Christianity is the most widespread religion today, with over two billion followers. Although it is considered a monotheistic religion, in Christianity are worshiped hundreds of saints and a triple God, made of three different entities: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The main character of this religion is Jesus (Yeshu’a in Hebrew), titled Christ („Khristos” in Greek and „Mashiah” in Hebrew, meaning „Anointed One”), considered by most to be a real character who lived in Palestine in the first century AD. Although there is no evidence of his existence, this does not seem to bother Christians, considering that the religion is based on faith and not on facts. The only writings from the first century that mention him are the four Canonical Gospels and the letters of the apostle Paul, included in the New Testament. In addition to these, there are two controversial passages in the book Antiquities of the Jews („Ioudaike archaiologia” in Greek) by the Roman-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Considering they are written in a different style from that of Josephus, the fact that Jesus is completely absent from an earlier work of the author, The Jewish War, and also that the earliest mention of one of the controversial passages is that of Eusebius in 324 AD, it means that these passages were included in the original text by a Christian who tried to validate his faith through frauds. Flavius Josephus described in detail the history of his people, mentioning all the prophets, agitators and leaders of rebellions up to the siege of Jerusalem, so it was necessary to falsify his work in order to include the name of the Christian god among them. The next mention of Jesus is in the Annals („Annales” in Latin) of the Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus, written around 116 AD. This does not prove the existence of the Christian god at the beginning of the first century, as the book was written 83 years after his supposed death, but only that this myth circulated in Rome in the second century, just like many others, from those of the Egyptian Isis or the Persian Mithras to those of the classics Jupiter and Hercules. At the beginning of the first millennium AD there were many Greek, Roman and Jewish chroniclers throughout the Roman Empire (which included Palestine), who recorded all important events; however, none of them mentioned the Jewish Yeshu’a / Jesus, who performed many miracles in Christian mythology. Here are some of these chroniclers:
– Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (about 69 – 122 AD), the historian of 12 Roman emperors, who reviewed all the orators and preachers of that period, did not hear of Jesus. He wrote that Christians were a sect with a superstitious religiosity, as described by two of his contemporary writers, Publius Cornelius Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. In Divus Claudius, the biography of Emperor Claudius, there is a passage which for Christians is a mention of their deity: „Because the Jews were constantly disturbing at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome„. This does not mean there was a Jew in Palestine considered Messiah until 33 AD, but only that in 49 AD the Jews in Rome were instigated by a certain Chrestus. The term „chrestus„, which meant „good” or „useful”, was frequently used in that era and was attributed especially to slaves.
– The Roman philosopher Gaius Plinius Secundus or Pliny the Elder (23 – 79 AD), who recorded the famous events of his time, did not hear of Jesus Christ. Neither did his nephew, Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus or Pliny the Younger (61 – 113 AD), who noted in his letters everything interesting happening at that time. Not even in his letter to Emperor Trajan, where he considered Christianity as a „perverted, excessive superstition” derived from Judaism.
– The former Phrygian slave Epictetus (about 55 – 135 AD), who became a philosopher after obtaining his freedom, was a renowned speaker and religious scholar who lived in Rome until 93 AD, when Emperor Domitian expelled philosophers from the city. Arrian, his disciple, recorded his speeches, considering them comparable to Socratic literature. Although Epictetus studied contemporary religious beliefs, he had not heard of Jesus Christ.
– One of the earliest Roman geographers, Pomponius Mela, wrote De situ orbis libri in Strabo’s style around 43 AD, combining descriptions of each country with major events that took place there. Although his work was written just ten years after the supposed miraculous resurrection of Jesus, Pomponius does not mention him in the chapter on Judea.
– Historian, biographer, and essayist Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus (about 46 – 120 AD) was born in Chaironeia in Greece, where Christian legends claim that the disciples of Jesus spread, performing numerous miracles in plain sight and causing crowds to instantly convert. No such miracles were known to Plutarch. He lived in Rome for 30 years and still didn’t hear of the „divine” miracles. Although he was specialized in writing biographies of famous people, without neglecting the legends surrounding them, he did not write a single word about Jesus.
– Philosopher Philo of Alexandria (about 25 BC – 50 AD), considered the „Plato of the Jews„, who visited both Rome and Jerusalem, wrote many books from which Christian theological schools later borrowed many ideas. Philo’s family had connections with the priesthood in Judea, the Herodian royal house and the imperial house of Rome. One of his nephews, Marcus Julius Alexander, married Princess Berenice, daughter of the Jewish monarch Herod Agrippa. The other nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, was procurator of Judea and prefect of Egypt. Nevertheless, Philo did not mention either Jesos or his apostles.
– The Roman philosopher and playwright Lucius Annaeus Seneca (about 4 – 65 AD) lived most of his life at the imperial court. He was in Rome when the Christian mythology claims the miracle competition between the apostle Peter and the sorcerer Simon of Gitta took place. Peter raised the dead, restored the sight of the blind and made the Moon come down from the sky to light up a room, while the sorcerer levitated, made statues dance and made a scythe work by itself. Not only for Seneca, but for the whole world in Rome, the two and their wonders remained unknown. Such miracles would have certainly amazed anyone, yet they are not recorded by the Romans. Not even the apostle Paul mentioned Peter in Rome during the two years he spent there, according to Chapter 28 of the Acts of the Apostles, nor in his Letter to the Romans, where he greets 50 Christians who were in the capital of the Roman Empire at that time.
The lack of writings from the first century AD about Jesus, besides the biblical ones, is not the only argument in favor of the non-existence of this character. A second one would be the multitude of errors and omissions in the New Testament. Let’s take, for example, his miraculous birth from a virgin in which the Holy Spirit entered. Of the four gospel writers, only two mentioned his birth, Matthew and Luke. Why did Mark and John not bother to record such an incredible event? And why are there big differences between the two versions? In Matthew’s gospel, an angel appeared in Joseph’s dream to announce him the birth of Jesus; in Luke’s, the angel announced it to Mary. In Matthew’s, the birth took place in a house, while in Luke’s it was in a manger because Joseph and Mary could not find a place to spend the night. The three wise men from the east, who brought gifts to the divine child, are only mentioned by Matthew; for Luke, their place is taken by a group of shepherds. The miraculous star that led the magi from Persia to Bethlehem exists only for Matthew, even though it should have been mentioned not only by all four gospel writers, but also by astronomers from Judea and the surrounding area. No one saw it, not even King Herod, even though the evangelist claims that it went ahead of the magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Herod’s decision to kill all the children up to two years old is only mentioned by Matthew. This massacre was not mentioned by any of the fellow evangelists, but also not by the chroniclers or historians of the time. Only Matthew mentions the flight to Egypt of Joseph, Mary and Jesus. For Luke, they stayed in Judea and, eight days after his birth, Jesus was taken to Jerusalem for circumcision. If Herod had ordered the killing of all infants, the boy would have been thrown directly into the lion’s den. But Luke had no knowledge of that macabre decision of the Jewish king, which only Matthew knew. For Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born; for Matthew they arrived in Nazareth only after returning from Egypt, choosing Galilee instead of Judea for fear of King Herod. Luke is the only one who mentions the episode from the temple in Jerusalem, when Jesus was 12 years old. Matthew, Mark and John were silent on this matter as well.
If the four canonical gospels contradict each other, the gnostic gospels could not be otherwise. The gospels of Truth, of the Egyptians, of Mary, of Thomas or the one of Philip do not mention the birth of Jesus. All the miracles of his birth, so well known to us from Christian mythology, are completely absent for the Gnostics. There is no angel to announces the birth, no star, no magi, no shepherds, no massacre of the children nor the flight to Egypt. However, if „the Word was made flesh” in Jesus for John and the Holy Spirit descended on Christ for Mark, the Gnostics had similar legends. According to Bishop Irenaeus, they believed Christ joined his sister, the aeon Sophia, and then descended into Jesus, the child born of the virgin with the help of God. In the Gospel of Truth, Christ is the Knowledge that emanated from the Father. In the Gospel of the Egyptians he is the aeon Seth, the son of the first „incorruptible” man, Adamas.
The Quran does not mention Joseph and does not consider Jesus the son of any deity. Instead, it states that „Al-Masih Isa (Jesus the Messiah), the son of Maryam (Mary), was but a messenger of Allah and his word which he directed to Mary and a soul from him” (Sura 4:171). The Gospel of John also called Jesus „word„, but this expression has a different meaning for the prophet Muhammad. The only event similar to the canonical Gospels is the birth of Jesus from a virgin and the announcement of his birth by the archangel Jibrayil (Gabriel).
To further contradict the few accounts of Jesus’ birth, the Infancy Gospel claims he was born in a cave and then placed in a manger, where an ox and a donkey worshiped him. In the early centuries of Christianity, a cave in Bethlehem was showned as his place of birth, which had previously been considered the birthplace of the god Tammuz. The birth of gods in caves was a common element in the religions of many peoples. In addition to Tammuz, it was believed that gods such as Dionysus, Zeus, Hermes, Adonis, Mithra and Aeon were also born in caves. We recall that Jesus was born in a house for the evangelist Matthew, and in a manger for Luke. None of them support the hypothesis of the ox and the donkey worshiping Jesus.
Despite Jesus being unmentioned by first-century chroniclers and there being significant differences in versions of his birth, perhaps we can determine his year of birth. For most, he was born in the year 1. However, for the evangelist Matthew, Jesus was born shortly before the death of King Herod the Great, that is the year 4 BC. Luke tries to deepen the fog even further, claiming that the birth took place during the census under Quirinius, the governor of Syria. As Quirinius became governor in the year 6 AD, that is the year of Jesus’ birth according to Luke, ten years later than what Matthew suggested and five years after the conventionally accepted date. Luke also wrote that Jesus was baptized in the fifteenth year of the Roman emperor Tiberius rule, when he was about 30 years old. The fifteenth year of Tiberius’ rule means the year 29 AD, which moves the birth of Christ to the year 1 BC. Thus, we have three different years for the birth of the Christian god: 4 BC, 1 BC and 6 AD. To solve this enigma once and for all, the monk Dionysius Exiguus, who lived in Rome in the 6th century, fixed the birth of Jesus in the 752 year of the Roman calendar, which became the first year of our calendar. Although the issue seems solved, the three different versions of the canonical gospels remain.
If we couldn’t determine his year of birth, we can at least try to find out the month and day. All Christians believe today that Jesus was born on 25th December. However, if we believe the Gospel of Luke, this date cannot be accurate. The evangelist tells us there were shepherds with flocks in the fields at the time of birth, and December is too cold to bring flocks to the fields even in Palestine. Few know that the early Christians celebrated Jesus’ birthday on 6th January. In Greece, this day was considered the birthday of the god Dionysus, and in Alexandria it was the day of Aeon, the god born from the virgin Kora. To facilitate the transition from these deities to Jesus, early Christians borrowed the 6th January date and used it to celebrate the birth of their god. The oldest information about celebrating Jesus’ birth on 25th December can be found in the Roman calendar of 354 AD. On this day, the entire Roman Empire celebrated the birth of the god Mithra, borrowed from Persia. Also, the gods Adonis and Tammuz were celebrated on the same day. To facilitate the transition from pagan gods to Christ, Christianity kept the important dates from the old religions, replacing only the deities.
The birth of Jesus faces another problem, this time a genetic one. Heterozygotes are the chromosomes that determine the sex of an organism. For the mammals (including humans), males have the X and Y chromosome pair, while females have XX. A female child is born from the male’s X chromosome and one of the female’s X chromosomes, and a male child is born from the male’s Y chromosome and one of the female’s X chromosomes. Therefore, male sex is determined by the Y chromosome. If the biblical story were true and Jesus was born only from Mary without the intervention of a male, he could not be a male. Because the Y chromosome cannot emerge from her XX chromosomes. So, if Mary managed to conceive him alone, without the intervention of a physical male (as opposed to the Holy Spirit, who cannot transmit genes as he is immaterial), Jesus would have had only XX chromosomes, meaning he would have been female. If he was a male, meaning he had XY chromosomes, it means that Mary did not conceived him alone, but with the help of a male who transmitted the Y chromosome to the child. However, the believers solved this enigma by turning the event into a divine miracle, while others prefer logical solutions, such as artificial insemination. Which is pointless, considering the multitude of contradictions regarding Jesus’ birth, which lead to a single logical conclusion about his supposed existence.
If we cannot determine with certainty when or how Jesus was born, perhaps his resurrection is less complicated. The story is well known: he was crucified, he rose on the third day and then, at some point, he ascended to heaven. As simple as it seems, it is complicated in the New Testament. The most important event of Christianity, upon which its entire doctrine is based, should have been clear to everyone, or at least to the four evangelists. But the gospels contradict each other even on this matter.
All four are in agreement that the first people to discover the resurrection were women, known as myrrh-bearers in Christianity. However, when it comes to their number and identity, things are no longer so simple. Who visited the tomb first and realized that Jesus had disappeared?
– Matthew: two women, „Mary Magdalene and the other Mary„.
– Mark: three women, „Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome„.
– Luke: at least five women, „Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them„.
– John: a single woman, „Mary Magdalene„.
Was there one? Were there two? Three? At least five? If we can’t know how many went to the tomb, maybe we can find out when it happened.
– Matthew: „as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week„.
– Mark: also at dawn, „at the rising of the Sun„.
– Luke: „very early in the morning„.
– John: before dawn, „early, when it was yet dark„.
The entrance to the tomb was blocked by a very large stone. This uncertain number of women, arriving at an uncertain time of day, found the tomb closed or open?
– Matthew: it was closed – „the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it„, frightening the tomb guardians and the myrrh-bearers who witnessed the supernatural appearance.
– Mark: it was open – „when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great„.
– Luke: it was open – „they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre„.
– John: it was open – „seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre„.
Only Matthew mentions the guards who had the role of preventing any potential theft of the body. The other three evangelists know nothing about it. Or if they know, they don’t want to say. Maybe they can at least clarify for us who the women met at the tomb.
– Matthew: „the angel of the Lord” descended from heaven, whose appearance was „like lightning, and his raiment white as snow„.
– Mark: „a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment„.
– Luke: „two men” in „shining garments„.
– John: Mary Magdalene did not see anyone at first. She left the tomb and returned with Peter „and the other disciple, whom Jesus loved„. Only after they „went away again unto their own home„, leaving Mary alone at the tomb, she „seeth two angels in white sitting„.
In the end, were they men or angels? Were there two or one? Were they in front of the tomb or inside? Were they seen at sunrise or after a few hours? We must appreciate that the evangelists agree on one point: Jesus was no longer there. What was the women’s reaction after discovering the disappearance of their god?
– Matthew: „they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word„.
– Mark: „they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid„.
– Luke: „they remembered his words, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest„.
– John: „Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping„.
If Jesus had risen, he could not but show himself to his disciples. Who and when did he first appear to?
– Matthew: to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, „as they went to tell the disciples, behold, Jesus met them„.
– Mark: „when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene„.
– Luke: on the road to „a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs„, two disciples „talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them„.
– John: left alone in the tomb, after the departure of Peter and the other disciple, Mary Magdalene saw two angels. She „turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus„.
What were the disciples’ reactions to their first contact with Jesus after his resurrection?
– Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary „came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him„.
– Luke: the two disciples on their way to Emmaus did not recognize him because „their eyes were holden that they should not know him„.
