Tag: Christianity

Virgin Mary

nivtricLeave a comment

Mother Goddess Mary


Jesus’ birth mother, Mary, plays a prominent role in Christianity. As the story goes, she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. She is the central figure in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. She is the Mother of God, Church tradition holds, thereby implying Jesus was God and that God has a mother, which is indeed highly peculiar, so peculiar that there might be more to it. Many Catholics pray to Mary rather than to Jesus or God. In this way, Mary is a proxy for God. She is the Queen of Heaven in the Roman Catholic tradition. Thus, Christ is king, and Mary is Queen. Pope Pius XII put it like so,

From the earliest ages of the Catholic Church, a Christian people, whether in time of triumph or more especially in time of crisis, has addressed prayers of petition and hymns of praise and veneration to the Queen of Heaven and never has that hope wavered which they placed in the Mother of the Divine King, Jesus Christ. Nor has that faith ever failed by which we are taught that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother’s solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.

Christ would sit on a throne next to God, and ‘Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, reigns with a mother’s solicitude over the entire world, just as she is crowned in heavenly blessedness with the glory of a Queen.’ The Quran consistently names Jesus the son of Mary rather than the Son of God. The images of Mary with the child resemble those of the Mother Goddess. They picture Jesus as the Son of God, the Mother. Jesus believed he was Adam, the Son of Eve, the Son of God. So, somehow that message was preserved in the symbolism. How could this happen? Inquiring minds want to know. Now, there is a historical explanation and a script, so it is intentional as well.

Isis with Horus
Isis with Horus. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

In the early years of Christianity, there was probably no cult of the Virgin Mary. The earliest Christian paintings, made around 235 AD, depict Christ, Peter, and martyrs, but not Mary. The first solid evidence of devotion to the Virgin Mary dates back to the third century, but its origin remains unclear. Perhaps, early Christians prayed to Mary as they did to other saints. Possibly, Mary granted the most requests, which made her increasingly popular. In this sneaky manner, the Mother Goddess sneaked into the Church through a back door, via the cult of the Virgin Mary. The ability to give birth without the need of a man is the miracle of the Mother Goddess. Christians later created statues and icons of the Virgin with the child Jesus, looking like the Egyptian mother goddess Isis with her child Horus.

Saint Mary Bolnichka Icon
Saint Mary Bolnichka Icon.

So, what brought Mary to this elevated status? Mary is not only the mother of Jesus, but Christians and Muslims believe she was a virgin, which, according to the Quran, Jesus himself confirmed as a baby from the cradle. Jesus’ birth from a virgin didn’t happen. That we can be sure of. Matthew and Luke mention Jesus’ virgin birth, but Mark and John don’t. Had it been common knowledge, all the Gospels would have mentioned it. And if it had happened, it would have been common knowledge. So, was it a myth that sprouted up in the Christian community? Or did the Church Fathers have a pressing cause to invent the story of Jesus’ virgin birth? There is reason to believe the latter.

And Jesus became a carpenter

The Gospel of Matthew mentions both the virgin birth and that Jesus has a human father, and explains it all in the virgin birth story, where Joseph accepts Jesus as his son, rendering the edit redundant. Mark came before Matthew, scholars agree, and it contains fewer fancies. In this case, Mark and Matthew likely drew on the same source, which referred to Jesus as the carpenter’s son. The Church Fathers made up the virgin birth story. The clumsy editing makes it seem as if Jesus were a carpenter.

By the time Matthew wielded his pen, the Church Fathers had devised a proper cover story so they no longer had to remain secretive about his human father. Such an explanation presumes that the authors of Mark and Matthew were prominent people within the Church who had contact with its leadership. They wouldn’t have done so if it had not been authorised as a solution to a theological problem. Luke came later, and the author begins by stating that he has compiled his account from various sources, including circulating texts and oral stories.

That the virgin birth is an intentional falsification, you can infer by comparing Mark to Matthew. Mark dates from around 70 AD. Matthew came five to ten years later. Both are truthful to some extent. You can use one to detect a falsification in the other. Mark tells that people in Jesus’ hometown called him ‘the carpenter’ and ‘Mary’s son’ (Mark 6:3),

Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?’

The Gospel of Mark doesn’t mention Joseph, who was Jesus’ human father. It does note that Jesus had brothers and sisters, of whom we learn only the names of the brothers. You would expect the townspeople to call him Joseph’s son. But they didn’t, and called him Mary’s son, as if the virgin birth had occurred, while Mark doesn’t mention that noteworthy incident that you would definitely report on if you knew it had happened. It could be an error, but the mistake is so specific that it seems intentional. That it could be an edit, you can find in Matthew (Matthew 13:55),

Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?

The Gospel of Matthew mentions both the virgin birth and the fact that Jesus has a human father, and explains them in the virgin birth story, where Joseph accepts Jesus as his son, rendering such an edit redundant. Mark came before Matthew, scholars agree, and it contains fewer fancies. In this case, Mark and Matthew likely drew on the same source, which referred to Jesus as the carpenter’s son. The Church Fathers made up the story of the virgin birth. The clumsy editing makes it seem as if Jesus were a carpenter.

By the time Matthew wielded his pen, the Church Fathers had contrived a proper cover story so that they didn’t have to remain secretive about his human father anymore. Such an explanation presumes that the authors of Mark and Matthew were prominent people within the Church who had contact with its leadership. They wouldn’t have done so if it had not been a solution to a theological problem. Luke came later, and the author begins by stating that he has compiled his account from various sources, including circulating texts and oral stories. That is why Luke plays no role in this explanation.

The author of Matthew also sought a scripture passage predicting Jesus’ virgin birth. Isaiah wrote that a young woman would give birth to a son as a sign that God would destroy Judah’s enemies (Isaiah 7:14). Isaiah addressed King Ahaz in the eighth century BC and didn’t foresee the coming of Jesus, who would arrive seven centuries later. The Greek translation of the Jewish Bible, available in the first century AD, translated a young woman as a virgin. The author of Matthew saw it as a prophecy of Jesus’ virgin birth. There was no prophecy of this event that never happened, and that is no coincidence.

The author was particularly preoccupied with proving that Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. To that aim, he fabricated a genealogy to demonstrate that Jesus descended from the House of David. And behold, he uncovered fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah, Jesus, which is so neat that it only happens in fairy tales. The prophet Micah prophesied that a ruler would come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). And somehow Matthew ‘discovered’ that it was the birthplace of Jesus. Mark and John don’t mention the virgin birth or Bethlehem. Jesus was probably born in Nazareth, had an ordinary childhood and joined the movement of John the Baptist.

Mary as the New Eve

If Jesus called God his Father, there is no reason to invent the virgin birth. You don’t need to prove that God is Jesus’ Father. If Jesus said so, that would be good enough. His having a human father wouldn’t change that. The answer to the mystery is that Jesus never called God ‘Father,’ but rather ‘Mother.’ Jesus was the Son of God because God, in the person of Mary Magdalene, convinced Jesus that he was Adam reincarnate, and that She was Eve reincarnate. And Eve didn’t come from Adam’s rib, but Adam was Eve’s son. The virgin birth of Jesus from Mary replaced the ‘virgin birth’ of Adam from Eve.

You can infer that from Christian theology. God announced there would be enmity between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Genesis 3:15). Christians see it as a prophecy predicting the coming of Jesus. They believe the seed of the woman refers to the virgin birth of Jesus, while it was Adam’s. That made Mary the New Eve. In this manner, Mary became the replacement for Eve. It is, however, doubtful that those who invented the virgin birth also came up with this.

