to put flesh on the bare bones of Paul’s sparse claims in 1-Corinthians 15: 3-9, . This simple logical supposition explains both the diversity of detail in these gospels and the existence of the notorious gospel-gap.

Hopefully, I’ve now demonstrated that the orthodox model and the revised Christianity Myth model are essentially just different versions of the same model, one pertaining to a 2000 year old pagan world steeped in super naturalism, the other pertaining to a better informed modern world that rejects the super natural [well almost!]. These two alternatives are simply just different interpretations of the same basic elements. Hopefully I’ve now also demonstrated, that the seven orthodox claims that are willingly embraced by Christians, are themselves nothing more than simple unacknowledged suppositions masquerading as the truth. By simply challenging the veracity of these unacknowledged orthodox suppositions, it’s possible to better explain the existence of both  Christianity and the New Testament and do so without recourse to divine interventions. This new re-interpretation of 2000 year old events challenges the very veracity of Christian claims that Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem. The Christianity Myth model also highlight the fallacy of a classic argument often used by Christian, namely claiming the resurrection claims in the gospels are true, because Paul validates them in 1-Corinthians 15:3-9.

The Orthodox Model’s Many Shortcomings……

The orthodox model of Christianity may have been a perfectly good model 2000 years ago, in a pagan world defined by it’s acceptance of the supernatural, and in a pagan world lacking our modern understanding of temporal lobe epilepsy, but it’s relevance today is debatable. Close objective scrutiny of this orthodox model soon reveals that it has many weaknesses, weaknesses that  demonstrate it’s not as solid as Christians believe, and certainly not as solid as the orthodox church tries to maintain. This orthodox model still struggles to explain many relevant issues, most of which simply  disappear using the Christianity Myth model. Typical examples of thorny issues for the orthodox model can be found in the following questions:

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? The short answer is there was no resurrection. 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 CE and the appearance of the four canonical gospels c 70-90 CE. 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 CE 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 CE 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 CE, 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? Following the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem c 30 CE, Jews who believed Jesus was their long awaited Messiah gathered together in Jerusalem to form the early “Jerusalem Church”. Over the next few decades, it became increasingly obvious to these Jerusalem Jews that Jesus was not their long awaited Jewish Messiah. He fulfilled none of the scriptural prophecies, and by the time the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple in 70 CE, Jews everywhere had more or less abandoned all belief that Jesus was their Messiah. Jews eventually came to regard Jesus as just another Jewish troublemaker from Galilee who the Roman authorities eventually crucified as a common criminal.

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 and the other apostles 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 CE, 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.

Given the above reservations and limitations, why don’t we just replace the outmoded orthodox model with the more pragmatic revised model? This is definitely a non runner as far as Christians are concerned, because to do so would automatically mean the terminal demise of Christianity. Two billion Christians would stand to lose everything, and gain nothing in return. However, given the many weaknesses of the orthodox model of Christianity, and its abject failure to answer even basic relevant questions, perhaps the time has now come to discard the old orthodox model and embrace the new revised model. It does after all rectify most, if not all, of the problems associated with the outdated orthodox model. Christians will never do this of course, because it means accepting they are wrong about Jesus. For most Christians, this would definitely be a bridge too far. However, for those able to bring more objectivity and less emotion to the table,  the revised Christianity Myth model  should prove to be intellectually more satisfying .

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 CE, 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 CE, Constantine-1 convened the First Council of Nicaea, and told Christian leaders to sort out the huge diversity associated with early Christianity. In 380 CE, 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 CE, 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 CE, 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 CE, 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 socially desirable and what was socially 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 never 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 c 35-36 CE.

Christians disagree of course. They argue that Paul actually got his knowledge of Jesus’ resurrection from two sources, namely Peter & James, and for proof they cite Paul’s claims in Galatians 1: 18-19 which says:

“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”.