– John: Mary Magdalene „knew not that it was Jesus„, she „supposing him to be the gardener„.
According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary instantly recognized Jesus. Mark does not provide any details about her reaction, however, for Luke and John, Magdalene and the two disciples were unable to recognize him. Supposing for a moment that this account were true, though we have no reason to do so, why was Jesus unrecognizable? Did he looked different? If so, why? Given that he had risen with the same body known to his disciples, a different appearance would be illogical. Or did he create an optical illusion, meaning that „their eyes were holden that they should not know him„? If so, why did this illusion not apply in the Gospel of Matthew, where the women easily recognized him?
In the Gospel of John, once Mary Magdalene realized Jesus was alive, she probably wanted to embrace him out of joy, but he stopped her. „Touch me not: for I am not yet ascended to my Father„, Jesus told her. Logic tells us that even after his ascension to heaven the woman could not have been able to touch him, since he would have gone to a place inaccessible to her. That evening, Jesus appeared to his disciples and „shewed unto them his hands and his side„. We understand that he only „shewed unto them„, not allowed them to touch him. However, for the apostle Thomas, the ban disappears. „Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing„, said Jesus, probably forgetting he shouldn’t be touched because he had not yet ascended to his father. We don’t know why there was that prohibition or why it was ignored for Thomas, but maybe Jesus didn’t want to be touched by Mary Magdalene and the other apostles. For Matthew, the newly resurrected has no problem with touching. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary „came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him„. For Luke, Jesus actually encourages his apostles: „handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have„. In the end, were they allowed to touch him or not?
Besides many fantastic elements, Matthew describes in his gospel an event seemingly torn from zombie horror films. After an earthquake that split the veil of the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, „the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many„. It’s strange that no one recorded this unique event in world history, not even the other three evangelists, although there were many Jewish, Greek and Roman chroniclers in Jerusalem at that time. Were the living dead something common for them, so they didn’t bother to record this event? Or was it just a invention of the evangelist Matthew, who thought to embellish his story even more?
Analyzing the four biblical gospels, we could find nothing concrete regarding the resurrection of Jesus. We don’t know how many women arrived at the tomb, when they arrived, how the entrance was when they arrived, who they met there, if they were happy or scared because they found the tomb empty, when and to whom Jesus appeared first, if those people recognized him or not, if they were allowed to touch him or if the dead came to life and started to haunt Jerusalem. It seems extremely convenient that after the resurrection, Jesus only appeared to his disciples. Can the testimonies of people who believed him to be divine be credible? Of course not. What would prevent them from lying to prove the divine origin of their teacher? Nothing! Why did Jesus not appear before impartial people who could not be accused of subjectivism? Why did he not appear before Governor Pilate or Tetrarch Herod Antipas? Why did he not appear in public, in the middle of Jerusalem? Would not everyone have been convinced that he was truly a god? Of course! Instead, he chose to appear only secretly and only in front of those who followed him, whom he sent to do serious convincing work to convert the whole world! Why would he choose the most difficult option? A public appearance would have brought quick results. By choosing the opposite, he would have expected reluctance from people who would have been in the situation of believing or not the story of the apostles. The gospels of Mark, Luke and John say that the apostles did not believe those who claimed to have seen Jesus, requiring him to appear to them to convince them. If those who followed him, who knew his wonders and considered him the son of their god, did not believe in the resurrection story, it is logical that others would believe even less. Why would Jesus choose the most difficult path? Obviously, because it is only a made up story.
Besides these irregularities related to the birth and resurrection of Jesus, there are also some in his genealogy. Only two of the four New Testament gospels approach his genealogical tree: that of Matthew and that of Luke, the same ones who dealt with his birth. Mark and John do not bother with such things and with good reason, the ancestral line of Jesus proving to be too twisted. Matthew presents his version from Abraham to Joseph. Luke takes it in the reverse direction, from Joseph to the first man, Adam. As the purpose of this genealogy is to demonstrate that Jesus is a descendant of David, or „Jesus Christ, the son of David„, as Matthew calls him, we will only deal with the part from David to Joseph. For Matthew, in this interval there are 27 people, and for Luke 42. This difference has a plausible explanation: Luke lists the descendants of Nathan, one of the sons of David, and Matthew those of Solomon, another son of the mythical Israeli king. It remains a mystery or a true divine miracle how Joseph was reached from two different branches, calculated exclusively on the paternal line… We will use the original biblical names in this comparison, Greeks in the New Testament and Hebrews in the Old Testament.
The first major problem is the father of Ioseph (Joseph in English). For Matthew, „Lazaros (Eleazar) begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Iakobos (Jacob); and Iakobos begot Ioseph„. Luke talks about „Ioseph, which was the son of Eli (Heli), which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Leui (Levi)”. Who was Ioseph’s father? Eli or Iakobos? Things are simpler with his grandfather. Ignoring the difference of only one letter, Matthan and Matthat are certainly the same character. With one generation before, things get complicated again. For Matthew, the great-grandfather of Ioseph was named Lazaros; for Luke, his name was Leui. Continuing to David, the names in the two lists differ, with a few small exceptions. Which is normal, considering that one lists the descendants of Solomon and the other the descendants of Nathan. But how can you go from two different branches, only on the paternal line, to one individual, Ioseph in this case? The answer: in no way is this possible. No matter how the members of the two branches mixed with each other, it is not possible to reach the same individual as long as only the male members of the lists are considered. If Ioseph had two biological fathers, which already results from comparing the two lists, things would be logical. But in real life, this is not possible.
If we accept the official version of the Bible that the gospels describe two different genealogies, of Solomon and Nathan, another problem arises: some characters are on both lists. We have already seen the grandfather of Ioseph, Matthan – Matthat. The great-grandson of Solomon was named Ioram (Joram in English), and the great-grandson of Nathan had the name Iotam (Jonan). Is this the same character with a letter changed in his name, like the grandfather of Ioseph, or is it a coincidence? If we can try to attribute the similarity between Ioram and Iotam to chance, we cannot do the same thing endlessly. Matthew says: „Iechonias (Jechonias) begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorovavel (Zorobabel); and Zorovavel begat Abioud (Abiud)”. At Luke we find „Resa (Rhesa), which was the son of Zorovavel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri„. Under no circumstances can we consider the mention in both lists of Zorovavel and his father, Salathiel, to be a coincidence. How could they be the descendants of both Solomon and Nathan? How could they belong to two different genealogical branches where only male members were considered? And we’re not talking about just these two, but also about Ioseph, Matthan – Matthat and Ioram – Iotam! Theologians have tried to eliminate this contradiction by claiming that Luke actually presented Maria (Mary)’s genealogy, not Ioseph’s. But this cheap excuse contradicts the Bible, as Luke clearly states that „Iesous (Jesus) himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Ioseph, which was the son of Eli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Leui… „, just as Matthew states just as clearly that „Lazaros begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Iakobos; and Iakobos begot Ioseph the husband of Maria, of whom was born Iesous, who is called Khristos (Christ)”. Who should we believe? Theologists or the Bible, which is considered „the word of God„? To confuse things even more, the Gospel of Jacob claims that Maria’s father was named Ioakeim (Joachim), and the Quran calls him Imran, completely different names from Eli and Iakobos. Even if we adopt the theologian’s version for a moment, it still doesn’t make sense. Assuming that Maria was Eli’s daughter and Joseph was Iakobos’ son (or vice versa, because it doesn’t matter), in the two different genealogies, made on the paternal line, the same characters appear: Matthan – Matthat, Ioram – Iotam, Salathiel and Zorovavel, which is completely illogical. No matter how many calculations we do, at least one of the two genealogies is impossible. But which one?
If the two New Testament gospels contradict each other, proving that the Bible cannot be the word of any higher entity, the Gospel of Matthew is also contradicted by the Old Testament. In 1 Chronicles, the descendants of Shelomo (Solomon) are listed, as in the Gospel of Matthew. Only in some aspects, because there are also significant differences between these two books. The first six names are identical: Shelomo / Solomon, Rehav’am / Roboam, Abiyyam / Abia, Asa, Yehoshapat / Iosaphat and Yehoram / Ioram. Then, for Matthew, several characters disappear. In his gospel we can read that „Ioram (Joram in English) begot Ozias; Ozias begot Ioatham (Joatham)”, and in 1 Chronicles we find: „Yehoram (Joram) his son, Ahazyah (Ahaziah) his son, Yeho’ash (Joash) his son, Amasyahu (Amaziah) his son, Azariah his son, Yotam (Jotham) his son„. Assuming that Ozias (in Greek) / Uzziah (in Hebrew) and Okhozias / Ahazyah are the same person, three people instantly disappeared for Matthew: Yeho’ash, Amasyahu and Azariah. Theologians believe their disappearance is justified. In 1 Kings, the god Yahweh threatened king Ah’ab (Ahab in English): „I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity” (21:21). In Exodus it is explained how this divine punishment is applied: „I Yahweh Elohim am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” (20:5). The wife of King Yehoram and mother of Ahazyah was Atalya, daughter of Ah’ab. Therefore, according to Yahweh’s threat, three or four generations of Ah’ab’s descendants, namely Ahazyah, Yeho’ash, Amasyahu and Azariah, should have disappeared. The last three disappeared from the Gospel of Matthew, but not the first one. Matthew calls him Ozias and Chronicles Ahazyah. It is undoubtedly the same character, given the similarity of Ozias to Okhozias, the name given by the Greeks to Ahazyah. If Yahweh’s curse had a real result, which would have led to the disappearance of three or four generations of Ah’ab’s descendants, how come the first one did not disappear, only the following three? And since they only disappeared from Matthew’s list but not from the Old Testament, it means that Yahweh’s curse was not fulfilled. Therefore, the elimination of the three from the New Testament list cannot be attributed to the divine punishment inflicted by the biblical god to Ah’ab’s descendants.
After the three disappeared, we have another six common characters in both lists (Yoram / Ioatham, Ahaz / Akhaz, Hizkiyyahu / Ezekias, Menashshe / Manasses, Amon and Yoshiyyahu / Iosias), but the miracle does not last long and another one goes missing. For Matthew „Iosias (Josias) begat Iechonias (Jechonias) and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon„, while in 1 Chronicles „the sons of Yoshiyyahu (Josiah) were, the firstborn Yohanan (Johanan), the second Yehoiakim (Jehoiakim), the third Sidqiyyahu (Zedekiah), the fourth Shallum. And the sons of Yehoiakim: Yechon’yah (Jechoniah) his son, Sidqiyyahu his son„. In the first list Iosias / Yoshiyyahu is Iechonias / Yechon’yah’s father, and in the second one he is his grandfather. It seems that Yehoiakim was removed to make the math work for Matthew, who wroted: „so all the generations from Abraam (Abraham) to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Khristos (Christ) are fourteen generations” (1:17). According to the official history of the Jews, Yechon’yah (Jechoniah) was dethroned and taken as a slave to Babylon, along with a large part of the Jewish people. From Dawid (David) to Yechon’yah there are 15 generations (without the three removed earlier). Thus, to count three groups of 14 people each (numerology being an extremely important part of Jewish mysticism), Yehoiakim (Jehoiakim), the father of Yechon’yah, was considered a negligible amount and removed from the list. However, this threw off Matthew’s calculations, because from Iechonias / Yechon’yah to Jesus there were still 13 generations. If he didn’t think not to erase Yehoiakim, but to move him lower in the list, so as not to mess up his calculations…
In both biblical books, the son of Iechonias / Yechon’yah is Salathiel / She’alti’el, who we also find in the Gospel of Luke. The problem gets complicated again: if in the two gospels, Matthew’s and Luke’s, Zorovavel (Zerubbabel) is Salathiel’s son, in 1 Chronicles he is his nephew: „And the sons of Iechon’yah; Assir, She’alti’el his son, Malkiram also, and Pedayah, and Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah. And the sons of Pedayah were, Zerubbabel, and Shimei„. The Book of Ezra, the Book of Nehemiah and the Book of Haggai in the Old Testament confirm the gospel version, calling him „Zerubbabel the son of She’alti’el „. If it were a game, She’alti’el would win the position of Zerubbabel’s father with a score of 5 to 1. From Zerubbabel, each of the three biblical books takes a different path. Luke speaks of „Rhesa, which was the son of Zorovavel„, Matthew claims that „Zorovavel begat Abiud” and 1 Chronicles mentions „the sons of Zerubbabel; Meshullam, and Hannaniah, and Shelomith their sister„. Three different versions in the Bible about a single character! One might expect the biblical editors to agree, especially in the case of Zerubbabel / Zorovavel, a hero of the Jews, being the one who led the freed Jews from Babylon back home, who built the temple in Jerusalem and who governed the Persian province of Judea. But perhaps we have too high expectations from some who lived two millennia ago…
As the two biblical genealogies of Jesus are twisted, another version that would completely turn them upside down has emerged. The Greek philosopher Celsus wrote in the second century AD that some Jews claimed that Jesus was the son of a soldier named Panthera. Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis tried in the fourth century to fix what Celsus had damaged by claiming that Jacob, Joseph’s father in the Gospel of Matthew, was nicknamed Panther. It seems that no one cared about Epiphanius’ fiction. Furthermore, in the Middle Ages, several texts from the Talmud considered Jesus to be the son of the Roman soldier Pantera or Pandera. In 1859, in Bingerbruck, Germany, the graves of nine Roman soldiers were discovered. To the despair of Christian leaders, one of the graves belonged to the soldier Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera from Cohort 1 Saggitariorum, who lived between 22 BC and 40 AD. The tombstone mentioned that the soldier was originally from Sidonia and that he had been in the army for 40 years. This means that at the time of Jesus’ birth, according to the official hypothesis, there was indeed at least one soldier named Pantera in Judea. We cannot know if he is the same soldier from the Talmud and the story of Celsus, but at least this version is much less confused than Jesus’ genealogy in the New Testament. However, Christianity will never accept this hypothesis for at least two reasons: it would prove that Jesus was not divine and not a descendant of David, contrary to what the two biblical genealogies try to demonstrate.
Why was it necessary for Jesus to be a descendant of King David? To fulfill Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, the savior of the Jews. In 2 Samuel, the prophet Nathan prophesies to King David: „Also Yahweh telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever” (7:11-16). In Psalms, Yahweh speaks of the same promise made to David: „I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations” (89:3-4) and „Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne” (132:11). This prophecy is also found in the Book of Isaiah: „And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness” (16:5), and also in the Book of Jeremiah: „Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely” (23:5-6). The prophet Isaiah says: „And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse (father of David) and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of Yahweh shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yahweh (…) and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked (…) The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain (…) And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious (…) The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off (…) But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them. And Yahweh shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod” (11:1-15). These prophecies are also mentioned in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Luke, an angel tells Mary: „And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (1:31-33). And in his Letter to the Romans, the apostle Paul speaks about „the gospel of God (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (1:1-3), mentioning also the prophecy of Isaiah: „There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust” (15:12).