Eve being Adam’s mother and Jesus calling God his Mother contradicts the Jewish scriptures. You can’t have that, so you have to work on that fact to make it fit. So, why not say Jesus was born of a virgin instead? After all, Jesus was Adam, and Eve was a ‘virgin’ when she gave birth to Adam. And God’s name was Mary, just like Jesus’ mother, while God was Jesus’ Mother. That was very convenient indeed, a convenience provided by providence, no doubt. Mark and Matthew both name Jesus Mary’s son, perhaps because she played a prominent role during Jesus’ ministry and was present at the cross.

Cloak and dagger

The Virgin Mary appeared more frequently to people than Jesus and performed more miracles than any other saint. There is little or no evidence of many of these supposed miracles, but the Fatima Miracle had 40,000 witnesses, so there should be no doubt that something spectacular had happened there. God the Father doesn’t appear in this way. And there are no 40,000 witnesses who saw a miracle that the Father announced. That is because there never was a Father. Virgin Mary became such a potent figure because she is the cloak behind which God the Mother has hidden Herself so far. Now, we are at the cloak-and-dagger part: the Quran boasts a hidden secret.

In the Quran, Mary is the most prominent woman and the only woman mentioned by name. The Quran dedicates an entire chapter, chapter 19, to the Virgin Mary. The number 19 has great significance in Islam. Some Muslims indulge in arcane numerological explanations as to why that is so. The Quran refers to this number in the chapter named ‘The Hidden Secret.’ And so, the Quran may hold a hidden secret related to this number. The Quran also claims Mary was a virgin, thus confirming the miracle of the Mother Goddess. The Virgin Mary became the cloak behind which God hid Her identity.

The star and crescent became Islam’s symbol. It has a long history predating Islam, as it was associated with a Moon goddess. In the Bible, the moon refers to the woman and the star to the child (Genesis 37:9). Hence, the Islamic symbol represents the Madonna with the child Jesus or the relationship between Khadijah bint Khuwaylid and Muhammad. She was fifteen years older. A woman of Her age could have been his mother.

The St. Mary of Zion Church in Ethiopia is said to contain the Ark of the Covenant. Legend has it that the Ark came to Ethiopia with King Menelik after he visited his father, King Solomon. The Ark symbolises Mary of Zion. The Ark is supposed to be the residence of Yahweh, the God of Israel.2 That is remarkable, as God’s name was also Mary.

Statue storm

The Protestant Reformation was an attempt to return to Christianity’s roots by viewing Scripture as the sole source of Christian truth. The Protestants ended church traditions that lacked biblical grounds, including the veneration of the Virgin Mary. Nothing in the Bible justifies the cult of Mary. Protestants removed icons and statues from their Churches because one of the Ten Commandments prohibits making images for worship (Exodus 20:4-5). In the Netherlands, the Protestant Reformation caused a ‘statue storm’ where Protestant religious vigilantes ravaged Catholic Church interiors.

Protestantism developed in an era of emerging rationalism and naturalism. And so, Protestants also object to magic and superstition, deeming it Satan’s work, while Catholics love miracles like healings at Lourdes and weeping Mary statues. Miracles have always been part of the Catholic tradition.

The Protestants erased an essential part of Christianity’s original message of the Mother Goddess giving birth to Her son. Instead of getting closer to the truth, the Protestants wandered further from it. And it didn’t solve anything, but only generated more confusion. The Protestants soon began fighting among themselves over the interpretation of the scriptures. You can’t be wrong, because if you are, you end up frying eternally in Satan’s ovens. That was the reason Protestantism started in the first place. So, after the Protestant storm is over, we have over 45,000 branches of Christianity.

Latest revision: 4 July 2026

Featured image: Madonna and Child, Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien. Public Domain.

Other images: Isis with Horus. Metropolitan Museum of Art. Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain; Saint Mary Bolnichka Icon. Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

1. Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion. Wikipedia.

Last Adam

nivtricLeave a comment

Adam is the Son of God (Luke 3:38) and Jesus the Firstborn of all Creation (Colossians 1:15). Was Jesus Adam reincarnated? And was Adam born? Firstborn means you are the family heir, so the Firstborn of All Creation means you inherited the world. That is the standard interpretation with which most scholars would likely agree. The Christian doctrine states that Jesus already existed with God before creation and thus was not Adam. That is not what the words say, nor is it what Jesus’ inner circle believed. Existence before creation is not the same as being born. And Adam was the Son of God. When Paul was writing Colossians, he was also working on Christian theology, and his thoughts were still in flux. And so, there may be more to it than theologians can explain.

Theologians regurgitate a century-old, pre-chewed menu of previous generations of theologians. Do theologians ever come up with something new rather than yet another insight on a hair-splitting detail? Do they discuss the simulation argument? No! They occupy themselves with century-old controversies. Why would Jesus sacrifice himself for Adam’s transgression? It makes sense if Jesus believed he was Adam, who had to redeem himself. That was an idea Paul entertained for a while, for Jesus thought he was Adam. Only that generated serious theological problems. How could the perfect sinless Jesus also be the sinner Adam? And so, his mind ground on. Eventually, Christians came to believe that Jesus existed before creation, as laid out in the Gospel of John.

Don’t blame theologians for not being sufficiently imaginative. You could easily go astray. That ireful cloud that led the Israelites out of Egypt in a 2,500-year-old Jewish fairy tale was Eve from an even older Iraqi fairy tale, who gave birth to Adam, which the surviving Jewish version of the Iraqi fairy tale doesn’t mention. And by the way, that cloud from the fairy tale was Judge Deborah, the first historical person in the Bible. She started the Jewish nation by slaying Israel’s enemies and claiming that a magical cloud named Yahweh did it. She later married Jesus as Mary Magdalene and Muhammad as Khadijah bint Khuwaylid. You can’t guess it unless God gives you the clue that unlocks the mystery.

The message of Jesus being Adam still features in Christian doctrine as a remnant of an original belief. Jesus is the New Adam, and his birth mother is the New Eve, which implies that Jesus married his mother in a previous life. And precisely that was the original message of Christianity. Paul compares Jesus to Adam. In Romans, he writes, ‘Just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.’ (Romans 5:19)

Paul didn’t blame Eve for the Fall. Later writers posing themselves as Paul cast the blame on Eve. But Paul, a god-fearing individual who still knew the truth, wasn’t that daring. In 1 Corinthians, Paul noted, ‘As in Adam all die, so in Christ, all will be made alive.’ Jesus thus became the redeemer for Adam’s Fall. Paul called Jesus the Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). Jesus being Adam’s reincarnation was an early Christian belief until the narrative changed to Christ’s existence before creation. So you find the comparison only in Paul’s letters, the earliest surviving documents of Christianity.

The Quran underpins the idea that Jesus is Adam. You have to read between the lines. Jesus was like Adam in the way he was created (Quran 3:59), and the Quran supports the Christian claim that Jesus was born of a virgin (Quran 3:47, 19:16-22). Hence, they are both ‘born of a virgin.’ Not really, of course, but people believed it. And several Quran verses state that God ordered the angels to prostrate before Adam (Quran 2:34, 7:11, 15:28-29, 17:61, 18:50, 20:116, 38:71-74). The Quran mentions it seven times, making it appear significant. And seven times, Jesus says ‘I am’ in the Gospel of John, stressing his supposed divinity.

The Epistle to the Hebrews claims that God made Jesus, the firstborn, into the world, superior to the angels and made the angels worship him (Hebrews 1:1-7). And if the Quran is a message from God, the presumed guy in the sky, who possesses superpowers but is not Superman, and also not a man, then Jesus could be Adam. The Quran also claims Jesus will return (Quran 43:61). If he were Adam, God’s firstborn, who had already returned once, he could. Otherwise, it all gets even odder than it already is.

