From Christ to Jesus
A Study on the Origin of Christianity
Abstract & Summary
close
From Christ to Jesus
A Study on the Origin of Christianity
What's in the Title?
  • It is inspired by the title of a book and documentary by current scholarship while taking the opposite side:
  • "From Christ" refers to the Epistles where Jesus is only described as a heavenly being and savior.
    "To Jesus" corresponds to the story of this God on earth which was created afterwards by the first Gospel.
  • It is also a tribute to French historian P.L. Couchoud (1879-1959) who promoted the German thesis of the non-historicity of Jesus Christ. He found a passage that seems to say that because of his humiliating self-sacrifice, an unnamed heavenly being has been granted the mighty name of Jesus.
    "And being found in human form, he humbled himself
    And became obedient unto death [even death on a cross].
    Therefore God has highly exalted him,
    And bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
    That at the name of Jesus    , every knee should bow,
    In heaven and on earth, and under the earth,
    And every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord
    To the glory of God the Father."
    Philippians 2:8-11
    “The God-Man does not receive the name of Jesus till after his crucifixion. That alone, in my judgment, is fatal to the historicity of Jesus.”
    P.L. Couchoud, 1939, The Creation of Christ
    close
Main features of this site
  • It is made of quotes! Besides the Summary, there is hardly anything original. By far, Earl Doherty is my main source but there are many others including encyclopedias like Wikipedia.
  • Each argument is supported by quoting the primary historical source with full context, rather than simple references. It does make the site much bigger but I found it quite useful and truthful.
  • No Argument from Authority nor bloated scholarship gossip. The goal is to stay short and focus.
  • Try to be as exhaustive as possible.
  • It's not finished! The release date is somewhere in 2025.
  • This website is by Vincent Guilbaud, North Carolina, US.
Abstract
It is a certainty today that Christianity started by a man who became deified, whether this man was God, a miraculous prophet or an ordinary human being. Inside this paradigm, critical NT (New Testament) scholarship showed that very little of what is said about Jesus in the Gospels is true. However, despite an outstanding silence regarding this man in all the other Christian, Jewish or Pagan records, including in all Paul & the Epistles, none of these studies ever checked that their scenario - assumed and taught authoritatively by seminaries and divinity schools - was correct.
Here, without making any assumption, we analyzed everything the Epistles, the Gospels and all early non-Biblical texts say about Jesus. We also examine the sources of the Epistles and Gospels, how the stories were created and how they spread. Then, we check the validity of a handle of possible references to a HJ (historical Jesus).
Contrary to what is universally taken for granted, the best scenario for the birth of Christianity is a God who became historicized. The two main outcomes are that there is a good chance Jesus didn't exist and a certitude that Christianity is wrong.
Summary
1 - Where are we today?
After 150 years of research, N.T. (New Testament) Scholarship is still unable to reach a consensus on what kind of man was the founder of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth. But the experts are also primarily theologians living in a Christian environment pursuing many other agendas and learnt from conservative divinity schools and universities hermetic to new ideas. Their studies suffer from numerous historical issues, biased methodology and above all, terrible assumptions.
"Everything we do at Moody falls under the authority of the Bible, which declares timeless truth that is relevant today and throughout every generation."
"I am concerned, not with an unattainable objectivity, but with an attainable honesty."
J.D. Crossan The Historical Jesus
Nevertheless, a critical and secular branch of these scholars has discredited most of the OT (Old Testament) and the Gospels; something still unknown by the masses in 2023. Christianity was the great synthesizer of its time and a puzzle where all its Hellenic and Jewish pieces have been unveiled, leaving no place for a God.
Several historians like G.A. Wells, E. Doherty and R. Carrier went even further. They have produced since the 70's many valid arguments for a theory that would radically change our understanding of early Christianity.

2 - A Critical Bug in Mainstream Scenario
The main problem in all mainstream theories is the absence of any HJ (Historical Jesus) in the first Christian writings. Indeed, the Epistles never mention anything of the life of Jesus! No Place Time People Story Saying Miracle Passion Story, except in 3 mythical scenes Sacramental Meal, Metaphoric Crucifixion, Visions of Resurrection.
So we are left with six undisputable historical facts about Jesus in the Gospels that are ridiculously absent in the Epistles:
  • Baptized by John the Baptist.
  • Galilean who preached and worked miracles.
  • Limited his activity to Israel.
  • Called up those who would become his disciples.
  • Raised controversy over the role of the temple.
  • Crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.
This is an Argument from Silence that current scholarship is unable to explain!
There is very little chance that Christianity would have started by the words and life of Jesus of Nazareth because the first Christians never mentioned them!