Although all these prophecies seemed to have been fulfilled by Jesus, another problem arises in the Old Testament: they are incompatible with those of the prophet Jeremiah. Referring to Jehoiachin, ancestor of Joseph in the Gospel of Matthew, Jeremiah wrote: „Thus saith Yahweh, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (22:30). He wrote something similarly about Jehoiakim, the father of Jehoiachin, whom Matthew eliminated from the list because he messed up his count: „Therefore thus saith Yahweh of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost” (36:30). According to the New Testament hypothesis, Jesus is the descendant of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin and he sat on the throne of David (in a figurative sense), which contradicts the prophecies of Jeremiah. Fortunately for Christianity, a quick solution was found for this contradiction, considering that the curse was lifted because Jehoiachin repented during the Babylonian exile. However, another question arises: did Jesus fulfill the prophecies about the descendant of David? Surely not! And there are at least three reasons for that:
– Jesus never sat on David’s throne or tabernacle. He was never the king of Israel or Judah. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says: „My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (18:36). Therefore, if Jesus’ throne was in heaven, it cannot be the throne of David, who ruled on Earth, in Israel. At least in the Jewish scriptures, if not in reality.
– The prophecy from 2 Samuel is not about a distant descendant of David: „Also Yahweh telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom„. Prophet Nathan clearly says: when David dies, Yahweh will put one of the king’s sons on the throne of Israel. Which can only be Solomon, according to the official history of the Jews. The god says about this son of David: „He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever„. The Bible claims that Solomon built the first great temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, so he is the one who „shall build an house for my name„. The rest of the god’s statements refer to the same king: „I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever„. Jeremiah also wroted about Solomon: „Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely„. According to the Old Testament, Solomon is the righteous one who maintained the peace in the empire created by his father, David. In other words, during the reign of Solomon, the kingdom of Judah was saved and Israel lived in peace. And Solomon is not Jesus, as far as we know…
– The prophecy of Isaiah cannot refer to Jesus in any way. During his supposed existence, two millennia ago, wolves did not dwelled with lambs, leopards did not lie down with kids, children did not herd calves and young lions, cows and bears did not feed together, calves did not lie down with bear cubs, lions did not eat straw and babies did not play on the hole of the asp without being hurt. Jesus did not „stand for an ensign of the people„, whom the Gentiles seek„, he only preached in the less populated areas of Palestine. At that time, the enemies of the Jews were not crushed, but on the contrary, Judea was under Roman rule. We do not know if the Jews plundered back then the Philistines, Edomites, Moabites or Ammonites. The statement „they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain” is completely false, considering the frequent revolts against the Romans at that time, which always left behind pools of blood and numerous corpses. Yahweh did not destroyed „the tongue of the Egyptian sea” 2000 years ago, nor did he divide a river (an unnamed one in the King James version, the Euphrates in the Orthodox version) into seven rivers. If all of these did not take place in a parallel universe, we can not consider that they refer to the supposed life of Jesus, as Christians believe.
The so-called prophecies of the Old Testament about Solomon or a future Messiah, who will appear at the end of time, were misunderstood by Christians and attributed to Jesus, to make it seem that he was the savior expected by the Jews. The same was done with many other prophecies. The interpretation of Hosea’s words is amusing: „When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt” (11:1). It is obvious that Yahweh’s „son”, called out of Egypt, is the Israelite people. Hosea even continues his idea, to remove any doubt about the identity of the „son”: „As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images” (11:2). The Gospel of Matthew is the only one in which is mentioned the flight of Mary, Jesus and Joseph to Egypt, frightened by Herod, who had begun to slaughter newborns. „And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son” (2:15), Matthew continues calmly, even if he failed to realize that he invented a story only because he misunderstood the words of Hosea. Words that were not part of a prophecy about a Messiah, but a record of long-past events about the Israelite people.
Probably the most controversial prophecy is the one about the virgin birth. Only Matthew says in his gospel: „Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (1:22-23). The prophet referred to by Matthew is Isaiah. In his Old Testament book, Isaiah wroted: „Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings” (7:14-16). It is obvious that Jesus did not go by the name Emmanuel and that there is no Christian legend that states he had a diet of butter and honey. If we read all of Chapter 7 of the Book of Isaiah, we see that Matthew only understood what he wanted from a paragraph taken out of context. In other words, nothing, to be as exact as possible. Isaiah wrote that „Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel” decided to attack Judah. The god Yahweh sent the prophet Isaiah to Ahaz, the king of Judah, with a message meant to encourage him: „Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah„. Even though „Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee„, the king should know that „thus saith Yahweh Elohim, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass” Isaiah advised the king to ask Yahweh for a sign to confirm the veracity of the prophecy: „Ask thee a sign of Yahweh Elohim; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above„. Ahaz refused categorically: „I will not ask, neither will I tempt Yahweh„. The prophet, however, persisted and explained to all those present what would be the sign that would demonstrate that they had the protection of the god: „Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my Yahweh also? Therefore Yahweh himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel„. In this excerpt, Isaiah used the word „almah” for „virgin”, which means a young woman who has reached puberty and has not given birth, although she is of the age to do so. The Hebrew term has no connection with virginity. An „almah” could be virgin or not, it only matters to be a teenager who never gave birth to a child. Also in the Old Testament, when Abraham’s servant was looking for a wife for Isaac, he prayed to his god to send him an „almah” to the well, to give him and his camels water. And Rebecca was that „almah„, meaning teenager. If it were about virginity, Abraham’s servant wouldn’t have been able to determine if she was a virgin just by looking at her. Miriam, also an „almah„, was the one who took care of the newly born Moses. In the Song of Solomon 6:8, it is said that Solomon had 60 queens, 80 concubines and countless „alamot” (the plural for „almah„). Because no king gathered women just to look at them, it cannot be about virgins, but about teenagers who had not yet given birth. The biblical verse refers to the women that Solomon had sex with: queens and concubines of different ages, with or without children, but also teenagers who had not given birth. Despite all this, „almah” was translated into Greek as „parthenos„, meaning „virgin”, which caused Matthew to misunderstand Isaiah’s words. The prophet told King Ahaz that an „almah„, or a teenage girl, would become pregnant and give birth to a son, whom she would name Immanuel. Before that child grew up, „the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings” and „shall Yahweh shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard„. Therefore, Isaiah was referring to a teenage girl who gave birth to a boy in 734 BC, whom she named Immanuel, not to Mary and Jesus. In fact, in the New Testament, Mary’s virginity only exists in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, who compiled the controversial genealogy of Jesus. The gospels of Mark and John and the letters of Paul do not mention a virgin birth. As this part was also invented to fulfill a misunderstood prophecy, we understand why it is missing from most of the New Testament.
However, the descent of Jesus, so confused and full of falsities or contradictions, has an extremely simple solution. Both in Matthew’s and Luke’s list, Joseph is the descendant of King David. But according to Christian doctrine, Joseph did not contribute in any way to the conception of Jesus. He was the adoptive father, therefore Jesus could not be considered a „seed” or a „branch” „out of the bowels” or „of the fruit of the body” of David, „a root” or „a rod out of the stem of Jesse„, as long as they did not have the same blood. None of the genetic material of the mythical Israelite king could have reached Jesus, but only Joseph, if he had solved the problem of his two confused genealogies. Theologians have tried to explain this irregularity through the prism of legal inheritance. In other words, even if Jesus was not Joseph’s natural son, he became his legal heir and therefore a descendant of David. Luke also tells us that „Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph„. It is true that for everyone who believed he was Joseph’s son, Jesus was his legal heir and a descendant of David. However, for those who know the biblical „truth”, meaning that Joseph’s genes were not involved in Jesus’ conception, the son of Mary cannot be in any way „out of the bowels” or „of the fruit of the body” of David or „a rod out of the stem of Jesse„. The prophecies claim the Messiah of the Jews will have David’s DNA, not that he will be an heir by adoption. Therefore, Jesus is not the mythical king’s heir, which means that the so-called messianic prophecies were not fulfilled, and Matthew and Luke struggled in vain to made up confusing genealogies. On this occasion, Christians are faced with a dilemma, having to choose Jesus’ father. If he was the son of any deity, he was not David’s heir, and therefore he could not be the Messiah; if he was Joseph’s son, he could have been David’s heir (only after the misunderstandings between the two genealogies had been clarified), but he would lose his divine descent and his role as a god in the Christian trinity. Neither of the options can be valid, as we have seen, and whichever is chosen, neither would be good enough without the other.
These biblical irregularities related to Jesus’ birth, resurrection and genealogy, along with his absence from the chronicles of the times and from the Jewish messianic prophecies, show that we are dealing with a made up character, not a historical one. And another argument is mythology.
Religions of peoples around the world are full of deities who have died and risen after a short period, such as Osiris in Egypt, Dionysus in Greece, Dumuzi / Tammuz and Inanna / Ishtar in Mesopotamia, Baal in Canaan or Baldur in Scandinavia. Virgin births were also common, such as the one described by the evangelists Luke and Matthew. For example, the Phrygian deity Attis was born from the virgin Nana, who became pregnant after an almond or pomegranate seed fell into her bosom. For the Tibetans, Buddha descended from heaven and entered the body of the virgin Maya in the form of a five-colored ray. In his autobiography, King Sargon the Great wrote that his mother was an immaculate priestess when she gave birth to him. Genghis Khan was said to have come from an innocent virgin. In Kalevala, the Finnish national epic, the virgin Ilmatar was fertilized by the wind and thus gave birth to the hero Veinemeinen, while the virgin Mariatta gave birth after swallowing a cranberry. The ancient inhabitants of the Yucatan peninsula worshiped the savior Bakab, born from the immaculate virgin Ciribiras. Also among the Mexican Indians, the virgin Coatlicue put a ball with feathers in her bosom and became pregnant.
Besides these births, there are many others considered miraculous, even if they do not involve virgins. On the wall of the Luxor temple, the birth of Pharaoh Amenhotep III was depicted about a millennium and a half before the risen of Christianity. The following are highlighted from the wall images: the god Thoth informs Mutemwiya that she will soon give birth to a child, the god Amun enters her taking the form of Pharaoh Tuthmosis IV in the presence of the goddesses Selket and Neith, and after his birth, the child is worshiped by gods and men, who bring him gifts. The ankh, the Egyptian cross, symbol of eternal life, is not missing from these images. In Greece, when King Oinopion asked the gods for a son, Zeus, Poseidon, Dionysus and Hermes urinated in the hide of the bull that was sacrificed to them, they buried it and after nine months Orion was born from it. Hera boasted that she had born Ares and Hebe without male help and Zeus claimed he had given birth to Athena and Dionysus alone. In ancient Egypt, Neith conceived Ra on her own. In Persia, the god Ormuzd sent an angel to bring the Holy Spirit to a woman in the form of a plant stem; her body merged with the Spirit, thus the prophet Zoroaster was born. In China, when the monster Ki-Lin approached the mother of Confucius, she produced a precious stone from her mouth, from which the philosopher was conceived. Proteus, one of the Greek sea gods, appeared to the mother of Apollonios of Tyana, saying that he wanted to incarnate in her. Once, the woman dreamed of some swans singing to her, and when she awoke she gave birth while the sky was crossed by lightning. This Apollonios was honored even by Christians, Roman Emperor Severus Alexander placing his image alongside that of Jesus in his prayer house, in the 3rd century. Octavian Augustus’ mother got drunk and fell asleep in the temple of the god Apollo; during this time, a dragon approached her, and after ten months Octavian was born, who later became the first Roman emperor. The Athenians believed Perictione had given birth to Plato after her relationship with the god Apollo. The same god was considered the father of the Roman general Scipio Africanus. Alexander the Great was said to be the son of Zeus or Dionysus, who copulated with Olympias, the wife of Philip II of Macedon, in the form of a serpent or dragon. And the examples could continue.
The Gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus’ life was in danger from birth, when King Herod decided to kill all the infants in Bethlehem. We can consider this episode pure fiction, especially because there is no mention of it in the other gospels or in the historical records of the time. Even if it were a real event, it would not have been a spectacular one, as Bethlehem had about 1,000 inhabitants, children up to two years old being around 20. Why did Matthew made up this story? To emphasize the greatness of a deity or hero, the story had to be sprinkled with dangers, which the hero would overcome. The ancients often used this tactic. The pattern is almost always the same: the birth of the deity / hero was prophesied, a negative character tried to kill the child and the diabolical plan failed. We will list few examples to understand this hyperbolization process meant to increase the importance of human or divine heroes. The story of the slaughter of infants ordered by Herod is a copy of the Old Testament episode in which the Pharaoh during Moses’ time decided to kill all the male newborns of the Israelites. Moses was hidden by his mother in a basket and left on the Nile. This story is a copy of the story of the founder of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon the Great, who was left in a basket on the Euphrates river by his mother to avoid being killed. In Egypt, the child Horus was hidden among the reeds on the Nile’s shore for fear of his uncle, Seth. Among the Greeks, the demigod Perseus was left on the sea in a box, along with his mother, on the orders of his grandfather, King Acrisius. God Uranus locked up his children in Tartarus for fear they would dethrone him. After taking his father’s place, titan Cronus was cursed to have the same fate, so he swallowed his children, but the youngest of them, Zeus, was saved. In Persia, when prophet Zoroaster, whose birth had been foretold 3,000 years before, was born, some assassins tried to kill him, but an angel advised his parents to hide in another country. Before the birth of the god Krishna, it was predicted that he would destroy evil on Earth. He was born in a prison where his mother had been locked up by her brother, King Kansa, who ordered all the babies to be killed. But a voice from heaven advised Krishna’s mother to cross the Jamna river to save the child. King Astyages of the Medes had two unusual dreams, which his soothsayers meant that he would have a nephew who would take his throne. The child, called Kurush (Cyrus the Great), the future emperor of the Persian Empire, was saved miraculously. The Roman ancestors, Romulus and Remus, were saved by a she-wolf. In an Arabian legend, King Nimrod saw a strange star in the sky, which his astrologers told him that it announced the birth of a baby who would become the leader of a people who would rule the world. The king ordered all male babies in his kingdom to be killed. The future mother of the child was warned of the danger and fled to another country, giving birth to Abraham in a cave.
The star that showed the magi the way to Jesus in Matthew’s gospel is not unique, such stars sent by the gods exist in ancient legends. For example, besides the one in the myth of Nimrod, which announced the birth of Abraham, there is one in the Aeneid, written by the Roman poet Virgil a few decades before our era. On the night when the Greeks conquered the city of Troy, Prince Anchises asked god Jupiter to save his family: „Almighty Jupiter, if someone’s prayer can convince you, look at us with mercy; this is what we ask, and if we deserve it through our faith, give us your help and strengthen our prophecy„. After this prayer „a thunder clap was heard on the left and, sliding from the sky into darkness, a star fell leaving a trail of light behind it. We saw it touching the roof of our house and, still shining, it hid in the forests of Ida, thus showing us the way„. After this miracle, Prince Anchises „then stood up, raised prayers to the gods, and worshipped the holy star„. Like the star in the Gospel of Matthew, the one sent by Jupiter had the role of showing the correct path. Some Trojans, led by Aeneas, followed the star and managed to escape from Troy.