Latest revision: 16 August 2025

Mohammed receiving his first revelation from the angel Gabriel

Religious Experiences and Miracles

nivtricLeave a comment

The Jewish people still exist after 2,500 years, while they have not had a homeland for most of the time. That is a remarkable feat. Then Christianity replaced the existing religions in the Roman Empire in one of history’s strangest twists. Somehow, the message of personal salvation through Christ caught on. In the third century, Manichaeism emerged as a new religion. It taught that there was a struggle between the good spiritual world of light and the evil material world of darkness. The prophet Mani, who grew up in a Jewish-Christian Gnostic sect, claimed to have received revelations meant for the entire world, which were to replace all existing religions. It instantly became a spectacular success, spread everywhere in the known world, and could have overtaken Christianity, but it didn’t. A pivotal, and possibly decisive, moment was the conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312 AD. He made Christianity the favoured religion in the Roman Empire.

A few centuries later, a small band of Arab warriors established an empire that stretched from the Atlantic to India, spreading the new religion of Islam, in an even stranger and more rapid historical development. Is it a realistic scenario that the supposedly illiterate camel driver Muhammad became a crafty statesman after seeing an angel telling him he came to deliver messages from the God of the Christians and the Jews? After Muhammad’s death, his followers went on to defeat the Byzantine and Persian empires. At the same time, Manichaeism made a one-way trip into the dustbin of history, while in the third century, it appeared to be on the verge of becoming the world’s leading religion. So, why did Mani fail and why did Muhammad succeed? Historians can explain it, but it is an account of what happened rather than an explanation. The question remains, could it occur without someone pulling the strings?

So much can happen, and what happens now has once been extremely improbable. Your reading this text here and now seems highly unlikely a few decades ago. Think of all the things you could have done instead. Or you could have been dead. Yet, you wouldn’t consider your reading this text a miracle. Proselytising religions like Christianity and Islam have a built-in inclination to grow. That may not be the ultimate answer. Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same deity. Our universe could be a simulation, and someone could have planned it. But who is to say it couldn’t have happened otherwise?

When Islam arrived on the scene, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians in the area already believed in an all-powerful creator. Muhammad had met them on his travels, so he was familiar with these religions. Before that, Christianity had faced an uphill struggle. While the Roman state suppressed this religion, pagans left their gods behind and accepted the Christian God as the only true God. And they did so in large numbers.

That begs for an explanation, even though the conversion of Romans to Christianity was a gradual process that took centuries. The Romans occasionally half-heartedly persecuted Christians and executed a few thousand of them over the centuries, not for being a Christian but for not paying their respects to the Roman gods. Despite that, the number of Christians increased 2-3% per year between 30 AD and 400 AD. Each Christian may have converted just one or two persons on average. Over time, exponential growth enabled Christianity to grow from about 100 followers in 30 AD to 30 million by 400 AD.

Such a gradual and steady growth over centuries was somewhat unique for a religion, and so was the blitz conquest of Islam later on. Most people in the Roman Empire, and everywhere else for that matter, lived miserable lives. The promise of an eternal blissful afterlife may have been too tempting for those poor, wretched souls to resist. However, the most often cited reason for conversions was stories about the miracles Christians performed.2 Only in the Middle Ages did the sword become the most compelling Christian argument as Christianity spread further and became integral to European politics. That was not the case in the Roman Empire, so miracles and stories about them were crucial.

An early miracle was Jesus’ appearance to a few followers after his crucifixion. The New Testament mentions miracles that the disciples allegedly performed. These accounts may be exaggerated, but the theme of miracles remains a consistent one in Christianity to this day. The Roman Catholic Church has a rich folklore surrounding relics that are believed to possess magical properties because they are said to have been touched by Jesus. The most famous relics are the Crown of Thorns in Paris, the mysterious Holy Grail, the chalice from which Jesus is said to have drunk, and the Shroud of Turin, a piece of linen cloth with a supposed image of Jesus’ face.

Many of the miracles attributed to these relics are unverifiable or can have other causes, such as luck, but a few cannot be easily explained away. The Roman Catholic Church keeps a record of them. On message boards, people tell stories about prayers heard and miraculous healings. Many of these stories may result from chance or other causes, such as a misdiagnosis or someone seeking attention by lying, but that is not always the case.

A recurring theme is the appearance of the Virgin Mary and other miracles related to her. Thousands of people have seen her. She appeared several times in Venezuela. She revealed herself to Maria Esperanza Medrano de Bianchini in 1976, who received exceptional powers. She could tell the future, levitate, and heal the sick. In Egypt, Mary appeared at a Coptic Church between 1983 and 1986. Muslims have also seen her there. There have been many more Virgin Mary appearances. The most notable sequence occurred in Portugal at Fatima between 13 May and 13 October 1917.

The grand finale was on 13 October 1917, when the Sun reportedly spun wildly and tumbled down to Earth, radiating in indescribably beautiful colours, before stopping and returning to its normal position. Some 40,000 attendants witnessed Mary’s performance. They had gathered because three shepherd children had prophesied that the Virgin Mary would perform a miracle on that date and location. Faking this was hard to do, considering the technology available in 1917. A lack of holographic equipment would have made the effort challenging, not to mention changing the location of the Sun, which is a large ball many times larger than Earth, thus making it difficult to move around. And somehow, the Sun only moved in Fatima, which can only happen in virtual reality.

Jesus also appeared a few times, but less frequently than the Virgin Mary. An intriguing account comes from Kenneth Logie, a preacher of the Pentecostal Holiness Church in Oakland, California, in the 1950s. In April 1954, Logie was preaching at an evening service. During the sermon, the church door opened. Jesus came walking in, smiling to the left and the right. He walked right through the pulpit. Then he placed his hand on Logie’s shoulder. Jesus spoke to him in a foreign tongue. Fifty people witnessed the event. Five years later, a woman in that same church suddenly disappeared. Jesus took her place. He wore sandals and a shiny white robe. He had nail marks on his hands, which were dripping with oil. After several minutes, Jesus disappeared, and the woman reappeared. Two hundred people have seen it. It was on film as Logie had installed film equipment, because strange things were happening.3 Such events can convince people that the message of Christianity, even though it may seem highly peculiar, is correct, as Zeus and Thor failed to show up and perform some tricks.

Mary and Christ are part of a folklore where genuine experiences mix with mental cases seeking attention or con artists profiting at the public’s expense. Usually, there are no 40,000 witnesses, verifiable evidence, or camera footage of what occurred. The Vatican is troubled by self-proclaimed seers, fortune-tellers, prophets, and messengers who believe they have a special bond with the Virgin Mary or possess weeping Madonna statues, which they may or may not have prepared to weep. These people could be delusional, crave attention or, like the televangelists in the United States, be after your money. That is not always the case. If you have a religious experience, don’t suffer from mental conditions impairing your judgment, and can’t think of naturalist explanations, you should believe what you see. To quote Shakespeare’s Hamlet, ‘There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’ In virtual reality, it can happen. Yet, these appearances are not proof that Jesus and his mother still live. God can make you believe anything.

Latest revision: 2 June 2026

Feature image: Mohammad receiving his first revelation from the angel Gabriel. Miniature illustration on vellum from the book Jami’ al-Tawarikh, by Rashid al-Din, published in Tabriz, Persia, 1307 AD. Public Domain.

1. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Yuval Noah Harari (2014). Harvil Secker.
2. The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World. Bart Ehrman. Simon & Schuster (2018).
3. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher From Galilee. Bart Ehrman. HarperCollins Publishers (2015).

The Religion Paul Invented

nivtricLeave a comment

Paul’s reasoning

How did Christianity become the baffling religion it is today? A cloud of obscurity surrounds the first decades of the Christian movement. A few things we do know. Jesus started Christianity, but Paul of Tarsus, better known as Paul the Apostle, turned Christianity into the religion we know today. Paul was first a Pharisee who devoutly observed Jewish religious laws before becoming a follower of Christ. One thing we should know about Paul is that the scriptures were precious to him and more valuable than facts. Truth, in his view, is thus not, as Jesus taught, according to the facts as established by the senses, but according to the scriptures. And most people, religious or not, would not object to lying for a good cause, so it is not that strange.