This belated reference to James is very convenient for Christians. Without it Christians would be forced to accept that Paul got his information about the Jerusalem resurrection from a single source. But, as I’ve already pointed out earlier, this stark belated reference to James could simply be an interpolation designed to obviate any suggestion that Paul & Peter’s first meeting was just a simple one to one meeting without witnesses. Obviously I can’t prove this stark reference to James is just a simple interpolation, but the known facts about  Galatians [see Wikipedia citation] are fully compatible with this suggestion, and the idea is well within the bounds of possibility. However, biblical scholars have no incentive to investigate this possibility, because acknowledging this belated reference to James as an interpolation, weakens the orthodox model of Christianity  even further.

Galatians is, in my opinion, the most important Pauline epistle in the New Testament, because Galatians deals with Paul’s movements and his encounters with other apostles. Galatians 2 confirms that Paul met Peter, James & John c 50 CE, and Christian apologists like Gary Habermas claim Galatians 2: 6 proves Paul was preaching exactly the same gospel message as the other apostles. In Galatians 2: 6 Paul specifically states:

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”.

However, as discussed earlier, the critical phrase “those men added nothing to my message” can be interpreted in one of two ways, depending on whether or not you take into account the obvious tensions that existed between Paul and the other apostles. These tensions all point to the existence of essential differences between Paul’s message & the message being preached by the other apostles. Christian apologists choose to totally ignore these tensions, and interpret this critical phrase as meaning Peter, James & John had nothing new to add to Paul’s message, but given the existence of these tensions, a more logical interpretation of this critical phrase would be Peter, James & John had nothing relevant to add to Paul’s message. This more appropriate alternative interpretation is completely unseen [ignored?] by those with emotional needs to believe the alleged Jerusalem resurrection actually happened.

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 CE, 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 CE. 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 Christians and non-Christians can agree one thing, namely 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 would never have happened.

I’m now hoping that some of the more secular biblical scholars will now be tempted to revisit the first century CE, 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.

Epilogue

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. Those who choose emotional satisfaction over intellectual enlightenment are welcome to their self delusional world view. 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 different models of how Christianity first started. The orthodox model involves two divine interventions. My slightly different Christianity Myth model involves no divine interventions. Of necessity, both models rely on speculative suppositions, which I openly acknowledge, but Christianity doesn’t. You may find my version of events persuasive, and you may even find it intellectually more satisfying, 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. However, 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. Occam’s razor, however, does come with an unspoken caveat. It assumes the relative merits of the competing explanations will be assessed in a purely objective manner. This will prove to be a bridge too far for most Christians, so I’ll leave individual readers to judge which is the simpler, more rational explanation in this particular case. For me personally, it’s a very simple choice because I have no personal inner religious needs to satisfy, and definitely no interest in preserving the religious status quo.

The Christianity Myth model may be built on a more solid foundation, and thus be intellectually more satisfying for some, but it doesn’t cater for the emotional inner needs of those needing to believe in mythical deities. Personally, I’ve always felt you don’t need gods to be good, and I’ve never really understood why some people are attracted to organised religions. However, we are slowly beginning to realise that these needy people are actually biologically hard wired for religion. I have addressed this issue in greater depth in another blog called Religiosity – Biology or Brain washing? I personally seem to have no innate inner need to believe in mythical gods, and thus, like many these days, I seem immune to all religious influences. I just accept the virtues of the Christian ethos, and 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. Given that some people actually feel the need for a friendly deity they can turn to in their hours of need, I now accept that these needy people will never sacrifice their inner needs on the altar of reason.

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, currently 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 CE, and they continued at random intervals, until Muhammad’s death in 632 CE. 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 recorded experience on the road to Damascus, and these all too obvious similarities have not gone unnoticed. It cannot be just simple coincidence that both Christianity & Islam now appear to have stemmed from psychotic delusions experienced by specific individuals suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy.

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’s 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 fully understand the current reticence of relevant members of the medical profession, and their obvious 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.

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.

A Simple Choice…….

Admittedly, this new Christianity Myth model is based entirely on speculative suppositions, and admittedly, none of these speculative suppositions can now be proved, but Christians should note the following:

  • all suppositions in the Christianity Myth model are acknowledged.
  • all suppositions in the Christianity Myth model are perfectly logical.
  • all suppositions in the Christianity Myth model are compatible with the know “facts”.