Even though miraculous births and resurrections were often found in the world’s religions, this does not prove that the story of Jesus is a plagiarism. However, there is evidence. Similarities have been noticed between the Christian god and many solar deities, such as Sol Invictus of the Romans. Even the birth date of Jesus, 25th December, was the day when solar deities were celebrated throughout the Roman Empire. Christian rituals are copies of pagan ones; communion was borrowed from the religion of god Mithra and baptism from the aquatic deities, being practiced in Sumer, Egypt, Babylon, Canaan or India. The bishops’ mitre or miter even bears the name of Mithra and the fish shape of the god Oannes. In the first centuries of Christianity, a cave in Bethlehem was indicated as the birthplace of Jesus, which had previously been considered the birthplace of the god Tammuz. The similarities between the legend of Jesus and those of other ancient gods or heroes are usually taboo for the representatives of the Church, who very rarely give explanations, and most of the time absurd ones. For example, Justin Martyr (an early Christian apologist and philosopher), explained in the 2nd century the similarity between the story of Perseus and that of Jesus by saying that the Devil, knowing that Christ was soon to come to Earth, arranged things so that all miracles would take place before the arrival of the god. Justin also explained the similarity between the Christian communion and that of the Mithraic religion: „Evil spirits, imitating this rite, perpetuated the communion also in the mysteries of Mithra„. The most obvious case of plagiarism, which cannot be blamed on any malicious entity, no matter how much Justin may have wanted it, is represented by the resurrection of Lazarus in the Gospel of John. If he were a real character, Lazarus would have been called El’azar. „El” means „god” in Hebrew and „azar” is a transliteration of the name of the Egyptian god Asar (Osiris); therefore, El’azar correctly translates as „God Asar”. In Egyptian mythology, Isis resurrected the god Asar; in Christianity, Jesus resurrected the one called „God Asar”, which cannot be a coincidence. Nor can the similarity between the names of Jesus (Iesous in the New Testament) and Isis. The story of Jesus was also inspired by other biblical characters. The episode of killing the infants on Herod’s orders is identical to that of Moses, and two Old Testament prophets performed miracles similar to those of the Christian god: Elijah (Eliyahu in Hebrew) and Elisha. Elijah multiplied the flour and oil of a widow in Sarepta, so it would not end until the end of the drought, he resurrected her child and divided the waters of the Jordan River like Moses. His disciple, Elisha, divided the water in the same way, multiplied the oil of a widow and food for field workers, resurrected a child and healed a leper. However, the similarities of the myth of Jesus to those of other characters pale when compared to the most important one: the Christian god is a copy of the divinity known as Enlil by the Sumerians.
The legends of the Incas of South America say that after the Flood, the Earth was in darkness due to the disappearance of the Sun, society was torn by disorder and people were suffering. As Harold Osborne noted in his book South American Mythology (1968), „suddenly, coming from the south, there appeared a white man with an imposing stature and an authoritarian attitude. This man had such great power that he transformed hills into valleys and raised high hills from valleys, making water flow from rock„. This character, who gave people the knowledge needed for a civilized life, was called by the Andean peoples Viracocha, Illa, Huracocha, Con, Con Ticci, Kon Tiki, Thunupa, Taapac or Tupaca. He is credited with introducing to Peru various forms of knowledge, including medicine, metallurgy, agriculture, animal husbandry, the art of writing and a complex understanding of engineering and architectural principles. In the 17th century, Vicar Francisco de Avila wrote in his treatise on the Incas that this character „made terraces and fields for crops on the steep slopes of ravines, raising supporting walls to support them. He also made irrigation channels to water them (…) he traveled everywhere, performing many wonders„. The one who came in a time of chaos to bring the world back on the right path and who wielded terrible weapons was considered by the indigenous people to be the master of science and magic and, of course, a god. In addition to being a scientist, architect, sculptor and engineer, Viracocha was also a teacher and healer. It is said that „wherever he went, he healed all the sick and restored the sight of the blind„. The first Spanish chronicler who recorded the legend of Viracocha stated that it was told to him by the indigenous people he encountered on his travels in the Andes: „they say that this man traveled northward, performing miracles along the way, and that they never saw him again. Everywhere he went, he advised people on how to live, spoke to them with great love and kindness, and taught them to be good and not harm each other but to love each other and show kindness to all. In most places he was known as Ticci Viracocha„. In a legend recorded by Harold Osborne in South American Mythology, Viracocha „was accompanied by a retinue and spoke to the locals with love, calling them his sons and daughters. Everywhere he went, he performed miracles. He healed the sick with a simple touch. He spoke any language better than the locals, who called him Thunupa, Tarpaca, Viracocha-Rapacha, Pachacan„. A character who came in a time of chaos to bring the world back on the right path, performed miracles, healed the sick, spread messages of love and was considered a god, strikingly resembles Jesus of the Christians, even in physical appearance. Chronicler Juan de Betanzos stated in Narrative of the Incas („Suma y Narracion de los Incas”) in the 16th century that the indigenous people described Viracocha as „a tall man with a beard, dressed in a white robe that reached the ground and fastened with a belt around his waist„. In a myth recorded by John Hemming in The Conquest of the Incas, Thunupa-Viracocha was „a tall white man, whose appearance and presence commanded great admiration and respect„. Other Peruvian legends collected by Harold Osborne and published in South American Mythology describe the god as „a white man with a majestic appearance, with blue eyes, a beard, was sober, puritan, and preached against drunkenness, polygamy and war„, wearing a sleeveless shirt that reached his knees, „a white man with an imposing stature and an authoritative attitude” or „a bearded thin man of average height, wearing a fairly long mantle„. Like Jesus, Viracocha traveled accompanied by followers. A legend recorded in the Anonymous Account of the Ancient Customs of the Natives of Peru („Relacion anonyma de los costumbres antiquas de los naturales del Piru”), cited in The Facts on File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, claims that the god was accompanied by two types of disciples: „huaminca” („faithful soldiers”) and „hayhuaypanti” („the shining ones”). Their role was to carry the message of the god „to all corners of the world„, just like Jesus’s apostles. The 1978 Pears Encyclopedia of Myths and Legends: Oceania, Australia and the Americas calls these companions „viracochas„: „then Con Ticci gathered his followers, who were called viracochas” and „Con Ticci ordered all the viracochas, except two, to go east„. The same name is used in the myths collected by Harold Osborne: „so those viracochas went to the provinces where Viracocha had sent them„. A similar story is recorded in the Gospel of Luke, where Jesus sent 70 apostles ahead of him, leaving only 12 behind: After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come” (10:1). After sending his followers ahead, as noted by American anthropologist and linguist John Alden Mason in The Ancient Civilizations of Peru, „Viracocha himself, with his two assistants, traveled north (…) They went along the mountain range, one of the assistants on the coastal road, the other along the edge of the eastern forests (…) The Creator went to Urcos, near Cuzco, where he ordered the future population to come out of a mountain. He visited Cuzco, then continued his journey north, to Ecuador. There, in the province of Manta, he bid farewell to his people and, walking on waves, disappeared into the ocean„. According to Christianity, the only character who walked on water was Jesus, as stated in the gospels: „And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea” (Matthew 14:25), „And about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them” (Mark 6:48), „So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid” (John 6:19). In Narrative of the Incas, Juan de Betanzos has another version of the event, but with the same miraculous outcome: „Viracocha went on his way, calling the races of men to him (…) When he arrived in the district of Puerto Viejo, those he had sent ahead joined him and, after they reunited, he left to sea with them. It is said that he and his people walked on water as easily as they would walk on land„. We find again the miracle of walking on water, this time not only by the deity but also by his followers. It should not surprise us too much that the Bible tells of a similar event: apostle Peter also walked on water but, due to his doubt, he sank: „And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus” (Matthew 14:29).
The Incas believed that Viracocha, the deity identical to Jesus both in acts and in physical appearance, came among them shortly after the Deluge, many millennia before the supposed birth of Christ. This excludes the possibility that the Incas were in any way inspired by the New Testament. The conquerors were actually surprised when they discovered the similarities between the indigenous religion and Christianity. Viracocha, the supreme god of the Incas, was called Enlil, Adad, or Ishkur by the Sumerians, Sutah (Seth) and Atum by the Egyptians, Ramman by the Akkadians, Baal Hadad and Eli by the Canaanites, Zeus by the Greeks, Odin by the Scandinavians and Vishnu by the Hindus. Although myths describe him as a warrior deity, fierce like a storm, authoritarian and merciless to his enemies, Enlil was viewed by our ancestors as a benevolent deity, a protector of humanity. Sun, light, day, east and right side, associated with Enlil, represent good, while Moon, darkness, night, west and left side, associated with Enki, signify evil. Also, the elements of nature, in antithesis, were associated with the same two gods: the earth and water were the domains of Enki, while the air and fire were those of Enlil. The god of storm was called „bull” or „lion„, epithets that indicate his role as a ruler deity and his strength and ferocity. As a celestial god, the bird became his symbol, whether we’re talking about Odin’s ravens or Zeus’ and Vishnu’s eagles. The king of the Earth and heir to the heavenly kingdom, associated with the storm due to his warrior character, Enlil was the obedient son, who obeyed his father’s will, the supreme ruler of the world. For Hindus, Vishnu / Enlil was reincarnated as Krishna, and for Buddhists as Siddhartha Gautama or Buddha, whose stories are similar here and there to that of Jesus. The birth of Krishna was miraculous, being conceived not through sexual contact, but through „mental transmission„, his arrival into our world being foretold long before. His life was threatened at birth, when King Kansa ordered all babies to be killed, but he was saved by a voice from heaven that advised his mother to flee across the Yamuna River. Krishna was a prince who later became king and traveled through India surrounded by followers, preaching peace and love, healing the sick and raising the dead. He sought solitude in the desert, where he was tempted by a demon. At one point he was a shepherd, as Hindu icons show, but also a fierce warrior. Before dying, he announced that he would return to destroy evil. Buddha’s miraculous birth, dated about five centuries before Jesus’, was prophesied long before. The king of the gods entered Queen Maya’s body in the form of a five-colored ray, left her pregnant and she gave birth to Siddhartha Gautama. The prince was a simple man until the age of 18, when he became the Buddha. He retired to the desert where he was tempted by the demon Mara, traveled the country surrounded by followers, preached peace and love, healed the sick and raised the dead. Before he died, he announced to his followers that he would return to destroy evil. If Buddha and Krishna were considered reincarnations of Vishnu, in the biblical gospels the Holy Spirit entered Jesus’ body. He too was tempted by a demon, traveled the country surrounded by followers, preached peace and love, performed miracles and promised he would return to destroy evil. In addition, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that he incarnates whenever the Law weakens and wickedness strengthens. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus stated: „Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (5:17), a similar idea to that of the Indian god. And these remarkable similarities in the lives of the three cannot be attributed to chance.
In addition to these, there are several similarities between Jesus and Enlil, the storm god, son and heir of the celestial Emperor Anu. Such as:
– Jesus was called „the good shepherd” and Krishna was often depicted as a shepherd. One of Enlil’s epithets in Sumer was „the good shepherd„.
– Jesus was called „the king of the Jews„. Christians consider him to be the Christ, that is the Messiah of the Jews, which means „The Anointed One”, only kings being anointed at that time. For the Sumerians, Enlil holded the rank of king, symbolized by his number, 50.
– Jesus said that his kingdom is in heaven. That was the kingdom of Enlil, which he inherited from his father.
– Jesus said he came to Earth to do his father’s will. Enlil was the obedient son who always followed his father’s orders, An / Anu. The symbol of Christianity is the cross, which in Mesopotamia was An’s symbol.
– In the gospels of Matthew and Mark, Jesus stands at the right hand of God. For the Sumerians, Enlil was the one who stood at the right hand of Emperor An in the Council of Gods.
– The Gospel of Matthew announces that all the nations of the Earth will see Jesus „coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (24:30). This idea is repeated in 26:64, where he will be seen „sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven„. One of Baal Hadad’s epithets, Enlil to the Canaanites, was „the rider of the clouds„.
– The Gospel of Mark 3:17 tells us about the brothers James and John, that Jesus „surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder„. We cannot know what prompted Jesus to name the two this way, nor can we know their connection with the storm. Besides Enlil, the god of storm, whose weapons were the thunder and the lightning.
– In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was with his disciples in a boat, he stopped the storm that threatened their lives, commanding it (Matthew 8:26). The same episode is found also in Mark’s gospel: „And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm” (4:39). When Jesus walked on water to his disciples, like the Inca’s Viracocha, the wind stopped after he boarded the boat (Matthew 14:32, Mark 6:51). The gospels also recount the amazement of people in front of the one who had power over the storm: „But the men marveled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!” (Matthew 8:27). Who could have power over the storm if not its god, Enlil?
– In the Talmud, Jesus is considered the son of the Roman soldier Pandira. Although the Jews tried to hide his divine origin through this claim, in Egyptian „pandira” is written „pa-ntr-ra„, which means „the god Ra” („pa” – definite article that always precedes the noun, „ntr” = „god” in ancient Egyptian, „Ra” – the name of the supreme god of the Egyptians). And Ra, as we saw, was An in Sumer, the father of Enlil.
– According to the Gospel of John, „the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us„. The Word, which here symbolizes Jesus, generally represents authority. For the Sumerians, Enlil was the ultimate source of authority on Earth. For the Egyptians, the ruler god Ra cut off his own phallus, from which drops of blood fell and gave birth to two personifications of intellect: Hu („Authority”) and Saa („Intellect”). Ra was An of the Sumerians and his two sons can only be the authoritarian Enlil and the god of wisdom and intelligence, Enki. So, also in John’s gospel the authority symbolized by the Word is attributed to Enlil.
– For Sethian Gnostics, the aeon Seth was embodied in Jesus. This aeon was the god of the ancient Egyptians, Seth, called Enlil by the Sumerians.
– For the rest of the Gnostics, the aeon Christ descended from heaven, united with his sister, Sophia, and entered the body of the man Jesus. In their view, this aeon was the Holy Spirit from the gospels or Seth of the Sethians. However, the name Christ (Khristos in Greek) is very similar to that of the Indian Krishna, suggesting the same entity.
– In the Apologeticus, the Christian writer Tertullian noted that during the gladiator fights in Carthage, a painting was publicly displayed showing Jesus with „donkey ears, with a hoof on one foot, holding a book, and dressed in a toga„. In Tertullian’s chronicle, Christians were accused of worshiping a donkey’s head and participating in orgies, crimes and incest. These accusations are also mentioned by Marcus Minucius Felix in Octavius. On a sarcophagus from the third century, a donkey and a bull are depicted near the manger where the baby Jesus was placed. Also, in the episode of the flight to Egypt described by the Gospel of Matthew, Mary is often depicted riding a donkey. This indicates a new connection between Jesus and Seth, the god who for the Egyptians had the head of an animal similar to a donkey.
– In chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation, a great dragon „stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born„, just like the Titan Cronus in Greek myths, who swallowed his children after their birth. The child, identified by Christians with Jesus, was saved just like Zeus (the same Enlil) in Greek myths. The name of the nymph Melissa, who fed little Zeus with honey in Greek legends, in Ireland is used as the feminine form of the Gaelic name Maoiliosa, which means „Servant of Jesus”.
– Jesus was referred to as „the lion of Judah„. Enlil was referred to in Mesopotamia as „the lion„. The Egyptian city of Pi-Ramses, dedicated to Seth, was also known as „the city of the lion„. In Hinduism, Shiva is depicted with a lion under his feet; as Shiva is Enki, the enemy of Vishnu / Enlil, this representation indicates his superiority over his brother. Ishtar, Enki’s daughter, was also depicted stepping on lions for the same reason.