How did Christianity become the baffling religion it is today? A cloud of obscurity surrounds the first decades of the Christian movement. A few things we do know. Jesus started Christianity, but Paul of Tarsus, better known as Paul the Apostle, turned Christianity into the religion we know today. Paul was first a Pharisee who devoutly observed Jewish religious laws before becoming a follower of Christ. One thing we should know about Paul is that the scriptures were precious to him and more valuable than facts. Truth, in his view, is thus not, as Jesus taught, according to the facts as established by the senses, but according to the scriptures. And most people, religious or not, would not object to lying for a good cause, so it is not that strange.

It is of the utmost importance, as it explains why Christianity has become the religion it is today. In Paul’s view, everything about Christianity should have a scriptural foundation. Paul’s education as a Pharisee is the reason why. We shouldn’t underestimate the consequences. Likely, most, if not everything, about Jesus that is ‘according to the scriptures’ is a fabrication. The label ‘according to the scriptures’ should serve as a red flag, signalling ‘invented by Paul.’ Hence, ‘Jesus rose on the third day according to the scriptures’ means ‘Paul made up that Jesus rose on the third day.’

It blows away the entire theological foundation of Christianity that Paul made up, including the idea of the New Covenant. That should come as no surprise if God is a woman who took a human form and married Jesus, telling him they were Eve and Adam reincarnate. It also suggests that the earliest document depicting the historical events, the Gospel of Mark, had already seen significant editing for theological reasons. If Christianity aligns with the Jewish scriptures, it gains credibility among the Jews. That was a good cause for Paul.

Christianity began as a small Jewish sect founded by an end-time prophet who claimed to be the Messiah. Many Jews awaited a Messiah but expected a strong leader who would liberate the Jewish nation from Roman occupation. Jesus didn’t live up to their hopes, and the Romans had him crucified. That wasn’t the end of Christianity, but just the beginning. Jesus later appeared to some of his followers, thereby giving credibility to his claims that he was the eternally living Son of God. That is possible in virtual reality, and it is hard to envision how Christianity could have survived otherwise. His post-death appearance gave his followers new hope and inspired them to carry on, leading to Pentecost and the belief in the Holy Spirit.

Paul, whose name was first Saul, was initially a fervent persecutor of Jesus’ followers. When travelling to Damascus, he received a vision. According to his own words, a bright light flashed from heaven, knocking him to the ground. He heard a voice he identified as Jesus accusing Saul of persecuting him. Today, we would call the experience a psychosis. The encounter temporarily blinded Saul. His companions led him to Damascus. There, Ananias, a Christian disciple in Damascus, restored Saul’s sight and baptised him.

It was a turning point in his life and an event that shaped the future of humankind. It was a personal calling. His response was not to consult any human being (Galatians 1:16). In other words, he didn’t go for a reality check. Instead, he went his own way and started preaching among the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15-16). Paul preached his own distinct gospel, which he claimed was revealed to him. He didn’t meet with most of the other Apostles for fourteen years (Galatians 2:1-10). He saw Simon Peter after three years, and also Jesus’ brother (Galatians 1:18-19). His mission succeeded. Indeed, God works in mysterious ways. In The Triumph of Christianity, Bart Ehrman attempts to reconstruct Paul’s reasoning, the foundation of Christian thought.

His vision proved to Paul that Jesus still lived as his followers claimed. Jesus had died, so he was resurrected, Paul reasoned. And therefore, he must be the long-awaited Messiah. That posed a few theological problems for Paul. The Romans had humiliated Jesus and executed him. So, why did Jesus have to die? Paul came up with an answer. In many religions, including Judaism during Passover, people sacrifice animals to please the gods.1 The Gospels agree that Jesus died either on the day of Preparation for the Passover or on Passover itself. Now, that doesn’t seem like a coincidence, so that pushed Paul’s thinking in this direction. Paul must have known that Jesus believed himself to be Adam. Adam led us out of Paradise, and Jesus would return us to it.

And so, Paul reasoned that Jesus came to undo what Adam had done. The Jewish religion doesn’t place such a dramatic weight on the Fall. It definitely wouldn’t justify human sacrifice, or worse, murdering the Son of God. To make the argument work, Paul inflated the significance of the Fall to grandiose proportions. That is why Christianity, contrary to Judaism and Islam, places such an emphasis on sin. Paul turned Jesus into the sacrificial Lamb of God. In his view, we are all sinners because Adam was, but Jesus saved us by sacrificing himself. It is a novel idea not found in Judaism or its scriptures. The Jewish religion opposes human sacrifice, and it is even blasphemous to think that God would require it, so this is alien to Jews, which made Paul’s innovation truly remarkable.

The Lamb of God

The sacrificial lamb is a revolutionary new type of saviour, someone who, by his death, provides redemption to his followers. According to Mark, Matthew, and Luke, the disciples shared bread and wine during the Last Supper. And Jesus said, ‘Take it; this is my body,’ and, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’ It is outside the Jewish tradition and part of the sacrificial lamb imagery. So, did Jesus say these words, or did Paul invent them? Probably the latter. Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 11:23-26),

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

It begins with, ‘For I received from the Lord.’ In other words, the origin of this tradition lies in Paul’s imagination rather than in Jesus’ words at the Last Supper. He declared that he received the information directly from the Lord, not from an eyewitness. That is iffy. The Gospel of John fails to mention it. This gospel comes from a separate tradition outside Paul’s influence. John provides the origin of his line of thinking.

There, Jesus claimed that he was the bread coming from heaven in analogy to the bread that God sent from heaven in Moses’ time (John 6:25-59). Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.’ (John 6:35) And, ‘I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’ (John 6:51) And, ‘Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.’ (John 6:53-54) According to John, Jesus said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

It is the same imagery, but with a very different context: Jesus as a life-giver and bread from heaven. It relates to what John alluded to when he wrote that the Word became flesh, and that Jesus gave us the right to become children of God. As Adam, he fathered humanity with Eve, who was God, or so that was what Jesus believed. As Adam’s reincarnation, he was a life-giver with eternal life to offer his followers, since many Jews believed in the resurrection of the dead. That Jesus was Adam and eternally married to God, and thereby the father of humanity, was unthinkable for Jews, and also for most Jewish Christians, who didn’t know about Jesus’ love affair with God. Gentiles had no problem with that. They had organised themselves in the Johannine community around their own Gospel, now known as the Gospel of John, so you only find it there.

And so, Paul gave the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood a different twist by turning Jesus into a sacrificial lamb. He borrowed his offering theme from another part of the Scripture, in this case Melchizedek’s offering of bread and wine to Abraham. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul writes (1 Corinthians 15:3-5),

For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Simon Peter and then to the twelve Apostles.

It is another ‘for I received’ sentence, so many scholars believe these things have been passed on to him, possibly by fellow Christians as a creed, and that it reflects the earliest Christian beliefs.2 However, the repeated reference to the scriptures makes the supposed creed suspect of being a product of Paul’s creative ingenuity. He has proven himself capable of writing a beautiful poem about love, so that wouldn’t be beyond his capabilities. A passage in Isaiah can explain the ‘died for our sins according to the scriptures’ (Isaiah 53:4-6),

Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

You need not be too imaginative to apply this to Jesus, even though Isaiah had someone else in mind. Concerning the raising on the third day, Hosea 6:2 may come to assistance, as it says, ‘On the third day he will restore us.’ The larger the body of scriptures, the easier cherry-picking becomes. What comes next is even more unbelievable. Jesus supposedly appeared to more than five hundred at the same time. Paul was such a fantasist that it is unlikely to have happened.

