This was actually written in February, but has been sitting in the database, unpublished and collecting dust, until a friend mentioned the topic a while back...

The movie "The God Who Wasn't There" makes the claim that early Christians invented Jesus, partially informed by the myth of the Egyptian god Osiris. The argument seems to be part of some bizarre chain of reasoning indicating that unless every single element in the story of Jesus's life was unique, then the story must be a fraud or must have been a copy of an earlier story.

The Devil Did It!

Touchingly, the movie also assures its audience that Christians have no other answer than that the "devil counterfeited" this story, by knowing about it in advance. Huh? Though it mocks the naivete of Christians, it appears the movie is counting on the same trait in its audience.

First, whether the devil exists or not, the argument is self-contradictory. It is claimed that it is impossible for the devil to have forseen the arrival of Jesus in advance. Yet the movie also claims that Christians came up with the idea for Jesus by seeing the events in Jesus's life first in old testament prophecies. So what was obvious to the disciples -- the specific events in Jesus's life as found in prophecy -- was supposed to be impossible for the devil to also see?

(Wily folks, those early Christians -- more cunning and deceptive than even the Devil! Trickery impossible for the devil was a cakewalk for them.)

(And the argument itself is also a backhanded admission, since it admits that the events of Jesus's life match up with prophecy.)

And clearly, we're supposed to reject the idea of the devil out of hand. Why? Again, we're in circular-logic-land. The devil is a ridiculous idea because Christianity is false. And Christianity is false because -- according to the producers -- all it has to offer are arguments about the devil.

But, of course, it doesn't -- that's just a straw man argument (yet another fallacy) from the film's producer...

Fallacy for Fun and Prophet

All religions attempt to answer the basic questions which confront humanity: Why are we here? Why is the universe like it is? Is this all there is, or is there life after death? And always, it's tempting to draw a link between the natural and the spiritual: there are obvious parallels between an afterlife -- if you believe in one -- and natural cycles of birth and death.

So we should not be surprised if the same themes show up repeatedly in every culture and religion -- people everywhere tend to ask the same basic questions, and all can observe the same natural phenomena.

When people make these kinds of arguments: "Christianity just copied the idea of Jesus doing X from pagan mythology Y..." they're reasoning backwards. They first presume Christianity false -- of course, none of that stuff actually happened... -- and then try to guess which religion it must have lifted each idea or event from. This is a bit like presuming the accused guilty, then working backwards to figure out what her crime must have been.

And, rather than only focus on similarity in the basic questions all people ask (via their religions), it is also important to consider the answers being given, which tend to be very, very different. In a class where every child is handed the same examination we must listen to the answers given to learn who each child is, and what makes them an indivdual.

Take this question: "Can anyone journey to the world of the dead and come back?" Surely, that question was asked in every people-group on earth.

Now consider one answer, the Greek myth of Persephone, which centers around (as most pagan myths did) sex: Persephone travels each year to the underworld to copulate with her husband, Hades. Her mother, Demeter, godess of plants, mourns her absence until she returns. The result is that we have winter each year, and plants die.

Now look at the Christian answer to the same question: God -- the only God -- took human form to explain Himself to us. He also died to forgive our sins, after the pattern of guilt-transferring sacrifice He formerly taught the Jews. When dead, he told the souls of those who died before what had transpired. Then God raised his body to life to demonstrate this was no ordinary man. The result is that our sins are forgiven, and we can approach a holy, righteous God.

Superficially, the question is the same: It is a pondering about descents into the world of the dead: Does it happen? When? What does it mean? But the answers to the question could not be more different. Yet such critics only focus on the common question, ignoring the vastly different answers.

To make such arguments work, the producers tell their audiences only what they want them to know about presumptively similar pagan myths. They single out and highlight -- or change slightly -- the details which look similar to the Jesus story, but omit or hide those facts which dispel the impression. They note that themes have common elements while downplaying vastly different practical and theological implications. And they search for bizarre explanations in foreign pagan cultures, while missing more obvious links to Jewish culture.

The best way to expose this kind of dishonesty is to simply learn more about the purportedly stolen myths themselves...

Jesus based on Osiris?