– According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said: „Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (10:34). In the Gospel of Thomas, he stated: „Perhaps people think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. They do not know that I have come to throw the world into disarray: fire, sword, and war” and „I have thrown fire on the earth, and behold, I am watching until it blazes„. Enlil was a warrior god and fire, one of his elements, was in antithesis to Enki’s water.
– Jesus claimed to have seen Satan falling from heaven like lightning. The same can be said of Enlil, who caused the fall / exile of Enki to Earth.
– In Mesopotamian religions, Enlil’s mother was often referred to as „the Virgin„. In Christianity, Mary, Jesus’ mother, bears the same epithet.
– The passage from the Book of Isaiah considered by Christians to be a prophecy about their god, Jesus, hides a reference to the same Enlil. „Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good” (7:14-15), wrote the prophet. A child fed with butter and honey just like Zeus, born of a virgin just like Enlil, who will choose good and reject evil… It may seem like a coincidence, but not if we look closely at the names. For the evangelist Matthew, Emmanuel means „God with us” (1:23). In Sumerian, „em” means „wind, storm, weather, cloud, rain”, „anu” is „heaven” in Akkadian (derived from the Sumerian „an„, which has the same meaning), and „el” represents the word for „deity” in the northwest Semitic languages (including Hebrew). Thus, the most accurate interpretation of the name Emanuel / Emmanuel is „The God of Storm and Heaven”, none other than Enlil.
– If Jesus had lived in first-century Judea, his name would have been Yeshu’a (a variant of Yehoshu’a), which was mistakenly translated by Jews in the hope that Christians would adopt their god. In the official version, his name means „Yahweh is salvation”. Indeed, Christianity did adopt the divinity of the Jews, although it was not the god that Jesus was speaking of. The New Testament does not even use the name Yahweh for the supreme god, but Theos, derived from the Greek „theoreo„, meaning „to see, to look, to observe”. The name Yeshu’a / Yehoshu’a is made of „Yah” (an abbreviation of the name Yahweh and also the name of the Moon for the ancient Egyptians) and „shua„, which means „to cry”. Yeshu’a / Yehoshu’a translates to „The Cry of Yahweh” or, more accurately, „The One who Makes Yahweh Cry”. This designates Yahweh’s enemy, who can only be Enlil. After Jesus died on the cross, the gospels claim that an earthquake split the veil of the temple in Jerusalem, shattered stones and opened tombs. Since the temple in question was Yahweh’s / Marduk’s, only his enemy, Enlil, would have caused such damage.
– The gospels claim that demons knew who Jesus was and that he asked them to be quiet so as not to give him away: „And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known” (Mark 3:11-12); „And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ” (Luke 4:41); „and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him” (Mark 1:34); „And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him” (Mark 1:23-26). How did the demons knew him? Why were they afraid of him? And why wouldn’t he let them decline his identity? If Jesus was Enlil, it is normal for the demons, servants of Enki, to have been afraid of their most feared enemy.
In the Gospel of Matthew, „When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets” (16:13-14). The same gospel suggests that the prophet Elijah (Eliyahu in the Old Testament and Elias in the New Testament) was embodied in Jesus, his spirit leaving him on the cross before dying: „And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias” (27:46-47). The evangelist Matthew, like the gnostics’ Pistis Sophia, claims that Elijah / Elias was embodied in John the Baptist as well. In the Old Testament, the prophet Elijah multiplied the flour and oil of a widow so that it would not be finished until the end of the drought, and resurrected her son, miracles similar to those of Jesus. The prophet also caused fire to fall from the sky during the contest with the prophets of Baal and against the soldiers of King Ahaziah, just as Viracocha did in Inca myths. It seems that the spirit responsible for these miracles was the one who, after Elijah was taken up to heaven, passed from the prophet to his disciple, Elisha. After receiving the spirit, Elisha performed miracles similar to those of Elijah and Jesus: he multiplied the oil of a widow and the food of field workers, resurrected a child and healed a leper. Could this be the same spirit that entered Jesus according to the Gospel of Matthew? The name of the prophet Elijah and his disciple, Elisha, contain the name of the supreme god of the Canaanite religion. El or Eli is the Akkadian abbreviation for Ellil, called Enlil by the Sumerians. The Old Testament suggests other connections between the prophet and this god:
– Three leaders with 50 soldiers each came to Elijah in the same story where Obadiah hid 50 prophets in two caves and 50 sons of the prophets accompanied Elijah and Elisha to Jordan. 50 was the number of Enlil for the Sumerians, meaning the rank of king.
– After the killing of Baal’s prophets, „the heaven was black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain„. When he passed before Elijah, the god Yahweh came in „a great and strong wind„. Later, Elijah was taken to heaven in a „whirlwind„. Enlil was the god of thunder, rain, clouds and wind.
– During the competition with the prophets of Baal, „the fire of Yahweh fell„. When the god passed in front of Elijah there was a storm, followed by an earthquake and fire. At Elijah’s request, who was on top of a mountain, fire descended from heaven twice, burning the soldiers of King Ahaziah. The prophet was taken in a chariot of fire. Fire was the element of Enlil.
– Elijah’s rivals were the prophets of Baal-Zebub and Asherah. The name Baal-Zebub comes from that of Baal Zephon (Marduk), and Asherah from that of the goddess Ishtar. Marduk and Ishtar were the enemies of Enlil.
– In Christian tradition, Saint Elijah has the power to open and close the heavens. Responsible for bringing rain, he travels through air in his chariot. In Romanian mythology, when demons climbed into heaven, God gave Elijah the thunder and the lightning, with which he threw the demons on Earth, which is why he is considered a warrior saint. After the Saint Elijah service, women burn basil that they have kept at icons. Enlil is the god of thunderstorms, the one who threw the „demons” of Enki on Earth. The thunder and the lightning were his weapons and fire was one of his symbols.
Enlil can also be found in Christianity not only as Jesus but also as the archangel Michael (Mikha’el in Hebrew), adopted from Judaism. In the legend of Lucifer, from which Jesus is absent, the one who fought against the rebellious angel was Michael, reminding us of Enlil and Enki. In the Book of Enoch, Michael is the leader of the archangels who punished the Watcher angels led by Azazel. According to the Kabbalah, the human soul is divided into two parts: the right one is called Michael and the left one, Samael. For Christians, Jews and Muslims, Michael is a guardian angel of people. His association with the right side and his opposition to Lucifer / Azazel / Samael (which are names of Enki) indicate Michael as Enlil. His name was interpreted as a question, „Who is like God?” although there is no question mark in his name and „el” does not only mean „God”, but also „god” or „supreme god”. Therefore, a more correct translation would be „Who is like the supreme god”. As the heir of Anu and his representative on Earth, who received all the titles and functions of his father, Enlil was like the supreme god. Early Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists believe that Michael was incarnated in Jesus. In Christianity, Michael is the patron of warriors, the sick, the suffering and of a few mountains. In medieval art he was represented holding a balance in one hand, with which he judged the souls of the dead, and the Book of Life in the other hand. All of these suggest one conclusion: in Christianity, as in Judaism, Michael is an alter-ego of the god Enlil. For this reason, in the legend of Lucifer, Michael is the one who led the army of angels against the rebels, and in that of the Apocalypse, Jesus took on this role.
The myth of Lucifer is well-known among Christians and others. The angel who wanted to take God’s place became the equivalent of absolute evil. From the most beautiful angel, the Lord’s favorite, Lucifer turned into a hideous monster, whose name many avoid mentioning, for fear of attracting him into their lives. However, few know that Lucifer does not exist in the Bible. His legend and his name arose from the erroneous interpretation of verses from two biblical chapters, the 14th of the Book of Isaiah and the 28th of the Book of Ezekiel.
The word „lucifer„, which means „bringer of light”, was used in Latin to designate a phase of the planet Venus (the morning star), as noticed in the works of Marcus Terentius Varro, Cicero, Pliny the Elder, Virgil, Ovid and other early Latin authors. For the evening star, the Romans used another name, „vesper„. Shortly, the Romans named the morning star Lucifer and the evening star Vesper, although it was the same planet. In the Bible, the Devil is called by many names (Satan, devil, adversary, enemy, accuser, great dragon, old serpent, Beelzebub, Belial), but never Lucifer. In the Book of Isaiah 14:4-17, the prophet who named the chapter describes the king of Babylon as a morning star (in Hebrew „helel„) fallen in the eyes of the Lord. As was natural for a Roman, Saint Jerome of Stridon (who translated the Bible in Latin in 4th or 5th century AD) translated „morning star” as the Latin word „lucifer„. Some interpreters of the Bible ignored the true meaning of the word „lucifer” and the fact that Isaiah referred to the king of Babylon, understanding it as referring to Satan and his downfall. In the First Epistle of Peter 1:19, the same word („phosphoros” in Greek and „helel” in Hebrew) was translated into Latin as „lucifer” without referring to the Devil. And in the Book of Revelation 22:16, Jesus says „I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star” („helel” in Hebrew, „phosphoros” in Greek and „lucifer” in Latin). The „wise men” of the Church kept for these two passages the true meaning of the word, „morning star”, but did not want to apply the same logic to Isaiah. As a result of a misinterpretation, the rebel angel got a new name, Lucifer, which started to be used for the Devil and spread through works such as Dante Alighieri’s Inferno, John Milton’s Paradise Lost and the King James Bible, used by most English speakers today.
Chapters 13 and 14 of the Book of Isaiah refer to „the burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see„. In chapter 14, Yahweh tells the prophet: „That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say: (…) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned„. It is very clear that these words refer to the king of Babylon, not to a fallen angel. This king, Nebuchadnezzar II (Nabu-kudurri-ushur in Akkadian), first incited the wrath of Yahweh by conquering the Jews, and secondly, because he believed himself to be all-powerful, a god on Earth, which prompted him to attack Egypt and Levant. The phrase „Is this the man that made the earth to tremble” shows that it refers to a human being, not to a superior entity. „Thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people” refers to the Babylonian people, underscoring once again that the excerpt above is addressed to the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II, not to some rebel angel. Furthermore, the 16th-century Protestant reformer John Calvin wrote that „the exposition of this passage, about which some consider it refers to Satan, arose from ignorance; as the context clearly shows that these statements must be understood as referring to the Babylonian king„. Martin Luther, the initiator of the Protestant Reformation, also considered it a serious error that the passage from the Book of Isaiah referred to the Devil.
The same is true in the Book of Ezekiel. Here, Yahweh sends the prophet with threats to several peoples: in Chapter 24 to the Israelites, in Chapter 25 to the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites and Philistines, in Chapters 26-28 to the Phoenicians of Tyre, in Chapter 28 to the Sidonians, in Chapter 29 to the Egyptians, in Chapter 30 to the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Lydians, in Chapters 31-32 again to the Egyptians, in Chapters 33-34 once more to the Israelites, in Chapter 35 to the Seir Mountain, in Chapter 36 to the mountains of Israel and in Chapters 38-39 to the king of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. Yahweh’s threats through the mouth of Ezekiel were directed at humans: Israelites who lost their faith or enemies of Israel. In chapters 26 and 27 it can be noticed that Yahweh refers to the city of Tyre in Lebanon (called Tyrus in the King James Bible): „Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up„, „Now, thou son of man, take up a lamentation for Tyrus; And say unto Tyrus…„. Chapter 28 continues the threats against the city of Tyre, this time directed towards its ruler: „The word of Yahweh came again unto me, saying, Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith Yahweh Elohim; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of Yahweh, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not god, though thou set thine heart as the heart of Yahweh” (1-2). It remains a mystery why most people believe that it is about Lucifer, when it is crystal clear: Yahweh sends Ezekiel to the one who rules in Tyre, that is „the prince of Tyrus„, who was a man, not an angel. Otherwise, probably some chronicles would have been found to attest that, during Ezekiel’s time, an angel led a city. From the above quote it can be understood that this king became very arrogant, considering himself equal to the gods. The passage „thou art a man, and not god” proves that this ruler of Tyre was a man, not an angel or a god. If it were referring to Lucifer, the verse would specify: „thou art an angel, and not god„. Further, we also find out the reasons for the prince’s arrogance: „Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee: With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches” (3-5). Because he came up with a method of getting rich, the prince (in King James’ opinion, but in reality the king of Tyre, Ithobaal III, according to the chronology of Flavius Josephus) considered himself very wise. Indeed, archaeological discoveries prove that the city of Tyre was very rich in Antiquity, something that is explained in detail in chapter 27 of the Book of Ezekiel. The king of Tyre grew very rich from trade, which increased his arrogance. Because he was very wealthy and probably very intelligent (at least in his own view), Ithobaal considered himself a god among men. Not just any god, but the greatest of all. The reason for Yahweh’s anger is clear: „Therefore thus saith Yahweh Elohim; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of Yahweh; Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas” (6-8). Yahweh claims that the king of Tyre will descend into the grave, dying by drowning. If it were an angel, it could not die, according to the Judeo-Christian mythology. The Church says that Lucifer was locked in the Underworld, will be released at the Apocalypse, will be locked again for 1,000 years, released again and then bound forever. But not killed. However, the above passage asserts that the king of Tyre will be killed. Furthermore, if Yahweh were referring to Lucifer, threatening to kill him, this idea would have contradicted the Book of Revelation, which claims that the fallen angel is not dead, but bound in the depths. „Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am god? but thou shalt be a man, and no god, in the hand of him that slayeth thee. Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith Yahweh Elohim” (9-10). Again, it emphasized the idea that King Ithobaal is just a man and he will be killed by people. In verses 11-12 it is remembered that it is the king of Tyre, a man, not an angel: „Moreover the word of Yahweh came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him…„. And King James found out the ruler of Tyre was a king, not a prince.
The excerpt which gave the story of Lucifer’s fall is as follows: „Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith Yahweh Elohim; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of Yahweh; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of Yahweh; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of Yahweh: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more” (12-19). All the passages before this demonstrate that it is about a man, not an angel. The most accurate interpretation of the above fragment is as follows: the king of Tyre was a very faithful man, pleasing to Yahweh, until the moment he became wealthy („Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee„). Therefore, the god of the Jews became angry with his former protege, preferring to threaten him through the mouth of a prophet rather than punish him as an all-powerful deity would. Some believe that the above phrase refers to an angel, because only such a being could be sinless, while all people are born sinful. The absurd idea that all people are born with original sin, which they can only escape through baptism, was introduced by the Christian Church. The Old Testament does not support this hypothesis, but rather considers that there were sinless people. Here are some examples: „Noah was just a man and perfect in his generations” (Genesis 6:9), in the Orthodox version, „Noah was a just and sinless man„; „Let me be weighed in an even balance, that Yahweh may know mine integrity” (Book of Job 31:6), in the Orthodox version is „let Yahweh know my innocence„; „The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them” (Proverbs 11:3); „The righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way: but the wicked shall fall by his own wickedness” (Proverbs 11:5); „The wicked is driven away in his wickedness: but the righteous hath hope in his death” (Proverbs 14:32), in the Orthodox version is „the righteous hath hope in his purity„; „Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse in his lips, and is a fool” (Proverbs 19:1), in the Orthodox version is „the poor that walketh in his innocence„; „Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich” (Proverbs 28:6), in the Orthodox version is „the poor that walketh in his innocence„; „deceiving the good and innocent thought of the masters by crafty and lying talk” (Book of Esther 8:12) – a quote found in the Orthodox version, missing from the King James Bible. So, the idea that people cannot be sinless is in contradiction with the teachings of the Old Testament. People still say today that the faithful are closer to God, and those who lose their faith are said to have moved away from Divinity. We can find the same idea above: the king of Tyre was very faithful, close to Yahweh, in Eden, on the holy mountain. The biblical writer used a metaphor to emphasize the king’s high level of faith, which means that the passage above should not be interpreted literally. Through his purity of soul, due to his faith, the king was perfect in the eyes of Yahweh, who had already prepared for him a place in heaven and even a role as an angel (cherubim). When the king’s affairs began to produce wealth, he forgot his faith and his god, considering himself a god on Earth („By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned„). By losing his faith, he moved away from Yahweh, that is, metaphorically speaking, he fell from the place he occupied in the presence of his god. We notice that the king’s business was illicit, since Yahweh refers to „the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick „. These business plus the arrogance of the king of Tyre angered Yahweh, leading to the loss of his place in heaven that Ithobaal had previously gained through faith.