3 - Jesus in the Epistles: No Man Left Behind
We note first that the 1st Century religious context was a time of Jewish revelations and scriptural re-interpretation that syncretised with the Greek world, particularly its Philosophy and Ancient Mysteries. The HJ paradigm would be at odds with this context because it contradicts Judaism's fundamental theological tenet and no other man would have been exalted this way. Most religions start by people claiming revelations from angels; Jesus would be for Paul what Ahura Mazda was for Zoroaster, Archangel Jibreel (Gabriel) for Muhammed (Islam) or Angel Moroni for Joseph Smith (Mormons).
A thorough analysis of the Epistles shows they were preaching a very different Jesus than the one of the Gospels. Here he is The Son of God A Spirit A Revealer and Mediator The Logos The Glory of God The Image and Likeness of God The First-Born of All Creation Co-Creator of the Universe Upholding the Universe The Power and Wisdom of God The Love of God Through whom we exist All things have been created through him and for him All things are held together in him The Anti-Adam A Heavenly Man A Heavenly Judge.
But not a clue that he was also Jesus of Nazareth or even A Recent Man in Galilee.
This Jesus suffered a sacrificial crucifixion as a Forever High Priest Descending/Ascending Redeemer Dying & Rising Savior. But there are no hints on where? when? who did it? or any temple betrayal trial Jewish mob Barabbas... even an empty tomb! See Passion Story.
The other fatal blow is that the authors tell us they solely knew this Jesus by Visiting the Heavens Visions Scriptures reinterpretations Being possessed by Christ Baptism & Eucharist. This is the way celestial figures have always been created including all the Jewish Angelology, the apocalyptic judge "Son of Man" and the Logos by Philo who have so much in common with this Jesus.
And Paul has seen Jesus like the others who have nothing to add to his message.
Current scholarship cannot explain this sudden elevation of an unknown illiterate Jewish peasant to the rank of Son of God, sustainer of the universe and world's sin redeemer, nor the existence of large Christian communities like the one in Rome, right at the beginning.

So the dozen authors of the Epistles, including Paul, were believing in Jesus, not that Jesus was a recent man on earth. This Messianic Jewish sect in big cities of the diaspora invented a heavenly Messiah from Visions & Scriptures. He was the Son of God and had many different roles in the sky, including for some, a savior who would have reverted Adam's original sin through a mythical sacrifice, a sacrifice similar to the ones of the popular savior Gods of the time (Attis, Mithra, Osiris, Adonis, Dionysos... who never existed historically).

4 - Jesus in the Gospels: Facts or Fictions?
? ? ? ?
The story of Jesus of Nazareth was created by the first Gospel, Mark, sometime in the decade or two after the Jewish war (66-70 CE). Following the ancient Jewish process of inventing historical and religious stories, Mark created a supernatural and symbolic tale where many scenes -birth, temptation, baptism, transfiguration and especially the full Passion story- are a remake of the OT.
The character corresponds with the worldwide paradigm of the mythic hero archetype while also having many traits of the Biblical prophets like Moses, Elijah and Elisa.
Top 15 Heroes in Folklore
  • Oedipus 21
  • Moses 20
  • Jesus 20
  • Theseus 19
  • Dionysus 19
  • Romulus 18
  • Perseus 17
  • Hercules 17
  • Zeus 15
  • Bellerophon 14
  • Jason 14
  • Osiris 14
  • Pelops 13
  • Asclepius 12
  • Joseph 12 (in Genesis)
A. Dundes Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore slightly updated by R. Carrier
During messianic expectation, he is preaching the arrival of the Kingdom of God in either a violent or soft way. But he is also an incredible miracles worker (1 new miracle every 20 verses in the first Gospel, all following the same pattern) and a Cynic philosopher common in the Greco-Roman world.
Nothing looks reliable while the burden of proof is on their side! Moreover the story makes no sense without supernatural or obvious inventions! Hypothetical reconstructed texts like Q that could be independent of Mark don't even favor mainstream theories for several reasons, including that their cryptic Jesus, without crucifixion, has nothing in common with the one of the Epistles.