One suggested source for the story of Jesus was the myth of Osiris:

Egyptian god of the underworld and of vegetation. Son of Nut and Geb. His birthplace was said to be Rosetau in the necropolis west of Memphis. Brother of Nephthys and Seth, and the brother and husband of Isis. Isis gave birth to Horus after his death, having impregnated herself with semen from his corpse. Osiris was depicted in human form wrapped up as a mummy, holding the crook and flail. He was often depicted with green skin, alluding to his role as a god of vegetation. He wore a crown known as the 'atef', composed of the tall conical white crown of Upper Egypt with red plumes on each side. Osiris had many cult centers, but the most important were at Abydos (Ibdju) in Upper Egypt, where the god's legend was reenacted in an annual festival, and at Busiris (Djedu) in the Nile delta.

One of the so-called "dying gods", he was the focus of a famous legend in which he was killed by the rival god Seth. At a banquet of the gods, Seth fooled Osiris into stepping into a coffin, which he promptly slammed shut and cast into the Nile. The coffin was born by the Nile to the delta town of Byblos, where it became enclosed in a tamarisk tree. Isis, the wife of Osiris, discovered the coffin and brought it back. (The story to this point is attested only by the Greek writer Plutarch, although Seth was identified as his murderer as early as the Pyramid era of the Old Kingdom.)

Seth took advantage of Isis's temporary absence on one occasion, cut the body to pieces, and cast them into the Nile. (In the Egyptian texts this incident alone accounts for the murder of Osiris.) Isis searched the land for the body parts of Osiris, and was eventually able to piece together his body, whole save for the penis, which had been swallowed by a crocodile (according to Plutarch) or a fish (according to Egyptian texts). In some Egyptian texts, the penis is buried at Memphis. Isis replaced the penis with a reasonable facsimile, and she was often portrayed in the form of a kite being impregnated by the ithyphallic corpse of Osiris.

Sure, there are a few similarities: Seth -- the killer -- was a bad guy (aren't they all?), Osiris died, and then came back to life. But a lot of differences too: Osiris was the god of the underworld and the dead, not heaven. Osiris was married. Orsis was green. Osiris was fooled, where Jesus is depicted as dying by his own deliberate choice. Osiris was cut into pieces, but not a bone was broken on Jesus. And let's not get into the missing penis, it's prosthetic replacement, and all the corpse and kite sex...

So this is the big relevation? This is the basis for the Jesus story? This is supposedly what Jews were getting into around the first century?

I suppose there's a good reason other alternatives are suggested...

Jesus and Dionysus

Dionysus is also suggested as the source for the story of Jesus. (Of course, if both the myths of Dionysus and Osirus are supposed to be similar to that of Jesus, then doesn't that mean one of these two therefore must have been copied from the other? Or are only Christians supposed to lack originality?)

The Greek god Dionysus later came to be known as Bacchus, the god of wine, drunkenness, and altered mental states: patron saint of frat parties and Roman orgies. He is often associated with images of the bull, ivy, and a snake. (Ah yes, the snake, biblical symbol of the devil. Sounds like a great model for a proto-Jesus!) And, like Osiris, Dionysus was also associated with plants. (Noticing a pattern?)

As you can see, this isn't working out very well, similarity-wise. Perhaps we should let an apologist for this argument explain it to us:

Many people Christians would be horrified to think that Jesus is in some way a manifestation of Dionysus, but the parallels are complex and deep. Like Jesus, Dionysus is a God in human form, who dies and is resurrected, born of a mortal mother by a divine father. Like Jesus, Dionysus is a god whose tragic passion is re-enacted by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Like Jesus, Dionysus is a miraculous god associated with the immortality of the soul. Like Christianity, the religion of Dionysus spread like wildfire. Like Jesus, Dionysus is the God of the visionary state acheived through the sacrament. The rites of Dionysus frequently involved violent sacrificial death, which would make a Christian cringe.

But we have to recognise that this violence was to become magified to an extraordinary degree in Christianity. The example of the Crucifixion provoked tens of thousands of Christians to walk voluntarily into the cruellest of matryrdoms...

Again: That's it?

Because the followers of Bacchus get plastered out of their mind, the disciples must have been copying that tradition when they had the last supper -- never mind that nobody seems to have been behaving badly. Also never mind that they were observing an ancient Jewish ritual which involved a cup of wine -- Passover. We must accept the bizarre explanation -- Bacchus -- and overlook the obvious one -- Seder.

As far the idea of eating flesh and drinking blood in the Christian communion coming from the cult of Dionysus, here are the relevant details of that myth:

Persephone slept with Zeus in the form of a serpent, and the `original' name of the child was Zagreus. But at Hera's instigation the Titans seized the child, tore him apart, and ate him (cannibalism). Only his heart was preserved, and Athena took it to Zeus... who served it up to Semele in a drink, which made her pregnant. The result was DIONYSUS, the `TWICE-BORN' (one of his cult-titles at Thebes).