These are the passages that gave rise to the legend of Lucifer’s fall. There is no mention of a rebel angel in the Bible, but only about two kings who believed themselves to be gods, as was the case with most of them. Those passages were later attributed to the new negative character in Christianity, which does not exist in the Bible. If Lucifer does not exist in „the Holy Book”, how did his legend arise? As the editors of the Bible have already shown us, plagiarism was also behind this myth, the story of Lucifer being a copy of Adam’s in the Old Testament. Lucifer was the first angel, Adam was the first man. Lucifer was the son of God, Adam was the son of Yahweh Elohim. Lucifer was expelled from heaven because he had sinned; Adam was expelled from the Garden of Eden (matched by Christians with the heavenly paradise) because he had sinned. Lucifer was exiled on Earth, just like Adam. Lucifer considered himself equal to God, Adam became like the Elohim gods, as the Bible itself states: „And Yahweh Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil’” (Genesis 3:22). The fall of Lucifer in Christianity is nothing more than the Old Testament fall of Adam, which means that, for the inventor of this myth, the first man became the first angel, which would explain the lack of creation of angels in the biblical Genesis. The Sethian Gnostics also suggested that Adam was not a simple man, but a superior entity. For them, one of the aeons was Adama, whose son, Seth, was reincarnated in the carpenter Jesus; in the Old Testament, Adam had a son named Seth, the ancestor of all mankind.
In turn, Adam was invented as a pale copy of one of the great gods of Antiquity, the first to arrive on our planet, who rebelled against the supreme god. In the myths of the world, the god called Enki by the Sumerians attacked his father and was forced to fight with his younger brother, the god of storm, being defeated and exiled to Earth; for Christians, Lucifer tried to dethrone his father, fought with his younger brother and was expelled to Earth. Michael and Jesus have already been matched with Enlil. The Book of Revelation describes the fight between the two brothers: „And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (12:7-9). This enemy identified by Christians with Lucifer, although the Bible does not use this name, is called „the great dragon„, „that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan„; in world myths, Enki is often called „The Great Serpent„. Additionally, the Norwegian linguist Sophus Bugge concluded in 1889 that the Scandinavian god Loki is the Nordic version of Lucifer, and Loki has already been matched with the Sumerian Enki.
Christian mythology claims that after falling into sin, Lucifer became Satan. However, these are two different entities, at least for the inventors of Christianity. In the Book of Revelation, John describes that a Beast with a physical appearance identical to the Dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, came out of the sea. „The dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority” (13:2) and „it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (13:7). The identical physical appearance of the two suggests their possible kinship. This means that the Beast can only be Marduk, the son of Enki, who, according to world legends, took over his father’s throne and the Earth’s leadership. John also says that the Beast was wounded, but „his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast” (13:3). The wound was inflicted during a battle, the Beast „had the wound by a sword, and did live” (13:14). This battle is most likely the one for supremacy against Enlil, Marduk being initially defeated (Enlil led Earth after Enki). However, after his father’s death, according to myths, Marduk received the leadership of the planet. The Beast of the Apocalypse is ridden by a woman, called „the Whore of Babylon„, none other than Ishtar, the great goddess of Babylon, sister and wife of Marduk. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the identity of the Beast, the leader of the „sons of darkness” in the final battle against the „sons of light” being Belial, which comes from Bel, Marduk’s epithet in Babylon. While the Beast in Revelation is given authority over this world, in the Gospel of Luke the Devil or Satan tells Jesus „All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it” (4:6), a story also confirmed by the Gospel of Matthew. In 2 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul calls Satan „the god of this world” (4:4), and the Gospel of John „the prince of this world” (12:31, 14:30, 16:11); in the Orthodox version he is called „the ruler of this world„. Therefore, the Beast of the Revelation and Satan of the rest of the New Testament are the same character: Marduk of the Babylonians, son of Enki / Lucifer. Furthermore, Nergal, one of Marduk’s destructive aspects in Babylon, was matched by the early Christians with Satan.
Who is the God of the New Testament, the father of Jesus? In the official version, accepted by both Christianity and Judaism, he is the deity of the Old Testament, Yahweh. However, the New Testament doesn’t use this name even once, preferring Theos. Moreover, the God of the New Testament is one of love and forgiveness, completely different from the vengeful and merciless god of the Jews. Gnostics believed Yahweh to be a malevolent, ignorant and unknowing entity, different from the true God. Researcher Edward Meyer, quoted by Sigmund Freud in Moses and Monotheism, described Yahweh as a terrifying and bloody demon that haunts at night and shies away from daylight. In the Old Testament, Yahweh is a jealous, wicked, vengeful, merciless and often frustrated god. In fact, even his followers describe him as such: „Yahweh is jealous, and Yahweh revengeth; Yahweh revengeth, and is furious; Yahweh will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies” (The Book of Nahum 1:2). In Hebrew scriptures, Yahweh often incites his followers to violence, crimes, theft and rape while trying to control them through fear, threatening and cursing them whenever he can. For the authors of the New Testament, as well as for the Gnostics and Essenes, Yahweh was not God but Satan. So, what is the true identity of Theos, the supreme god for them and the father of Jesus? It can only be An, the leader of the Sumerian pantheon, the father of Enlil, called by the Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians and Hittites Anu or Anum. His name, written in cuneiform with a cross (the symbol of Christianity), means „Sky”, „Heaven”. For the Mesopotamians he was the divine intelligence who created the Universe, whose kingdom was in heaven, just like Theos of the Christians. An / Anu sent his son Enlil to Earth with the mission to save the planet from the influence of the fallen gods of Enki, a story similar to that of Christianity.
Although Christianity is considered a monotheistic religion, it has not eliminated the gods of ancient peoples, but has transformed them. Even Jesus confirmed the existence of these deities in early Christian writings: „Where there are three gods, these are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with them” (The Gospel of Thomas), „Where there are three gods, they are without God, and where there is only one, I have said that I am with him” (The Oxyrhynchus Papyri), „Truly, truly I say to you: you will be first in the kingdom of heaven, before all the unseen, and all the gods, and all the archons, who are in the thirteenth eon and in the twelfth eon” (Pistis Sophia, chapter 52). In the genealogy of Jesus invented by Matthew, we find two characters named Amon and Maat, who were probably named after the Egyptian gods with the same names. In fact, the evangelist Matthew (Matthaios in the New Testament) also received his name from the same goddess Ma’at. In the Middle Ages, the great god of ancient Egypt, Amun, was transformed into a demon, as seen in Johan Wier’s Pseudomonarchia daemonum from 1583. In the Gothic occult writings of the 17th century, Baal, one of the most important gods of Canaan, had the same fate. The god of the Philistines, Baal Zephon, renamed Beelzebub in the Old Testament, became one of the seven princes of Hell in Christian demonology. In the 1995 book Super-terrestrial Contacts. The Cosmic Illusion („Contacts supra-terrestres. L’illusion cosmique”), French ufologist Jean Sider wroted: „Demons were the ancient gods of paganism and were transformed into demonic creatures by the heads of the Church for its needs and to strengthen its domination over all layers of the population (…) Even the forest divinities of the first millennium were declared demonic. Diana becomes Hekate, then the Queen of the Sabbath, then simply the Devil„. In the same book, British anthropologist and Egyptologist Margaret Murray noticed that the horned devil of medieval witchcraft was not Satan or Lucifer, but a reminiscence of a god who was later worshiped by the Celts under the name Cernunos. Not all ancient gods were demonized by Christianity, some of them becoming saints. In the early 8th century, a Greek monk took a part of the Indian Lalitavistara Sutra referring to Buddha, replaced the Hindu names with Syrian ones and thus the story of Saint Iosaphatus was born. In the book How the Gods and Goddesses are Born, Live and Die from 1923, Russian journalist and historian Yemelyan Mikhailovich Yaroslavsky noted: „The ancient Greek agricultural gods, Dionysus and Demeter, became the Christian saints Dionisius and Dimitri; Castor and Pollux became Cosma and Damian, and the god of the seas Poseidon was transformed into the ‘pious’ Nicholas„. He also believed that the goddess Diana Pudica became Saint Pudus, the goddess Ceres Flavia became Saint Flavia, the gorgons became Saint Gorgonia and the nymph Aura Placida was divided into the saints Aura and Placida. Furthermore, the New Year’s greeting in the Roman Empire, „Perpetuam felicitatem” („Eternal happiness”), became the saints Perpetua and Felicitas. As Roman grape growers used to celebrate the day of the god Bacchus, the Church replaced the god with Saint Vincentius, but was forced to leave all the customs as they were. Referring to the archangels in Christianity, borrowed from Judaism, Yaroslavsky wrote: „The endings of the names show that these archangels were once gods (in exact translation Raphael means ‘healing god’)„.
In Romanian tradition, as Alice Dumitrescu noted in issue 18 of the magazine Supermagazine, Saint Basil (Vasile in Romanian) is the patron saint of viticulture and, implicitly, of wine. He is a righteous drunkard. He loves, plays, sings and corrupts girls, and his feast day is celebrated with parties. Not surprisingly, Basil seems to be a copy of the Greek Dionysus or the Roman Bacchus. In the Romanian newspaper The Event of the Day from 6th December 1993, Corneliu Ciocan wrote that Saint Nicholas is the closest saint to the Romanian peasant’s soul. He stands to the left of the heavenly father, it is said that he was a „great drunkard” before becoming a saint, he is the patron saint of sailors and fishermen and the protector of thieves. He allegedly saved Noah and his arkh from sinking. On the saint’s day, girls take consecrated alms and keep it at icons for casting spells on their future husbands on Saint Basil’s evening. Although Christian tradition believes Nicholas to be a bishop from Mira who lived in the 3rd – 4th centuries, he is first mentioned in the Roman Martyrology from the 6th century. And his attributes seem to have been copied from Enki, the patron of drunkenness (under his aspects of Dionysus or Bacchus) and magic, who sat on the left of Emperor Anu in the Council of Gods and who, in Mesopotamian myths, advised Utnapishtim / Atra-Hasis to build an ark to save himself from the Deluge. The same Enki seems to have served as a model for John the Baptist. The biblical saint’s name (Ioannes in the New Testament) comes from that of Oannes, a water deity mentioned by the Babylonian priest Berossus, whom we have identified with Enki. Being a water deity, the baptism was practiced in the cults of Enki, which is John’s exactly occupation. In an ancient Babylonian hymn, the god Sin (the same Enki) is called „a swift runner with tireless knees, who opens the path for the gods and his brothers„. It can be considered that he opened the way for the gods on Earth because he was the first to arrive here, with Enlil taking over the leadership of the Earth from him. Also, John the Baptist opened the way for Jesus, in the gospels he being the one who proclaimed the arrival of the savior before he began his divine mission. Additionally, Christianity calls him „the forerunner of the Lord„, which takes us back to the „way” opened by Sin / Enki.
An often overlooked curiosity of Bible researchers is the presence in the New Testament of important numbers for many peoples, especially for Jewish fond of symbolism: 3, 7, 12, 33, 40 or 50. For example, Jesus spent 40 days in the desert and ascended to heaven 40 days after his resurrection, 40 being Enki’s number in Sumer. Jesus was crucified at 33 years of age, after performing 33 miracles, 33 being one of the most important numbers for Jews and Masons. According to the Egyptian Book of the Dead, in the Double Hall of the goddess Ma’at there were 42 judges of the dead. These gods and goddesses addressed the deceased with 42 questions, and the god Thoth wrote down the answers. There were also 42 principles of Ma’at, the personification of truth, order and justice, and 42 books of her husband, Thoth. In honor of the goddess, ancient Egypt was divided into 42 districts, called nomes. According to the evangelist Matthew (whose name also comes from that of the goddess Ma’at), there were 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, as many as from David to Jesus according to the evangelist Luke. In the Book of Revelation, the Beast will rule the Earth for 42 months. Each page of the Gutenberg Bible has 42 rows. And the Catholic Church believes the apostle Paul was converted to Christianity in the year 42 AD. All intentional repetitions of the sacred numbers from worldwide mysticism suggest that the story of the New Testament cannot be a real one, but a symbolic or, more accurately, a made up one.
Who wrote the New Testament? The majority’s opinion is that the evangelists could only be four of Jesus’ apostles, Jews from Palestine of the first century AD. However, the Bible shows that the evangelists knew neither the geography, nor the political situation, nor the flora or fauna of the land promised by Yahweh to the Jews. Here are a few examples:
Herod Antipas (Herodes Antipatros in the New Testament) never held the title of king, as Mark believed (6:14), but rather that of tetrarch, as Matthew and Luke correctly mentioned. If Jesus was born when Quirinius became the governor of Syria and organized a census of the population, as Luke claimed, King Herod the Great (Herod Antipas’ father) could not have ordered the killing of the infants, as Matthew recounted, because he had died a decade earlier. Pontius Pilate was not the „governor of Judea„, as Luke believed (3:1), but the prefect of Samaria, Judea and Idumea. Pilate was not virtuous and would not have crucified Jesus out of fear of a revolt, as the gospels claim, considering that he did not hesitate to bloody suppress the local rebellions. Around 30 AD, when the Jews in Jerusalem rebelled against the prefect’s decision to build an aqueduct with the money from Yahweh’s Temple, Pilate ordered the killing of all the rebels. In mid-36 AD, his troops massacred those who tried to ascend Mount Garizim in Samaria to uncover some sacred objects. In these conditions, Pontius Pilate would never have condemned an innocent man to death for fear of the locals, especially when he had 4,500 soldiers ready to kill any rebel. The biggest such error, which no Jew from Palestine in the first century AD would have made, is found in the Gospel of Luke, which mentions „Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests” (3:2). In the Gospel of John, Jesus was first taken to Annas and then to Caiaphas. However, there were never two high priests in Jerusalem at the same time, as Mosaic law prohibited this, so Annas and Caiaphas could not hold this position concurrently. Annas (Hanan in Hebrew) was high priest from 6 to 15 AD and his son-in-law, Joseph Caiaphas, from 18 to 36 AD. There were three more high priests between them: Yishma’el ben Phiabi, El’azar ben Hanan and Simon ben Camithus. The author of the Acts of the Apostles confused the situation even more, mentioning Annas as high priest instead of Caiaphas (4:6). „We see, therefore, that the evangelists know almost nothing about the political situation of Palestine at that time. They don’t even mention the most significant events in Jewish history. Thus, the gospels do not reflect the strong social upheaval that took place in Judea at that time; nothing is told about the terrible hatred for Roman domination that animated the Jews at that time and that was expressed almost daily in the form of hopeless rebellions„, wrote E. Moutier-Rousset in Did Jesus Christ Exist? („Le Christ a-t-il existé?”) from 1922.