Paul tried to answer the question of why God made Jesus sacrifice himself, which is a profoundly troubling question for a Jew. As a religious Jew, he looked for the answer in the scriptures, so facts were of secondary importance. Facts were never that important in religion, and are something scientists may care about. And humans are creatures who live by stories rather than facts. So, think of it as doing God’s work rather than lying. That was probably how Paul viewed it as well. And for good reason, because his diligent work united the early Church, a tremendous achievement.

So we should be cautious in concluding that Jesus believed that he had to die for our sins. The Gospel of John fails to mention it. John the Baptist calls Jesus ‘Lamb of God’ twice in the first chapter of John, but the other Gospels don’t mention that. It is an image from Pauline theology. There is no chance that John the Baptist said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God.’ Although the author of John’s letter supports the claim that Jesus died for our sins, that could be telling. The letter expresses the author’s opinion, influenced by Pauline theology, whereas the Gospel of John is an existing account he redacted.

Jesus’ teachings were another reason Paul believed Jesus died for our sins. So, what did Jesus teach? It was the forgiveness of sins. Mark tells us that John the Baptist preached baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and that he baptised Jesus (Mark 1:4-9). These also became Jesus’ teachings. Jews already practised ritual immersion and washing for purification, spiritual cleansing, and as a conversion rite, so John the Baptist operated within an existing tradition.

Jesus began as one of John’s followers, a fact the Gospels don’t mention for obvious reasons. Instead, they say that John was the messenger sent ahead of Christ, thereby fulfilling a prophecy of Isaiah (Mark 1:1-3), which suggests that it is contrived. John the Baptist probably had said something like, ‘Jesus comes to take away our sins’ rather than ‘Behold, the Lamb of God.’ Nevertheless, it gives a possible answer to the question of why Jesus had to die, so the conclusion Paul arrived at is not far-fetched.

It leaves us with the question of why Jesus willingly went to the cross. Mark tells us that Jesus was deeply distressed and troubled. He prayed that the cup would be taken from him (Mark 14:32-36), which is a very different prayer from the one in John (John 17), where he hopes to await great glory. Many scholars think it is a later embellishment to explain that Jesus died in accordance with the will of God. Such an explanation doesn’t presume an intimate relationship between God and Jesus. And so, it probably was Jesus’ choice, perhaps made under duress. Jesus could have avoided the execution by rescinding his claims of being the Messiah and the Son of God. That would be denying the truth and his mission. Believing himself to be Adam and eternally living, he expected to survive, which emboldened him and strengthened his resolve. And don’t forget what people do for love.

Defining the Christian faith

It must have been God’s plan to save Her/His people this particular way, so by Jesus sacrificing himself, Paul reasoned further, so observing Jewish religious laws is not critical for your salvation, nor do you have to be a Jew. Jewish religious laws being irrelevant is another truly revolutionary thought for a Pharisee. Prophecies in the Jewish Bible foretold that all the nations would accept the God of the Jews. To Paul, Jesus was the fulfilment of these prophecies. After all, Jesus was Adam, the father of humankind. And from Adam, God made all the nations that inhabit the Earth (Acts 17:26), so Jesus’ message applied to everyone, not just Jews alone. There were already Gentile Christians, and Paul preached to them, so that was his view from the outset. Making them all adhere to Jewish religious law proved ‘a bridge too far’ and could hamper the spread of the religion. Paul then concluded that rejecting false gods and having faith in Jesus would be enough. Paul believed he was God’s missionary to spread the good news.1

Paul was a knowledgeable scholar of the Jewish scriptures, whereas the other Apostles lacked such education. He shaped the beliefs of the early Church and the future Christian religion by establishing the theological foundation of the Christian faith. Paul defined God’s image as the Father, the amalgamation of the Jewish Yahweh and the Christian Mother Goddess. The result became a hybrid: a Father who can give birth. Jesus also became a hybrid: a godlike human. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says, ‘Abba, Father.’ (Mark 14:36) More than a decade before Mark, Paul used that particular phrasing twice (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6). You read Paul’s words in the Gospel of Mark, just like at the Last Supper. Also, ‘The Twelve’ is a quote you can trace back to Paul. Likely, there were no twelve disciples. It took Paul over a decade to work out his new theology, and perhaps countless sleepless nights as well.

Around 55 AD, Paul wrote that the woman came from man (1 Corinthians 11:7-8), thereby reasserting the biblical account from Genesis rather than the original Christian account, of which we can still find traces in the Gospel of John. In Galatians, Paul also writes that God sent His Son, who was born of a woman (Galatians 4:4). That Jesus was born of a woman is stating the obvious. You don’t need to stress that, even when God is Jesus’ Father. If God were a Father, this factoid could be among the most uninteresting disclosures in the entire letter. The original Christian teaching, which Paul tried to obfuscate, was that Jesus was Adam reincarnated, so he was born of God. Paul claimed that Jesus is the Son of God the Father and was not Adam. And so, he was born of a woman rather than God. For once, Paul didn’t lie by stressing that particular factoid. It is also noteworthy that he didn’t write ‘born of a virgin.’ Had he known about the virgin birth, it would have been worth mentioning. By 55 AD, no one still knew about it.

For religious Jews, it was blasphemy to say that God was a woman who married Jesus. So it was probably also problematic for many Jewish converts, while non-Jewish converts had no issues with it. The Greek and Roman traditions had several gods and goddesses who had children with humans. For the Greeks and the Romans, God being a woman marrying a man who lives eternally is not that spectacular, while it is unthinkable for Jews. That made uniting the early Church an enormous challenge. To Paul, a former Pharisee, the truth of the scriptures mattered more than the facts. He could dismiss the Christian creation story and change God’s gender. Not having been a firsthand witness and not having spoken much to the other Apostles for the first fourteen years further helped him maintain his independent and particular perspective.

And the facts created challenges that Paul’s fantasy theology would solve. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul writes, ‘It is reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans don’t tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud!’ (1 Corinthians 5:1-2). Possibly, a scribe watered down this controversial fragment during copying, or it was so scandalous that Paul himself chose to formulate the truth in this fashion. The man might have slept with his mother, or probably did. After all, it is sexual immorality that even pagans don’t tolerate. And the Christians in Corinth took pride in it. Perhaps they believed this man followed Christ’s example.

Paul’s unique advantage, which placed him in the position to shape Christian theology, was that, apart from being an educated scholar with a dedication to the scriptures, he was not a firsthand witness to the events. To him, reality had to fit the scriptures rather than the other way around. He never met Mary Magdalene and Jesus, and didn’t meet with the other Apostles during the first years of his preaching. That allowed him to develop his theology independently of the facts.

As a Jew preaching among the Gentiles, he could bridge the gap between the Jewish and the Gentile views. His theology appealed to Jewish Christians because it connected Christianity to the Jewish scriptures and portrayed Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. At the same time, his preaching tours and letter writing provided him with a support base among the Gentile Christians as well, who saw Jesus as godlike. Pauline theology also shares that view. God the Father became the compromise between Yahweh and the Mother.

Paul’s diligent labour provided Christianity with an elaborate theological foundation, and his view could also bring unity within the early Church, so it prevailed. Most people only knew Jesus from stories, and few knew the details, so it was possible to sway opinions with false stories. It is still possible today, even when everyone can check the facts. The outcome of Paul’s intervention was that Christianity became an entirely different religion. Had a close follower of Jesus from 30 AD accidentally run into a time portal and leapt into the future, he wouldn’t have recognised his religion already in 100 AD, let alone today.