Yep, that's clearly the source of the Christian idea of communion -- much more likely than the Jewish Passover, or the ancient Jewish belief that blood represented the life of an individual, and blood spilled represented atonement for sin.

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. (Leviticus 17:11)

And what of the idea that Dionysus's birth was similar to that of Jesus's birth?

See here for a full telling of the myth; there's almost nothing in common: Dionysus is born twice, Jesus is born once. Whereas Jesus was allegedly fully God, but also fully human, born in the normal manner, the Greek myth-makers had Dionysus actually be born out of Zeus's leg -- because he would not have been immortal if he had been born normally, from a mortal woman.

Where Mary was a virgin, and remained one until after Jesus's birth, Dionysus's mother (Semele) was flirting with Acteon on the side, and doing Zeus (who was cheating on his wife) because Hera promised her it would bring her incredible erotic pleasure. Where Semele's motive was lust, Mary's motive was a pure, non-physical love for God. Where Jesus conceived by an ordinary woman and born in humble circumstances, Dionysus was conceived by a princess, and ripped from his mothers' womb during a disasterous attempt at pregnancy-sex in the heavenly palaces, as part of a larger "sex war" raging up there between Hera and Zeus. Mary lived to see her son die; Semele was burned to death before giving birth by Zeus's misfired thunderbolt.

In short, there's nothing in common except the idea of an impregnated mortal. (Which is precisely what that's the only detail mentioned!) And if we were to grant the Christian idea a hearing -- that of God becoming incarnated as a full human -- an impregnated woman would have to be part of that story -- as ordinary and expected as that God-man eating, drinking, and sleeping. So it's hardly a suspicious, out-of-place element that we'd have to search elsewhere to explain.

As far as the "visionary state achieved through the sacrament": The author appears to know absolutely nothing about Christianity. Christians don't celebrate communion to "achieve a visionary state". If you're Catholic, you believe it forgives your sins. If you're a Protestant, you believe you do it to proclaim Jesus's death until he comes again. And most US Christians drink unfermented grape juice -- since when does Welch's induce ecstatic hallucinations?

And Christianity is somehow supposed to be bad because Christians allegedly "walk voluntarily into the cruellest of martyrdoms." I would suggest that it is those doing the killing -- or more to the point, the lies which always justify such killing -- which should be criticized. Lies kind of like... well, I don't know. Can you think of any examples, dear reader?

Perhaps the people at religioustolerance.org can do better:

Jesus appeared as a wandering holy man who is later transfigured in the presence of some of his disciples. Dionysus was portrayed in the same manner in Euripides' play The Bacchae, written in 410 BCE...

Dionysus is described in Euripides' play The Bacchae as bringing a new religion to the people, being plotted against by the leaders, being arrested and appearing before the political ruler. Dionysus said to his captors "You know not what you are doing..," almost replicating Jesus' words at the cross. He was unjustly accused and executed. All of these themes are seen in the Gospels.

Well, let's check the play itself to see if this is true:

PENTHEUS: [To his attendants] Seize him.
He's insulting Thebes and me.

DIONYSUS: I warn you—you shouldn't tie me up.
I've got my wits about me. You've lost yours.

PENTHEUS: But I'm more powerful than you,
so I'll have you put in chains.

DIONYSUS: You're quite ignorant
of why you live, what you do, and who you are.

PENTHEUS: I am Pentheus, son of Agave and Echion.

DIONYSUS: A suitable name. It suggests misfortune.

I guess this translator must have gotten it wrong: Dionysus' contempt-filled sneer sounds very little like Jesus's pleading on the cross. Also, it doesn't seem any execution occurs: King Pentheus commands his soldiers: "Lock him up -- in the adjoining stables. That way he'll see nothing but darkness." Dionysus confidently replies: "I won't have to suffer what won't occur."

Just like Jesus, right?

So, um, I guess a lie or two isn't a barrier to promoting the "truth", is it? Clearly, the folks at religioustolerance.org didn't think their readers would ever check their sources. (Since when are deception and lies an important part of religious "tolerance"?)