The authors of the New Testament show the same ignorance regarding the geography of Palestine. In the works of secular writers and in the Old Testament, „the promised land” is described in detail. However, the names of the cities and villages that are indicated in other sources are missing from the gospels, with a few minor exceptions. The territories through which Jesus traveled are very limited and barren, so that more populated locations are rare. For example, although according to the New Testament Jesus walked for a year near the city of Tiberias, an important center of the country, he never stepped foot there. Instead, he preferred to carry out his miraculous activity in Capernaum, a fishing village. On his way to Jerusalem, Jesus should have passed through about 30 villages in Samaria and 40 in Perea, but the evangelists do not mention any of them. The names of the numerous mountains that Jesus climbed or the many torrents and streams that flow from Jordan, which Jesus would have had to cross during his travels, are also missing. It is clear that the evangelists knew nothing about Judea, besides a few toponyms familiar to Greeks or Syrians, such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem and another two or three names. On the other hand, the authors of the New Testament mention the city of Nazareth, which does not appear in the Old Testament or in the writings of other Jewish authors. In fact, there are no mentions of it in Jewish sources before the 3rd century AD, as noted by the American archaeologist James F. Strange. The clearest evidence of the evangelists’ ignorance on Palestine’s geography is Jesus’ trial story, who was taken in the same night from Jerusalem to the residence of Pontius Pilate and back, although the Roman prefect had his residence in Caesarea, on the Mediterranean coast, about 100 kilometers from Jerusalem. And a 200 kilometer road in one night would have been impossible in those times. Thus, we agree with E. Moutier-Rousset who said in Did Jesus Christ Exist? that „the whole Galilee of the evangelists is a fantasy country about which they had no real representation„.
Not at all surprising, the evangelists did not know the flora or fauna of Palestine. The New Testament does not mention typical Palestinian wildlife such as the lion, panther, wildcat, jackal, hyena, wild boar, chameleon, gazelle, rabbit, hawk, stork and so on. No commonly found animals in that region are mentioned in the gospels and they are not used as comparison in Jesus’ parables, where only the wolf, grass snake or raven show up. These are animals typical of Italy, Greece or Asia Minor, but not Galilee. In addition to that, domestic animals such as goats, which are common in Palestine, are also absent. Surprisingly, Mark mentions in his gospel a huge herd of pigs, consisting of 2,000 animals (5:13), in a country whose residents deeply abhor these animals and where, of course, no one is engaged in raising them! Even in countries where pigs are raised it is difficult to find such a large herd today, let alone two millennia ago, especially in a country where no one likes pigs for religious reasons!
The flora in the gospels is as poor as the fauna. The date palm, so highly valued in Palestine and so characteristic of those regions, is not mentioned. The most common trees, such as the olive, orange, pomegranate or almond, are not mentioned either. Only the fig tree appears in Mark (11:13), only to be cursed by Jesus. And if by „a grain of mustard seed” in Luke’s gospel it is meant the mustard plant seed, then the evangelist has not seen such a plant, since he considers that „it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it” (13:19). Confusing a small plant with a big tree can only be attributed to ignorance, not to „divine inspiration”, as believers like to believe. „This brief review of the flora and fauna in the gospels shows that the authors of Holy Scripture probably lived in a big city, far from Judea, maybe Alexandria, Rome, Thessalonica or Antioch. Here they were occupied with some petty household craft and did not leave the house except to worship. That is why they probably knew nothing not only about Galilee but also about the nearest villages to their own city„, wrote E. Moutier-Rousset in his 1922 book.
Thus, the four evangelists could not have been Jews from first-century Palestine and therefore could not have been witnesses to the events they described in the New Testament. This conclusion was even reached by early Christians. For example, Bishop Papius wrote in the second century AD about the evangelist Mark: „he did not hear Christ (…) he later joined Peter, who preached the teaching„. Currently, the general opinion among researchers, including theologians, is that the evangelists were not the apostles of Jesus and the New Testament was written some time after the crucifixion of the Christian savior, probably in the second century. This was logical, considering that the New Testament was written in Greek, not in Hebrew or Aramaic, which were spoken in first-century Palestine. Thus, we finally understand why Jesus does not appear in first-century writings, why there are many errors and inaccuracies in the New Testament about his birth, resurrection and genealogy, why he does not appear in the Old Testament prophecies, why his story repeats important numbers from universal symbolism, why the characters and events of Christian legends are copied from other religions: Christianity is not based on real events, but on made up stories. The New Testament, along with the rest of the books that make up the Christian mythology, was written over time by utterly imaginative clerks. Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople in the 4th century AD, wrote to Saint Jerome, another theologian honored by the Orthodox: „we need as many legends as possible to impress the masses; the less the masses understand, the more enthusiastic they are„. And Bishop Sinesios wrote in 410 AD: „the people insistently demand to be misled, otherwise it is not possible to deal with them„. Also the words of a pope, addressed to a cardinal after the Catholic Church invented indulgences in the Middle Ages, are impressive: „see, brother, what a moneymaker the story of Jesus is?„. Well said the apostle Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians: „if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished” (15:13-18). To hide the traces of this conspiracy, which reached an unimaginable scale, for a long time the sermons took place only in Latin or Slavonic and the believers were forbidden to touch the Bible. But who invented Christianity, where, when and why? So far, we have learned they were Greek speakers, most likely residents of major cities, who knew Palestine only by hearsay. To identify them, we need to understand the conditions under which Christianity arose.
In the first millennium BC there was a worldwide need for a reform of polytheistic religions. The old gods no longer met the needs of humanity, which was beginning to ask more varied questions and, implicitly, to turn to philosophy. The insufficiency of polytheism first led to the rise of henotheism, a form of worship in which a single deity is revered without denying the existence of other gods. The inventor of this current was probably the Amorite king Hammurabi, who in the 18th century BC successfully imposed the worship of Marduk in much of Mesopotamia. Henotheism also appeared in 14th century BC Egypt, being quickly transformed into monotheism when the pharaoh Akhenaten declared Aten the supreme, and later the only god of Egypt. Although the pharaoh’s experiment failed, Egyptians being unwilling to give up their polytheistic beliefs, henotheism was successful in Thracian territories (especially in Dacia), where they preferred Zamolxis over other deities. The presence of Thracians in China, as recorded by Chinese chronicles, brought to Eastern Asia the philosophy of Zamolxis’ religion, resulting from the Thracian henotheism. Thus, immediately after the beginning of the Eastern Zhou Dynasty and the Spring and Autumn Period in 770 BC, schools of philosophy began to emerge in China, known as the Hundred Schools of Thought. Each such school had its own path to be followed by society. Wise men of these schools traveled from one region to another, trying to convince local leaders to practice their teachings, to restore order in society. The main philosophical currents in China at that time were Taoism, Confucianism, Mohism and Legalism, along with others that have become obscure over time, such as Agriculturalism, Chinese Naturalism and Logicianism. The missionaries of these Chinese schools arrived in India in the 6th century BC, where they had to invent a local character, Siddhartha Gautama or Buddha, to promote their philosophical ideas to a society that rejected foreign religions. The first Buddhist council took place in 542 BC, a year after the supposed death of the new god, to establish the doctrines of the new Indian religion. In response to this potential threat, the Brahmins invented the cult of Krishna, centered around one of the avatars of the old Hindu god Vishnu. Not surprisingly, the two competing religions were formed around two characters copied from one of the great gods of Mesopotamia, called Enlil by the Sumerians. The timing of their appearance was propitious, as Indian society was facing unrest caused by the sacrifices and rituals of Vedic Brahmanism. During that period, numerous new religious and philosophical groups appeared, whose members, called shramanas, rejected the teachings of the Vedas and the Brahmins. Although Krishnaism easily developed in India, Buddhism only succeeded in spreading during the reign of Emperor Ashoka (304 – 202 BC) in the Mauryan Empire, spreading to neighboring territories, especially in Afghanistan, Central Asia and Sri Lanka. Ultimately, Buddhism reached China and the Southeast Asian coast. The main reason for Buddhism’s rejection in India was probably its atheistic philosophy, which claimed that people could attain enlightenment without the help of gods. To be accepted by populations who were not ready to give up their gods, Buddhism was reformed by adding gods from Eastern religions.
Influenced by Thracians’ (also known as Aryans) philosophy, a religion known as Zoroastrianism emerged in Persia around the same time as Buddhism, Krishnaism and Jainism in India or Taoism in China. Its founder was the prophet Zoroaster (628 – 551 BCE), Zarathushtra in his native language, Avestan. His henotheistic religion was centered around the Babylonian deity Marduk, whom he named Ahura Mazda, a name derived from the Egyptian phrase „Ankh Hor Mezdau” („Long live the wise Horus”). Combining Arian philosophy with Hinduism and Babylonian religion, the prophet created a cult that later inspired Judaism, Christianity, Gnosticism and Islam. At the same time, Jews encountered Marduk’s religion in Babylon, leading to a reform of Judaism after their return to Palestine. After Persian king Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC and freed the Jews, even helping them build a great temple in Jerusalem modeled after the Babylonian temple, the new Judaism adopted elements of Zoroastrianism, Jewish priests being certain that Ahura Mazda of the Persians and Marduk of the Babylonians were just their Yahweh. Upon their return to Jerusalem, they built their temple and established their own religion. This was also when their myths were composed and written in their scriptures, which were later included in the Tanakh or the Old Testament. The new cult of Yahweh was not henotheistic, like the religions of Persia and Babylon, but monotheistic. At least for the public, the Jewish elite secretly preferred to worship another Babylonian deity, Ishtar, known in the Levant as Ashtoreth / Astarte.
During the same period, Europe also felt the need for a religious reform. Influenced by the teachings of their Thracian neighbors, who had already moved from polytheism to henotheism, the Greeks began to reject their Olympian religion and developed philosophy along with science. The first Greek philosopher was Thales of Miletus (a Greek city on the western coast of Anatolia), who lived between 624 and 546 BC. The father of Greek philosophy rejected all mythical elements and concluded that water is the basis of the world. He was followed by Anaximandros and Anaximenes, also from Miletus, who were supporters of Materialistic Monism (a philosophical concept that everything exists in the Universe due to a single substance). The Ionian philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras of Samos, who traveled through Greece, Egypt and southern Italy, founded Pythagoreanism, an esoteric and metaphysical belief system based on mathematics, music and astronomy. Pythagoras’ ideas influenced Greek thinkers such as Aristotle and Plato, as well as Western philosophy. Platonism, which spoke of a „supreme form of goodness” and a Demiurge who created the world, influenced the great current religions, especially through its later form, Neoplatonism. Other important Greek philosophers of the mid-first millennium BC were Heraclitus of Ephesus (who believed that Plato’s Logos was the structure connecting all things in nature), Xenophanes of Colophon (who stated that a single god created the Universe), Parmenides of Elea, Melissus of Samos, Empedocles of Agrigentum (who considered that the world was built under the influence of two forces: love, the cause of union, and hate, the cause of separation), Anaxagoras of Calzomenae (for whom Nous or Mind ordered the primordial elements of the world), Leucippus (the inventor of the doctrine of atoms and the first explicit materialistic system), the Thracian Democritus and Diogenes of Apollonia. Greek philosophy, born from the insufficiency of Olympian religion, developed in two directions: materialism and idealism or atheism and monotheism. Both had a single goal: to replace Olympian religion.
The change sought by the whole world began in Alexandria, the Egyptian city founded by Alexander the Great in 331 BC on the site of the village of Ra-Kedet. After Alexander’s death, Ptolemy Soter, one of his generals, founded the last pharaonic dynasty of Egypt. Soon Alexandria became the world’s second largest city after Rome and also the capital of Egypt for almost a millenium. Famous for its huge library and one of the seven wonders of the ancient world (the lighthouse of Alexandria), the city was not only the center of Hellenism but also the home of the largest Jewish community in the diaspora, its population predominantly made up of Greeks, Egyptians and Jews. Additionally, Alexandria was considered one of the most important places of Christianity, ranking third after Rome and Constantinople. Facing different cultures from African to Asian, the Greeks continued in Alexandria what their philosophers had started a few centuries before: the attempt to invent the most suitable religion to replace the Olympian one. As a result, in approximately three centuries, a multitude of new religious and philosophical currents arose there, made by combining the old ones. Here are some of them:
– The cult of Serapis or Osoroapis, an anthropomorphic deity with Egyptian and Hellenistic attributes. His name was made up from the names of Egyptian gods Asar (known as Osiris by the Greeks) and Apis. The Greeks assigned to him the sovereignty aspect of Zeus, the sun-god aspect of Helios, the nature fertility of Dionysos, the healing of Asklepios and the ties with the Afterlife from Hades.
– The Jewish scriptures, which formed the Tanakh or the Old Testament, were translated into Greek for the first time at the request of Pharaoh Ptolemy Philadelphus. This translation, called the Septuagint, led to the emergence of Hellenistic Judaism, a combination of Mosaic religious tradition and some elements of Greek culture. Before the Muslim conquests of the eastern Mediterranean and the fall of the Roman Empire, the main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in northern Syria (today in Turkey), the largest Greek urban settlements in Africa and Asia.
– The cult of Hermes Trismegistus, a deity made by merging the Egyptian Thoth and the Greek Hermes. Many texts were attributed to him, the most famous being the Emerald Tablets, Asklepios and the Corpus Hermeticum. From these teachings arose Hermeticism, a religious, philosophical and esoteric system.
– Greco-Buddhism, which arose after Alexander the Great arrived in India, representing an Hellenization of Indian Buddhism. It was also brought to Alexandria during the Ptolemaic period and archaeologists have discovered a multitude of Buddhist tomb stones from that time in the capital of Egypt.
– Asian Greeks mixed the Olympian religion with other religions such as Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. These cults also reached Alexandria during the Ptolemaic period.
– The Therapeutae, a Jewish sect founded in Alexandria, from which both the Essenes and the Gnostics teachings got inspired.
– Gnosticism, which arose in Alexandria from the blending of Christianity with the teachings of the Therapeutae sect.
The Greeks brought to the capital of Egypt all the religious and philosophical systems they encountered, primarily their own, such as Pythagoreanism, Epicureanism, Platonism or Orphism, from which others later developed such as Neopythagoreanism and Neoplatonism. In the great library of Alexandria were included all the religious and philosophical ideas encountered by the Greeks who tried to put them together to invent the ideal religion. An attempt reserved only for the elites, the population still forming a superstitious society based on magic, oracles, talismans and horoscopes. After three centuries of attempts, someone managed to invent the much-desired religion, mixing Egyptian mysticism, the Jewish religion and Greek philosophy.
The hellenized jew Philo of Alexandria, who lived in the capital of Egypt approximately between 25 BC and 50 AD, came from a wealthy aristocratic family that had connections with the priesthood in Judea, the Hasmonean and Herodian dynasties in Palestine and the Julio-Claudian dynasty in Rome. One of his grandsons, Marcus Julius Alexander, was married to Princess Julia Berenice of the Herodian dynasty. His father or grandfather received Roman citizenship from dictator Julius Caesar. Philo and his brothers, Alexander the Alabarch and Lysimachus, received an exclusive education, being initiated into the secrets of Greek, Roman and Egyptian culture, Greek philosophy and Jewish traditions and literature. In the year 40 AD, Philo arrived in Rome in front of the Roman emperor Caligula as an ambassador of the Alexandrian Jews during their conflict with the Greeks in the Egyptian capital.