Spreading the good news

Paul dedicated his life to spreading the good news that faith in Jesus could save everyone. During his many travels, he founded Christian communities. His mission wasn’t easy. His message caused upheaval, and Jews expelled him from their synagogues several times. But he was determined and worked hard. Paul’s gospel of personal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, which is open to everyone, appears to have caught on. However, it is a most peculiar tidings and not something you would believe if you had grown up in a different tradition, whether you were Jewish or worshipped other deities. And so the success of Christianity begs for a better explanation. Ancient sources indicate that stories about the miracles Christians performed made people convert.1 An example was the healing of a lame man when Paul and Barnabas visited Lystra.

We have to take Paul’s word for it, as he is a likely source. Had we not known Paul as a fantasist, it appears plausible. In other words, it might have happened. In other words, it might have happened. As the story says, Paul had healed the man. The Lycaonians then concluded Paul and Barnabas were gods in human form. The priest of Zeus brought bulls and wreaths to the city gate, as he and the crowd wished to offer sacrifices to them. Paul and Barnabas explained that they were only human and messengers of the good news that the God of the Jews, who had made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them, had decided that all nations should no longer go their own way. And the proof, they said, was that the Jewish God had shown kindness by giving us rain from heaven and crops in their seasons and filling our hearts with joy (Acts 14:8-18). The proof thus was the seasons, the crops and the rains, and, of course, joy in our hearts. The seasons and the crops had always been there, and people had been joyful before, so that didn’t prove much. Hence, it must have been the miracle of healing that made people believe Paul’s unusual message.

Paul’s activities led to a riot in the city of Ephesus. Demetrius, who made silver shrines of the goddess Artemis and brought in a lot of trade for the local businesspeople, realised the consequences of Paul’s good tidings. He called the craftsmen and workers in related occupations together and said, ‘You know, my friends, we receive a good income from this business. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray many people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited and that the goddess herself will be robbed of her divine majesty.’ When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting, ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’ Soon, the whole city was in an uproar (Acts 19:23-29). A mob seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s travelling companions from Macedonia, and brought them to an assembly in a theatre.

A city clerk managed to quiet the crowd in the theatre. He said, ‘Fellow Ephesians, doesn’t the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? Since these facts are undeniable, you should calm down and not do anything rash. You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. If Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a grievance against anybody, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. They can press charges. If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly. As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of what happened today. In that case, we would not be able to account for this commotion since there is no reason for it.’ After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly (Acts 19:35-41). Had it been untrue, then the spread of Christianity would have become a bit harder to explain, but not impossible. More upheavals were to come in the following centuries.

Contending versions of Christianity

During the first centuries, there were several versions of Christianity. It highlights contentious issues, suggesting that early Christian beliefs differ from those of Christianity today. Christianity today is not what it originally was. The alternative views are likely closer to the original faith in some respects because they reflect earlier beliefs. The most well-known deviant groups were the Nazarenes, the Marcionists, the Ebionites, and the Arians:

  • The Nazarenes continued to observe the Jewish religious laws. Jesus didn’t intend to abolish them. It was Paul who came up with that idea.
  • The Marcionists taught that the God of the Gospel is the true Supreme Being as opposed to the evil Jewish God. Indeed, God is not the deity the Jews imagined.
  • The Ebionites didn’t believe that Jesus was divine, nor did they think that he was born of a virgin. That is also correct.
  • Arianism emerged around 300 AD. The Arians opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, which was not an original Christian teaching.

Except for the Arians, these groups existed from an early period. Christianity was in flux. That began to change once the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine invited all the bishops in the Roman Empire to the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. It was the first effort to create a uniform Christian doctrine. More efforts followed. The Roman state promoted the Church’s official teachings. Consequently, other strains of Christianity faded into obscurity.

The Gospels of the New Testament date from 70 to 100 AD, more than forty years after Jesus preached. Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John did not write the Gospels attributed to them. The Apostles were uneducated, Aramaic-speaking Jews, while the authors were educated, Greek-speaking Christians who were not eyewitnesses. Scholars believe Mark, Luke, and Matthew are collections of stories that circulated among early Christians. The author of the Gospel of Luke even says so (Luke 1:1-4).

Whenever someone retells a story, details change, new episodes emerge, and parts get omitted. And the story may become more spectacular. And so, the Gospels likely don’t accurately tell what happened. Several letters in the New Testament are anonymous, despite claiming to be from Peter, Paul, or another well-known figure. Jesus’ brother couldn’t have been the author of the Epistle of James because it contains no inside knowledge about the relationship between God and Jesus. And we don’t have the original texts of the New Testament. The oldest preserved copies date back to the second or third centuries AD. Scholars have used these copies to reconstruct the original texts as much as possible.

Latest revision: 30 July 2026

Featured image: Head of St. Paul. Mosaic in the Archbishop’s Chapel, Ravenna, 5th century AD (public domain)

1. The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World. Bart D. Ehrman (2018).
2. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher. Bart D. Ehrman (2014). HarperCollins Publishers.

Jesus and Minas Coptic icon dating from 6th or 7th century

From Jesus to Christianity

nivtricLeave a comment

Did Jesus exist at all?

The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus believed he had eternal life and a bond with God from the beginning of Creation until the end of time. Christians and Muslims expect him to return. Even though Muslims don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, they also think he will return and that his mother was a virgin. Remarkably, Muhammad and the Jewish prophets didn’t view themselves as the eternally living Son of God, nor do Muslims believe that Jesus is. They both consider that thought a form of idolatry. And so Islam and Judaism have more in common with each other than with Christianity. That makes Jesus the most enigmatic individual in the history of humankind. Some people claim that there is no evidence that Jesus was a real person and that he is a fantasy figure like Spike and Suzy. So, let’s first address the argument that Jesus is a fictional person.

Sources from his era don’t mention him. There is hardly any evidence of Jesus outside the Bible. Jesus was the leader of a small sect, so that is not particularly surprising. The problem with the idea that there never was a Jesus is that it leaves us without a compelling explanation for the existence of Christianity, forcing us to seek refuge in more bizarre explanations, like Christianity being a Roman conspiracy to replace Judaism with the Roman emperor cult. The supposed proof is that Jesus Christ shares the initials JC with Julius Caesar and that both died by betrayal. That can’t be a coincidence, so the Christ story is just a refurbished Caesar story, the proponents of this ‘theory’ argue.

Now, there is indeed more to this coincidence, as I will argue later on. Yet, as an explanation for the origin of Christianity, it is pretty imaginative. And it fails to explain nearly everything we can read about Jesus in the Gospels. And so, Jesus did live. But what made him unique? Jesus started a religion that has over two billion followers today. Apart from a historical account, an explanation of his beliefs may help us understand him. That includes his relationship with God, the supposed guy in the sky who is far more powerful than Superman, can do more tricks, and is allegedly all-knowing. But Jesus changed world history more than anyone else, so did that imaginary sky dude have a hand in that? It would be strange not to ask that question.

What can we know?

Historians and biblical scholars try to reconstruct what Jesus taught and did. They use historical sources such as the Gospels. In many ways, Jesus was a typical first-century Jewish end-time prophet, a product of the culture he lived in, first-century Judaism. Yet, they never ask the question that would be strange not to ask: what made Jesus think he was the Son of God? And so, they fail to clarify Jesus’ supposed close relationship with God or why God was his Father. Decades after Jesus allegedly went missing, a few anonymous authors wrote the Gospels. Mark, Matthew and John didn’t write the Gospels attributed to them. The Gospels provide no clue as to who wrote them. Mark, Matthew and John were peasants who spoke Aramaic, while the authors of the Gospels were educated and spoke Greek. Some scholars argue that Christians initially relied on oral traditions and utilised writings that are no longer extant. Oral recounting is notoriously inaccurate. Stories change when retold. Details get lost, and new details get added. They had good reason to think so. Luke begins, stating precisely that (Luke 1:1-4),

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke was not one of the original Apostles but a companion of Paul (Philemon 24) and a physician (Colossians 4:14). He might have written the Gospel attributed to him, but we don’t know. Church tradition also holds that the author of Mark recorded Simon Peter’s testimony. Simon Peter died years before the author of Mark penned the text, but there are reasons to believe that his testimony was a source the author used, most notably because Simon Peter plays a prominent role in this Gospel. Much of the account is plausible given the time and place in which Jesus lived. Mark also discloses things about Jesus that Christians wouldn’t make up because it is embarrassing, such as Jesus’ family claiming he was insane (Mark 3:21). Mark seems to have had access to a reliable source.