The original orthodox model of Christianity is also based on speculative suppositions, most of which cannot now be proved. Christians in particular should also note the following:

  • the assertion that a Gospel-Jesus was resurrected in Jerusalem is an unfounded supposition.
  • the assertion that Paul interpreted his conversion experience correctly is a necessary supposition .
  • the assertion that Galatians 1:19 is totally authentic is an automatic supposition .
  • the assertion that Peter did not lie to Paul at that crucial first meeting is a necessary automatic  supposition.
  • the assertion that Paul & the other Apostles were all on the same page is an unjustified supposition.
  • the assertion that the gospels evidence can be trusted is a wishful thinking supposition.

The Christian church never acknowledges that these seven basic interpretations are really just necessary suppositions masquerading as fact, The church gets away with it, because most Christians know absolutely nothing about the actual origins of their faith. This simple fact amply exemplifies why religion and ignorance have always been excellent bed fellows. Once Paul was forced to revise his mind set after his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, the die was cast. Paul became a sucker for Peter’s lies, and the rest is history. Those who need religion in their lives will obviously find these revelations shocking. Others will simply say, well at least we now know how Christianity most probably started, and wonder what all the fuss is about.

Much of what I’ve said about Christians and Christianity can also be said about Muslims and Islam. All religions thrive on poverty and ignorance, and they will continue to do so for some time yet, but hopefully, we are now in the process of turning the corner. Recent medical advances leading to a much better understanding of temporal lobe epilepsy [TLE], and the “religious side effects” associated with TLE, cannot be ignored forever. Hopefully, the ever rising tide of secularism, reinforced by endless sectarian conflict and improved standards of education, will eventually coerce us into discarding all existing 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. Until then, the dual delusions of people-friendly gods and comforting eternal after lives will continue to be passed on from one generation to the next.

As it stands now, I’m prepared to stack the simplicity and pragmatism of the Christianity Myth model against the super-naturalism of the orthodox model 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, these Gospels are just 2000 year old stories, honestly written, by true believers, for the benefit of Paul’s unsophisticated pagan converts. Today, we would regard these naive ex-pagan converts, as little more than children. Just simple people living in a pagan world riddled with supernatural deities, many of which came and went like whimsical fashions. Christianity has obviously proved itself to be the exception. Nevertheless, the roots of Christianity are still steeped in the rampant supernatural beliefs of a pagan world long forgotten .

Christianity’s Achilles Heel……

Gary Habermas argues we can trust the resurrection claims in the gospels because they are all based on Peter’s eye witness evidence. However, he never questions the veracity of Peter’s resurrection claims, and he never mentions that Peter’s claims are still uncorroborated claims that have never been independently verified. Thus, in trying to authenticate the gospel claims, Habermas has inadvertently exposed Christianity’s Achilles heel, and opened the door to the Achilles heel counter argument, namely a simple counter suggestion that these resurrection accounts in the gospels could just as easily be based on Peter’s lies. This simple counter assertion is totally compatible with the available evidence. Peter’s resurrection claims have never been independently authenticated, and there is no credible alternative evidence to corroborate them. Thus, this simple counter suggestion that Peter may have just lied to Paul, should stop Christian proselytisers in their tracks. It can be used any time Christian apologists claim the resurrection evidence in the gospel can be trusted. It requires no detailed knowledge of early Christianity. All it requires is a basic appreciation of Habermas’ argument, and an awareness that the resurrection claims made by Peter at that first crucial meeting with Paul c 36 CE are still uncorroborated claims that have never been verified.

Given the vast amount of time & intellectual energy already spent examining this orthodox model of Christianity, I’m surprised this flaw has gone undetected for so long. Either Habermas and other apologists are just blind sighted by their own personal needs to believe, and thus totally unaware of its existence, or they simply choose not to acknowledge it. Either way, Habermas has inadvertently opened the door to my simple Achilles heel counter argument. However, to be effective, this counter argument must gain traction in the real world. If it doesn’t, then Christianity is off the hook……..

Unfortunately, we live in a world where banal drivel goes viral in no time, but anything requiring a little effort never gets off the ground. If you think this simple Achilles heel counter argument has merit, then please help disseminate it, either by:

References

[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, http://ed5015.tripod.com/BJesusHistoryAndTruth147.html

[22]  The Q Gospel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

[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