Little is known about Philo, but the few surviving details lead us to conclude that he was the inventor of Christianity. We know that he tried to combine Greek and Jewish philosophy, specifically that of Plato and Moses, which led to a perception of the supreme deity different from the rabbinical one. In his opinion, the Tanakh / Old Testament should not be interpreted literally but symbolically, as the Divinity is far too complex to be understood in human terms. This reinterpretation of the scriptures was highly appreciated by the fathers of Christianity, but ignored by Jews. The reform of Judaism that he proposed, rejected by the rabbis, could only become a reality by inventing a new religion that respected the foundations of Moses’ teachings, but which also included the results of the three centuries of research in Alexandria. Philo’s concept of Logos („Word”) as the creative principle of the Divinity, adopted from Plato, influenced early Christology; it also appears at the beginning of the Gospel of John, which claims that „In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God„. For Philo, the Logos was the intangible image of the Divinity and his first son, an idea that, although contradicts the teachings of Judaism (where Yahweh had no children), is found in Christianity (Jesus being considered the son of God). The Jewish god, limited by his human nature, was replaced with an omnipotent, omniscient, intangible and infinite creator god, a concept invented by Greek philosophers. Philo expressed the complexity of this new god through three aspects identical to those of humans (because, in Jewish folklore, man was created in the image and likeness of the Divinity), which became the Holy Trinity of Christianity. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who together form the Christian God, do not represent a unique and triple deity, but only the three aspects of man according to Greek philosophy. Thinkers of that time concluded that man is made up of body, spirit and soul. The Son represents the material part of God, his body. The Father is the soul, the creator of life, and the Holy Ghost represents the spirit of the Christian God. Being ethereal beings, both exist in an intangible world, which is also supported by the New Testament through „My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), Jesus / the body being the only one in the physical world. In Philo’s made up story, the soul of the Divinity entered Mary, which led to the birth of Jesus. Until his baptism he was simply a man or an incomplete god. After baptism „the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him” (Matthew 3:16). For ancient philosophers, the spirit was the base of mental and intellectual power; Jesus’ paranormal abilities, responsible for his miracles, developed only after the Holy Ghost / Spirit of God entered him. After baptism, Jesus began to perform miracles and consider himself the Messiah because only then he did become a complete deity, made up of body, soul and spirit. This proves the complexity of the god created by Philo, even though it was modeled after man. For the Son, the material aspect of the new deity, the Jewish philosopher used the Sumerian Enlil as a model, having access to numerous accounts from various religions stored in the Alexandria Library. He named him Yeshu’a (short form of Yehoshu’a) after the leader of the Israelites in the Exodus story and gave him the title of Messiah, the savior from Jewish mythology. The crucifixion was borrowed from the myth of Enki, found both in Greek mythology in the story of the Titan Prometheus, and in Egyptian mythology in the cult of the god Amun / Amen. The name of this Amen was introduced as a closing formula of prayers in both Latin and Greek. For the Father, the soul side of the Christian God, Philo used An / Anu as a model, the father of Enlil; just like in Christianity, in most ancient religions An lived in heaven, preferring to let his son and heir handle Earthly problems. The cross, the symbol of heaven and An in Mesopotamia, became the symbol of Christianity. To complete the trinity of the new religion, the philosopher invented the Holy Ghost using the supreme Mesopotamian trinity of An, Enlil and Enki as a model. If the first two became the Father and the Son in Christianity, Enki was transformed into the Holy Ghost, the world myths claiming that at some point he was killed, living on only as a spirit.
Philo’s name means „love” in Greek; not surprisingly, love is the central theme of Christianity. Philo had a weakness for Plato’s philosophy, which he mixed with Judaism. That’s why the ideas of the communist society in Plato’s Republic can be found in the New Testament, attributed to Jesus. Many notions of Platonism were adopted by the Christian Church as forms of divine thought, and Neoplatonism became a major influence in Christian mysticism. For example, it is easily noticed that the writings of Saint Augustine, a doctor of the Catholic Church and the foundation of Western Christian thought, were influenced by the Enneads collection of the Neoplatonist Plotinus. Besides Plato’s philosophy, Philo also preferred the materialist philosophy of Pythagoras in order to emphasize the opposition between the two sides of Jesus, the human one and the divine one. The two Greek philosophers, who formed the foundation of Philo’s religion, were transformed into the „pillars” of Christianity, Peter and Paul; we note that the names of these four characters and Philo’s have the same initial letter. The Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea suggests this hypothesis is correct, writing in his Ecclesiastical History of the 4th century about Philo: „Regarding his work, it is clear to everyone how much he labored with the Scriptures and the education of the nation. It is necessary to speak about his position on philosophy and the liberal arts of education, especially in his zealous study of Plato and Pythagoras„. Although Philo combined Greek philosophy with elements of Egyptian mythology and other mystical systems developed in Alexandria, the foundation of his religion remained the Old Testament, which the philosopher considered the source not only of religious truth, but of all truths. For this reason, the Christian Bible contains not only the New Testament, but also the Old Testament, although Philo’s conception of God differs from that of classical Judaism. If the rabbis rejected the philosopher’s revolutionary ideas, the same thing happened with his new religion, which was not successful in Palestine, just as Buddhism was not in India.
Because every religion must have „sacred” writings, Philo composed the first gospel of the New Testament, attributed to Matthew. The pseudonym he chose (Matthaios in Greek) comes from the name of the Egyptian goddess Ma’at, the principle of truth, which became one of the basic elements of Christianity („I am the way, the truth, and the life” – The Gospel of John 14:6). The philosopher probably chose this pseudonym to suggest to initiates that the gospel was written in Egypt by a seeker of truth. This idea is not exaggerated, taking into account that the Gospel of Matthew contains other Egyptian elements. For example, it is the only one of the four canonical gospels that contains the killing of the infants ordered by Herod, an episode copied from the story of Moses, which took place in Egypt, and the only one that records the flight to Egypt of Joseph, Mary and Jesus. Also, it is the only one in which the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph to announce the birth of Jesus, to advise him to flee to Egypt and then to return to Palestine. And Joseph (Yosep in Hebrew) bears the name of one of the patriarchs of the Old Testament, about whom Jewish folklore considers that he became the vizier of Egypt; unsurprisingly, the father of Joseph in the Gospel of Matthew and the father of the patriarch Yosep bear the same name, Jacob (Ya’aqob in Hebrew). Also in this gospel is mentioned the „prophecy” of Hosea, which we have already established that it is based on an interpretation error: „called my son out of Egypt„. Furthermore, if in Egypt the number 42 belonged to the goddess Ma’at, in the Gospel of Matthew / Philo this number was included, from Abraham to Jesus there are 42 generations. Philo had no children but had two nephews, sons of his younger brother, Alexander the Alabarch. The elder one, Tiberius Julius Alexander, renounced his Jewish roots, preferring a military career in the Roman Empire. Between 46 and 48 AD he was the procurator of Judea, between 66 and 69 AD the prefect of Egypt (during that period he sent his legions against the Alexandrian Jews), and in 70 AD he participated in the siege of Jerusalem as the right hand of the future emperor Titus. Because Alexander the Alabarch was a close friend of Herod Agrippa of the Herodian dynasty (born Marcus Julius Agrippa), his youngest received his name, Marcus Julius Alexander, and the hand of his daughter, Princess Berenice. Marcus Julius Alexander was close to his uncle Philo, with whom he shared his religious beliefs. That’s why he composed the second book of the New Testament, the Gospel of Mark (Markos in original), Markos being the Greek version of the Latin Marcus.
After the scholar Attalus was expelled from Rome by Emperor Tiberius, his disciple, the Roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger, left for Alexandria to be protected by his aunt and her husband, the governor of Egypt. There he met Philo and the two became good friends especially because they shared similar philosophical beliefs. Seneca the Younger was a follower of Stoicism, which advocated for moral values over material wealth. His wisdom and compassion for those on the lower rungs of society (such as slaves or gladiators) made him highly respected not only by philosophers, but even by the Church Fathers. Due to his ideas being very close to those of Christianity, the Christian writer Tertullian called him „our Seneca„. By the 4th century AD, Seneca had been „confiscated” by Christians, who believed he corresponded with the apostle Paul. In the Middle Ages, numerous writings claimed that the Roman philosopher was even converted to Christianity by the same apostle. All the appreciation from Christianity is due to the fact that the Roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca is the author of the Gospel of Luke (Loukas in original) in the New Testament, Loukas being the Greek version of the Latin Lucius. Because among Seneca’s writings there are a dozen philosophical essays, several tragedies, a satire, and 124 letters, it is likely that he was also the author of the New Testament epistles attributed to the apostle Paul. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that in the Acts of the Apostles, a book attributed to the same evangelist Luke, the brother of Seneca appears, Senator Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus, who rejects the accusations made against the apostle Paul by the Jews.
The author of the fourth gospel, John (Ioannes in the New Testament), remains unknown. Considering that elements of the Therapeutae sect are found in his text, which were later adopted by Gnostics, it is possible that the unknown John was a member of this Jewish sect that arose in Alexandria. We know that Philo was familiar with the Therapeutae, his work The Contemplative Life („De Vita Contemplativa”) being the main source of information about them. Philo wrote about a group of Therapeutae who lived on a hill near the Mareotis lake, near Alexandria. He called them „philosophers” who were „the best„, displaying „perfect kindness” that „exists in many places in the inhabited world” (III.21). Given that he knew them well, and the appreciation he gave them, it is not hard to believe that Philo shared his new religion with the Therapeutae, who combined it with their own teachings, giving birth to Gnosticism, one of them even writing the Gospel of John.
The New Testament was written in Greek, the language spoken by Philo and the rest of the Alexandrians. As he, his nephew, and the Therapeutae were from Egypt, and Seneca from Rome, they only knew of Judea from hearsay, thus explaining the many geographical, historical or biological errors in the gospels. The names of biblical characters are all Greek, although they have correspondences in the languages spoken in Palestine in the first century AD, Hebrew and Aramaic, with one exception. The apostle Andrew (Andreas in the New Testament) has a Greek name with no equivalent in the Canaanite languages. There is not even a similar name to Andreas in Hebrew or Aramaic, making it unlikely that a Jew without any connection to the nobility would have a Greek name at birth. Inventing a story and characters was not a problem for Philo given that, in his view, the Old Testament did not contain descriptions of real events, but symbolic ones. Therefore, he did the same thing: he invented a religious story in which he hid his philosophical beliefs.
Why did the authors of the gospels prefer to maintain anonymity, hiding behind pseudonyms? The reasons are not hard to guess. Philo noticed the opposition he faced from the rabbis in trying to reform Judaism. Without a doubt, inventing a new religion (and implicitly rejecting Judaism) could not only result in being excluded from the Jewish community, but even death. The same danger would have been faced not only by him, but also by Seneca. Additionally, it was proven to be more effective to adopt the tactic used by the Chinese in India, who invented Buddha to transmit their philosophy to the locals. The common man would not have accepted a new religion from wealthy philosophers Philo and Seneca, but would have been receptive to the message of simple people, witnesses of the miraculous events described in the gospels.
Once Christianity was invented, it had to be spread throughout the Greek world. Thus, it was also sent to Antioch in Syria, the next important Hellenistic center after Alexandria. Philo’s plan was to attract the Roman Empire’s elites through his Christianity, and thus lead the empire, while Seneca represented the easiest way to achieve his goal, given the Roman philosopher’s connections with influential families in Rome. However, Antioch center leaders believed the new religion could help ordinary people throughout the Hellenistic world better endure the burden of Roman rule. Thus, from its inception, Christianity went on two different paths, symbolized by the two pillars of Christianity, Peter (the first Pope of Rome) and Paul (the Syrian who founded, according to tradition, many churches in Asia Minor and Eastern Europe). The two different directions officially separated during the Great Schism in 1054 AD, becoming known as Catholicism and Orthodoxy. In the 16th century, Protestantism broke off from Catholicism, and in time numerous Christian sects also emerged. For a long time Alexandria was considered one of the most important places of Christianity, occupying third place after Rome (the center of Western Christianity) and Constantinople (the center of Eastern Christianity), which is absolutely normal, given that it represents the birthplace of this religion.
If Philo wanted to lead the Roman Empire through his new religion, more than likely it was not about his personal ambition, but that of his rich and powerful family, which history shows us trying to make their place in Roman power structures. We know nothing about his ancestors, but we know that his father or grandfather was granted Roman citizenship by Julius Caesar. Philo’s family was the richest in Alexandria and one of the richest in the Hellenistic world. About Alexander, Philo’s brother, the historian Flavius Josephus wrote that „he surpassed all his contemporaries in origin and wealth„. In another work, Josephus wrote that, in order to be part of the nobility, a Jew had to have connections with the priesthood and royal blood through descent from the Hasmonean dynasty. If Philo was a descendant of these kings of the Levite caste, who also served as high priests in Jerusalem, it would explain not only the wealth and influence of his family, but also the reason why his brother and his two sons were named Alexander. In the Hasmonean dynasty it was a common name, having as examples the second king, Alexander Jannaeus, his wife, Salome Alexandra, and two of their nephews, Alexander Maccabeus and Alexandra Maccabea. We know nothing about Philo’s ancestors, but we know that his family was so wealthy that his brother, Alexander the Alabarch, covered nine huge gates of the temple in Jerusalem with gold and silver and provided a substantial loan to the wife of King Herod Agrippa. Alexander was a close friend of the Roman emperor Claudius, becoming the administrator of his mother’s lands, Antonia Minor (the daughter of the triumvir Mark Antony, the niece of the Emperor Augustus, the sister-in-law of the Emperor Tiberius, the grandmother of the Emperor Caligula and the great-grandmother of the Emperor Nero). He was also named the Alabarch of Alexandria, and his eldest son, Tiberius Julius Alexander, became a general in the Roman army, the procurator of Judea and the prefect of Egypt. His younger son, Marcus Julius Alexander, was married to Princess Berenice from the Herodian dynasty of Judea. Such power, wealth and influence can be explained by the descent of Philo and Alexander from the Hasmonean dynasty, removed from power by the Romans and replaced by the Herodian dynasty. Although King Herod the Great killed all the Hasmonean descendants to not threaten his throne, it is possible that one of them sought refuge in Alexandria, the largest center of the Jewish diaspora. There, his descendants, Philo and Alexander, could have planned to conquer the Roman Empire with a new religion, through which their clan would return to power. Seneca the Younger, in the role of apostle Peter, brought Christianity to the noble class of Rome, according to the plan. When Emperor Nero became disturbed by the new religion and started the persecution of Christians, a group of nobles (including Seneca) decided to kill him. Philo was able to personally verify the implementation of his religion, arriving in Rome in the year 40 AD as a representative of the Alexandrian Jews before the Emperor Caligula. Only in the 4th century AD his family’s dream became reality when Emperor Constantine the Great proclaimed Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. And in Saint Peter’s Square in Vatican City it can still be seen today the obelisk brought to Rome by Emperor Caligula from… Alexandria.