There is plenty of evidence of redactions in the New Testament. What to think of Jesus being the bridegroom and the Bride having gone missing? Jesus was married, but we are not supposed to know that. As a result of the confusion, scholars agree on very little about Jesus of Nazareth, except that he lived and preached shortly after 26 AD. His ministry started after John the Baptist had baptised him. Then there was a lot of action, with mystical and sensational statements, including miracles such as healing the sick and multiplying bread and fish, followed by betrayal, crucifixion, resurrection from the dead, and finally his disappearance. The Gospels agree on a few things:

  • Jesus performed miracles, such as walking over water, healing the sick, multiplying bread and fish, and raising the dead.
  • Jesus made controversial statements that baffled the Pharisees, so they schemed against him, which eventually led to his crucifixion.
  • Jesus did not take Jewish religious law as seriously as other religious zealots. He had a different message of forgiveness of sins.
  • Jesus did not like hypocrites, for who is without sin? He forgave sinners who repented. Still, he claimed there would be judgment.
  • Jesus was respectful of women. And he held unconventional views on marriage. Few men were up to that task. That goes unexplained.
  • Oh yes, and he called God his Father, and he was God’s son. It was a close and loving relationship. Other prophets weren’t like that.

Who was Jesus, what did he do, and what were his teachings? Scholars and historians seek to reconstruct what happened and the beliefs of the earliest Christians by examining the oldest texts and earliest controversies. They have analysed the scriptures for centuries and concluded that you can’t establish much with certainty about Jesus except that he lived and preached. Some things are more plausible than others. And some things are nearly certain. The virgin birth didn’t happen, while the crucifixion did. Some of Jesus’ disciples likely saw him after he died, perhaps in a psychosis. Otherwise, you lack a compelling explanation for the origins of Christianity.

Scholars dared not entertain thoughts like that some miracles did happen, or that Jesus did have the gift of prophecy. If you have witnessed paranormal events, which scientists seem to call metanormal events to make it sound more scientific, or know people who have, you may have second thoughts about the scholarly consensus on miracles. The scholar Dale Allison wrote in his book Interpreting Jesus,

What if a historian of the early Jesus movement decides, on empirical, not theological grounds, that sometimes people see the future, that clairvoyance is not uncommon, that additional metanormal claims should be seriously entertained, and even that enigmatic capacities sometimes congregate in exceptional or charismatically gifted individuals, in what Max Weber termed ‘religious virtuosi’?

Allison produces a long list of examples in the Gospels and concludes that his fellow scholars who reject the historicity of Jesus’ clairvoyance suffer from dogmatic incredulity. In other words, the Gospels could be more historically accurate than most scholars claim because their assumptions about the possibility of miracles and clairvoyance are incorrect. Hence, their confidence in these claims is unjustified. And the original written sources are older than the Gospels, so oral recounting probably hasn’t affected them. Earlier written records have existed, scholars argue, and they give these supposed writings mysterious names, such as Q and ‘The Signs Gospel’. Mark, Matthew, and Luke are very similar and partly draw on the same sources. The Gospel of John stands apart. The Gospel of John notes that an eyewitness, the Beloved Disciple, wrote it. And so, an eyewitness account from a disciple could be the basis for this text. Now, John 5:1-3 reads,

Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for one of the Jewish festivals. Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. Here, a great number of disabled people used to lie — the blind, the lame, the paralysed.

The use of the word ‘is’ implies that the text dates from before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, thus from before the writing of the Gospel of Mark. The Sheep Gate was still there at the time of writing, the wording suggests. Now it gets more interesting. Peter was Jesus’ favourite disciple, and John may contain his testimony. There is little doubt that the Gospels contain historical evidence, but they also claim that miracles and the resurrection have happened. And so, you have some additional explaining to do, as these events defy the laws of nature, which would be impossible if this world were real.

This universe is a virtual reality, so these miracles are possible. On the Holodeck, I can slay platoons of ferocious Klingon warriors alone with my bare hands and some magical powers. At the same time, in real life, elderly ladies overtake me in the swimming pool even when I am giving my best. Conjuring fish out of thin air, reviving the dead, walking on water, and turning water into wine should also be no big deal. The same goes for a virgin birth. Whatever you imagine can become true. But it is not proof that it happened because Christians may have invented stories. For the virgin birth at least, that applies.

Explaining the differences

Mark and John are so different because they come from two very different traditions. Jesus had Jewish and Gentile followers. In the Jewish tradition, he was a prophet, and ‘Son of God’ meant ‘King of the Jews.’ To Gentiles, the Son of God had a literal meaning as God’s firstborn child. The Jewish Jesus was a human prophet and perhaps a resistance leader, while the Gentile Jesus was an eternal godlike being, the Firstborn of Creation. Most of the confusion stems from these differences, which reveal a controversy in the early Church that Paul successfully resolved. Mark and John are the best historical sources about Jesus’ life, but they have different perspectives. And the final version of the Gospel of John has undergone several revisions.

Writing a Gospel was an intellectual challenge for talented writers who could combine scraps of information, symbols and signs to compose high-level literature. Without social media, scribes could dedicate their entire lives to such a project. And others could dedicate their lives to finding out what those writers meant, so, if we wish to do so, we can read countless commentaries by experts. Jews and Muslims also have lengthy expert opinions. Jesus also contributed to the confusion. Well-known are the parables, stories that Jesus told to convey an underlying message. By saying one thing and meaning another, Jesus often left his audience, including his disciples, confused. Even today, the central question remains: was Jesus merely human, or godlike? In either case, he is enigmatic.

Jesus’ deeds had religious significance, which is why we read that he had twelve disciples. Twelve stands for perfection or authority in government. Jacob had twelve sons who represented the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus likely didn’t have twelve disciples. And Jesus supposedly spent forty days in the desert. The number forty signifies new life, growth and transformation. The rain of the Great Flood lasted forty days and nights. If Jesus went to the desert, then it was probably not for forty days. According to the Bible, God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. The number seven also signifies completion and perfection. And Jesus said ‘I am’ seven times in the Gospel of John, supposedly implying he was godlike. If he said it, then he probably didn’t say it seven times. And the scripture tells us that Jesus rose from the dead after three days. This number represents divine wholeness, completeness and perfection. If Jesus had returned from the dead, it would probably not have been after three days.

The biblical authors tweaked and rearranged the facts to fit the religiously significant numbers. Eight disciples would have made a dud. What kind of prophet has eight disciples? That is not a powerful number. You can’t take such a prophet seriously. Paul claimed that Jesus appeared to ‘The Twelve’ (1 Corinthians 15:5) after Judas had already volunteered to meet the Grim Reaper and had not hesitated to act. That is fishy. The Church wants us to believe that they found another disciple within three days, for that was the available timeframe. Mark, Matthew, and Luke list the names of ‘The Twelve,’ but John does not. He only calls them ‘The Twelve’ like Paul did. If that is indeed the case, Mark must already have seen significant editing, including Jesus predicting his resurrection after three days (Mark 8:31), which might explain why the sources have disappeared and why the latter part of Mark has gone missing, for it didn’t fit the three-day narrative.