Last on this point, from this summary you can easily see how the outcome of this play was exactly like the story of the founding of early church and character of Jesus:

Finally ... the actions of this play are brutally destructive: the palace is destroyed, the major characters are all punished horribly by an omnipotent god who is supremely confident about his powers and (much of the time) superbly contemptuous of the human beings he is dealing with... In his distribution of punishments, Dionysus seems to refuse to consider that some of those he is punishing so dreadfully made some attempt to accept his worship and to persuade others to do the same.... The final image we are left with is the scattered parts of Pentheus' body... and the memory of the fact that, under [Dionysus's] forceful control, his mother ripped him apart and (perhaps) ate some of him. The only one left unshocked by what happens in Dionysus' version of a deserved "punishment" is Dionysus himself, who throughout the play seems to be enjoying himself immensely...

Well, need we any more proof? It's now crystal clear the story of the character and life of Jesus was indeed based on this fun little Greek vignette, which I'm sure was performed incessantly in Jerusalem at the time. The Jews were so into mother-son cannibalism, you know. And we all remember the part where Jesus avoided death, made Pontius Pilate's mother rip her son's body up and eat it, and even cruelly punished the disciples who worshipped him. All while laughing derisively at the misery he inflicted on everyone.

Or was it different to say Jesus died willingly on the cross, without even defending himself, begging, as he suffered and perished, for God to forgive even those who wrongly convicted him?

Missing the Obvious Sources

What is amazing to me about these stretches is how, in a search for some obscure origin for the Jesus story, the obvious patterns are so cluelessly overlooked.

We're supposed to believe, for example, that it is some amazing co-incidence that both Osiris and Jesus were wrapped in cloth when dead. Duh! The reason this is true is because so many societies wrapped all their dead in cloth. The dead Orisis was wrapped in cloth because that's what Egypians did for royalty. Jesus was wrapped in cloth because that's what Jews did for everyone. It's not some amazing emulation, it's just what happened to dead people in that region. It's a bit like pointing to two stories about great chefs, highlighting the amazing similarity in that they both cooked with fire. Well, duh.

And much is often made of "twelves": "Oh look, there twelve gods of the Greek pantheon! Just like there are twelve disciples! Pretty suspicious, huh?"

Er, not really. In early times (and even in the early US) it was common to need to divide things. Twelve was a nice number because it was easily divisble by 2, 3, 4 and 6. It's the same reason we have 12 hours on a clock, or 360 degrees (which adds disibility by 5 and 10, and six sixes) on a compass dial. Seven was three plus four, twelve was three times four. God uses "twelves" incessantly in the Old Testament, so why would we think he'd be different in the New? And if we can find so many "twelves" in the ancient sacred writings of Judaism, why on earth are we desparate to explain them by referring to paganism?

(Just as a joke, I could make up even better "proof" that the idea for Jesus plus twelve disciples must have come from the Mayans of ancient central America by citing this: "There are reasons to think that the Oxlahuntikú (13 stellar gods) were constituted by the twelve constellations of the Maya zodiac and the sun passes them... the number 12 is transformed in 13 by the addition of the ruling element..." Twelve plus a ruling element! Wow! Impossible co-incidence, right?)

Likewise, we're supposed to be shocked that there were "dying gods" before Jesus. The story of Jesus's resurrection, we're told, comes from imitating these stories.

But, again, in reality, there's a far more obvious origin: "Dying gods" tended to be nature gods. In nature, there are seasons, and things seem to die in the winter and come back to life in the spring. Likewise, a grain or seed appears to be "dead", but goes into the ground and produces life. So these gods themselves are simply imitations of the pattern of nature around us.

If we believe God created nature, then these gods are simply an imitiation of a tiny part of the natural pattern God himself used. That is the pattern manifested in the Christ story (in fact, Jesus makes this exact analogy), not the gods who were crafted in imitation of that same natural pattern, which was visible to all.

Likewise, it is clear people die. Any religion which believed in "eternal life" would have to have some elements conforming to this pattern: life coming from death. Again, the pattern fundamentally comes from the idea that the dead are raised, not the pagan gods who were envisioned as embodying this idea, just as they were embodied as personifying every other natural and theological pattern.

And if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that God does exist and that the human soul is eternal, then how could he answer this question for us? How better to communicate this and provide proof of the effectiveness of the teaching than to come in the form of those to be resurrected, and demonstrate the possibility of such by actually rising?

Jewish Prophecy

Finally, why search so far away, in such alien traditions, for a pattern for the Jesus story? Why not just examine Isaiah 53, a prophecy written long before the time of Jesus (and The Bacchae) which says:

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him... He was despised and rejected by men... a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering... he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows... he was pierced for our transgressions... the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed... He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence... nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.... For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

This man is not green. He does not have a severed penis. He is not prone to drunken orgies. He is not symbolized by a snake. Instead, all the main elements of the purported story of Jesus are there: healing people, being righteous and honest, being rejected specifically by the Jewish nation, dying to forgive sins, taking the "inquity" of others upon himself, dying, and yet living afterwards.