Talking about fishy, the experts are still baffled about those 153 fish Simon Peter dragged ashore without tearing his net (John 21:11). What does that number signify? Experts agree that it is not merely a fact. They have written voluminous tracts on the matter. A Wikipedia page deals with this question. There, you find links to the relevant literature. But we still await the book title ‘The Ultimate Guide on the 153 Fishes’ that explains it all. The experts don’t mention that 153 = (12 * 12) + (3 * 3). Both three and twelve have special meanings. It can’t be that simple. Or can it?

As time passed by

There are facts, early beliefs, and later beliefs. What Christians believed changed over time due to circumstances, so early beliefs are likely closer to Jesus’ teachings than later ones. Earlier sources might have fewer distortions and are thus closer to the facts than later ones. To understand Jesus, you must also become familiar with the time and place in which he lived. The Jews were a small nation crushed by major powers and could only hope for God to come to their rescue. At the time of Jesus, many believed the end was near and that God would send a Messiah to kick out the wicked Roman oppressors and restore Israel to its former glory, which it supposedly had when David was king.

Religious zealots prayed, committed terrorist acts, and revolted. Nowadays, the Palestinians follow the same recipe only to get their butts kicked time after time. And they never seem to learn. Back then, the Jews were like the Palestinians today. They were a pain for the Romans. Nowadays, the Jews run the empire in Washington, DC, and let it protect their pet project in the Holy Land. The stage was already set 2,000 years ago. The end times, the arrival of a Messiah, and a final reckoning still define Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thinking. In Jesus’ time, numerous end-time preachers proclaimed that the end was near. Jesus was one of them. He said things like (Mark 13:12-13),

Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

That is pretty scary already. Jesus continues (Mark 13:14-17),

When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!

Now comes his prediction, which the faithful still await to come true (Mark 13:23-27),

So be on your guard. I have told you everything ahead of time. But in those days, following that distress, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light. The stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time, people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

Jesus may have seen himself as a Jewish Messiah and didn’t plan to start a world religion. When a non-Jewish woman begged Jesus to drive a demon out of her daughter, he replied, ‘First let the children eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.’ He was there for the Jews, and Gentiles were on par with dogs. Only after she replied, ‘Lord, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs,’ was Jesus willing to grant her request (Mark 7:24-30, Matthew 15:21-28). It is at odds with the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and the story of the Samaritan woman, in which Jesus asked her to give him some water she had drawn from the well, and in which everyone can receive salvation (John 4:1-26). John also notes the woman’s surprise, as Jews didn’t associate with Gentiles. It was also a point of contention between Peter and Paul (Galatians 2:11-21).

Scholars explain the contradiction by assuming each of the Gospels had an intended audience. Matthew wrote for the Jews and aimed to prove that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Gentiles were Luke’s intended audience. John was the product of a community separate from mainstream Pauline Christianity with an anti-Jewish bias. And so, we can’t be sure whether Jesus really compared Gentiles to dogs or whether it merely reflected a widespread Jewish sentiment about Gentiles. Still, all the Gospels agree that Jesus accepted the faith of Gentiles, halfheartedly or not.

Jesus probably saw himself as the eternally living Son of God. Unlike John, Mark doesn’t say it plainly but notes that he saw himself coming in clouds with great power and glory (Mark 13:26). Initially, Jesus’ followers expected him to return soon. Jesus may have believed that himself, as he said that this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened (Mark 13:30). That is quite cryptic, and you can find similar remarks in the other gospels. Jesus also said that no one knows the day or hour, not even he, only God (Mark 13:32). It could be a later addition, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is. His disciples probably thought they would live to see it happen. Scholars think Paul believed it also. When things didn’t go according to plan, the Christians had to adapt to this new reality and become less specific about the date of Jesus’ return.

Jesus’ Jewish followers had hoped that he would throw out the Romans. After the Romans levelled the Jewish Temple around 70 AD, that hope crumbled to dust together with the Temple. In the end, with no return of Jesus in sight, Christians turned him into a heavenly ruler who gives you access to eternal life if you follow him. That is how the Gospel of John depicts Jesus. It was the last Gospel written around 95 AD. To understand what happened, it is crucial to view the development of early Christianity as a historical process with actors, unfolding over time as these actors attempted to address various issues. One actor in particular is of interest, namely Paul. He, rather than Jesus, invented Christianity. The historical order of the New Testament is with approximate dates:

  • Paul’s Epistles (the genuine ones), 55 AD,
  • Gospel of Mark, 70 AD,
  • Gospel of Matthew, 75 AD,
  • Gospel of Luke, 85 AD,
  • Gospel of John, 95 AD.

No one knows who wrote the Gospels. Attributing them to the Apostles was a ploy by the Church to lend them authority. The New Testament also contains epistles signed by Paul and Peter. Nobody knows who wrote them. Now, that does not need to be forgery. The writing process in Paul’s time involved co-authors. 1 Thessalonians starts with (1 Thessalonians 1:1-2),

Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you. We always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers.

The Paul who wrote these letters was not always the individual Paul, but often a team of authors. After Paul’s death, the other team members might still have written letters in his name. They wouldn’t have thought of it as a forgery. Individualism as we know it today didn’t exist at the time, so if you were part of Team Paul, you could still write a letter and sign it in Paul’s name after his death.

The Gospel of John is the latest, so scholars have long considered it the least reliable of the four Gospels. They long held the view that Christians gradually deified Jesus, which could then explain why it is so different. However, Paul already viewed Jesus as God in nature (Philippians 2:6), and that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Philippians 2:10). The latter phrase originally referred to God. Paul applied it to Jesus, viewing him as godlike but not equal to God.

The mystery remains

And so, scholars’ views have shifted, and many now believe that the Gospel of John comes from a separate tradition. To Greeks and others, a human could more easily become godlike than to Jews. The Bible also testifies to this. After Paul healed a lame man in Lystra, the locals concluded that Paul and Barnabas were gods in human form (Acts 14:11). The first three Gospels emerged within Jewish Christianity. In contrast, the Gospel of John originated from a Gentile Christian community. And gradually, the scholars concluded that John could be more historically accurate than previously thought.

Hence, John may reveal details that other Gospels omit. There were disputes about the nature of Jesus and his relationship with God. Was he human or godlike? The compromise ultimately became that he was both. Paul never wrote about what transpired during Jesus’ life. Mark is the oldest Gospel, telling the story of Jesus’ life. It is brief and presents an enigmatic Jesus. Mark 1:27-28 reads,

The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, ‘What is this? A new teaching, and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.’ News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.

The Gospel of Mark initially ended with Mary Magdalene and a few other women discovering that Jesus’ tomb was empty and an angel telling them that Jesus had risen. The remainder is a later addition. Because of that, some scholars doubt the resurrection. Other scholars have suggested that it was an intentional open ending, ‘because everyone knew what happened next.’ That is a bit of a stretch, as it is attributing Hitchcock-like motives to an author who seemed keen to give testimony. Jesus probably appeared to at least some of his followers after his death. Otherwise, there would be no Christianity. And so, the premature ending of Mark raises questions.

That could be as reliable as it can get. Conviction, no matter how strong, is not a fact, but we have no accurate accounts of what had transpired. The Gospels diverge from Paul’s writings, so we can’t construct a more precise picture of the events unless we can establish which accounts are most reliable and what the falsifications are. And so, we can’t get closer to the truth unless we learn more about the relationship between God, that supposed guy in the sky, and Jesus, His alleged son.

Latest revision: 11 July 2026

Featured image: Jesus and Minas Coptic icon dating from the 6th or 7th century. Clio20 (Anonymous). Wikimedia Commons.