As even the movie's producers were forced to admit, this is much more like the story of Jesus's life than any of the suggested pagan myths. And in admitting that similarity, they contradict themselves: Which is it? Did the disciples imitate the Greek myths or old Jewish scriptures? If they borrowed the idea of resurrection from this passage, then why steal from a far-away pagan myth? If you can explain it with one, then why bother trying to shoe-horn in another?

(It amazes me that people can see the tremendous similarities and co-incidences when comparing the life of Jesus to, for example, The Bacchae -- "It cannot possibly be mere coincidence!" -- but cannot even consider whether similarities between Jesus's life and prophecy are anything but lucky hits.)

So what's been proven?

Skeptics are fond of asserting their arguments have never been answered: "Nobody has ever explained the similarity between the Jesus story and the story of X" they will say, where X can be Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras... or a few others carefully selected from the hundreds or even thousands (counting India) of pagan deities available.

But the truth is that those arguments have been answered, and countless times at that -- I'm not the first person to point out what I wrote above. And there are many, many more reasons to believe that a historical Jesus, who was at least reasonably close to the gospel accounts, is a much more credible explanation than borrowed pagan myths.

To the contrary, in my experience, it is more often the skeptics who have failed, time and time again, to answer our rebuttals and challenges.

For one, if Jesus was just imagined or based on another myth (which one, even the producers aren't sure!), then how did so many followers simultaneously imagine the same person? How did they come up with so many of the same details? There are historical ripples radiating outwards: did no stone fall in the center?

Also: If I wanted to make up a story about a fake guy, I wouldn't set the story in the very same city where I was trying to create a following: too many people would know the real details. It would be too easily discredited. I'd set it in some far away city, or some heavenly realm, where nobody could check for sure.

But here we have Christianity, where the first followers were indeed known to be Jewish, and church itself was based in the very city where Jesus was purported to have walked and taught and been publicly executed just decades earlier. Worse, there are prominent followers like James, an early leader who claimed to have been Jesus's own brother! Surely he must have had some relatives who could have come forward and put him out of business just by saying otherwise, no?

So here is Christianity, structured exactly this way, with his earliest followers recorded as going to their death rather than retract their testimony. I don't see how that makes sense if they personally had made up the idea. And the allegation that the disciples and first followers were liars conflicts with written accounts of these people who said they were honorable men, held in high esteem for their ethics.

And finally, where's the profit in all of this? L. Ron Hubbard pointed out the best way to become rich and powerful was to start your own religion -- and then demonstrated it quite well! What was in this for the first Christians?

They were Jews: Why did they think they could create a massive Jewish following by inventing an imaginary messiah who did not come to save Israel from Rome? Who seemed to conflict with the common Jewish belief that a man could not also be God? Where the main witnesses to the resurrection story were women (who were not thought of as reliable witnesses)? Who got killed in the middle of his mission? And who predicted (correctly) that those who wanted to follow him would often be impoverished, persecuted, and even martyred?

It's the most unbelievable idea I've ever heard.

Or if Jesus really existed, but deliberately orchestrated his own life to match the Jewish prophecies, why would he pick the one above? I mean, "suffering, dying and rising again" is not exactly a great narrative to build a cult upon. The part about "suffering and dying" tends to mess with your typical long-term cult-leader objectives -- usually money, power, and unlimited babes. And its usually pretty hard for you, the cult leader, to be sure you could move beyond step #2, the "dying" part.

But again, to some people, that apparently sounds highly plausable.

We Christians constantly hear that everything we believe is "blind faith". Over the years, I've come to believe this is often projection: Sometimes, sadly, people watch movies like this one, do no research, and swallow it all, hook, line and sinker, accepting the absurd (Jesus is just like Dionysus!) while rejecting the obvious (communion came from a solemn Jewish ritual, not a drunken Greek orgy) -- because that satisfies some internal need, not because the evidence really points that way.

But, again, sometimes there's a reason, and a motivation behind such credulity, a deep hurt which makes a person mad at God, and ready to believe the worst. If you're in such a situation, and found yourself angry at God and not wanting to be that way any longer, drop me a note, and I'll pray for you.

God bless you.