5 - Jesus outside the Bible
Roman Jewish Didache Shepherd Odes Felix 1 Clement Barnabas
The HJ is unknown to all Jewish, Roman and Greek authors before 110-120 CE (Ignatius & Tacitus).
Like in the Epistles, he is missing from many early Christian records (Didache, The Odes of Solomon, The Shepherd of Hermas) and all Christian apologists of the 2nd Century (Minucius Felix, Theophilus, Tatian & Athenagoras) excepted Justin Martyr, although the latter told us in his first writings:
"But Christ-if has indeed been born, and exists anywhere- is unknown"
Dialogue with Trypho 8:6
We can see a more earthly Jesus in 1 Clement (Sayings) and Barnabas (Sayings Wonders) but he is still no more than a man of the Indefinite Past.
The lack of any clear reference to a HJ in so many Christian documents is baffling! For the other Jewish & Pagan texts, it contradicts much of the Gospels and tells us that either Jesus was a nobody or he did not exist.
The nature of Jesus in the 2nd & 3rd centuries is also a major concern for the HJ because Catholicism was not in majority, clashed with Paulinism and was one of the latest among many different doctrines.

6 - Debating possible references to a HJ
Historicist Myth
For more than 1,000 years, Christianity was controlling the reproduction and elimination of texts. The list of interpolations and proven forgeries shows how much the winning sect used that time to tamper with evidence.
The two important interpolations, Josephus and 1 Thessalonians 2:15 are supported by many scholars. A historical Testimonium Flavianum is practically untenable today.
A handful of possible references in the Epistles to a HJ, like the famous "Brother of the Lord" can be easily dismissed by interpreting them differently and in a more plausible way. NT Scholarship consensus is probably wrong to identify James the pillar/the Just with one of the brothers instead of James the Great, one of the top 3 disciples.
The idea of James, the biological brother of Jesus arrived very late in Christian development, possibly through Hegesippus (110-180 CE), a Christian who fought Marcionism, then Clement of Alexandria (d. 215 CE)

7 - Conclusion
The Epistles have unearthed something we thought forever buried in the past, the origin of Christianity is probably a Myth. The crucifixion and eucharist were mythical scenes revealed through visions and scripture reinterpretation.
"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
Galatians 1.12
And we all agree that Paul never met the HJ.


90% chance for this Myth Theory
  • Before 20 CE - A Jewish apocalyptic sect
    A Jewish apocalyptic sect in the diaspora was preaching the end of the world and worshiping a deity called Christ Jesus as a celestial being, an intermediary between God and mankind, revealer, creator of the universe and redeemer. Paul was presumably persecuting them.
  • 20-40s CE - An Act of Salvation
    "A small fringe sect of Jews, probably led by a man called Cephas, came to believe this deity had undergone a salvific incarnation, death and resurrection in outer space, thus negating the cultic role of the Jerusalem temple... They also came to believe that through this act their salvation had been secured through the defeat of the demonic world order, so long as they shared in that sacrifice metaphysically through baptism and ritual communion, a concept already adopted by many similar cults of the time."
    R. Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus p.607
  • 30-60s CE - Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Peter, John... preaching a Mythical Christ
    After Paul got a vision of Jesus (by hallucination mushroom?), he spread this faith in the Lord, Christ, meeting on his way Cephas, James and John who didn't add anything to his message.
  • 66-70 CE - The Jewish war destroyed the church in Jerusalem.
    After the war, most of the apostles of the generation of Paul would be dead, knowing their age and their risky life.
  • 70-100 CE - The Gospels
    If 1 Clement is dated in the 60s, there is nothing from this period, except the Canonical Gospels.
    The stories are too much folkloric and symbolic in the details as overall. The full passion story from Jesus' triumphal entry in Jerusalem to the resurrection needs to be rejected.
    There is still about a possibility (30%?) that some sayings were based on a real historical leader who was then at the source of a micro-movement in Galilee around 30 CE. But whoever he was, he is very likely unrelated to the birth of Christianity.
    So it leaves a 60% chance that there was not even such a figure.
  • 100 CE-300 CE - A Wide Diversity
    Christianity was extremely diverse with plenty of contradictory claims ... until the conversion of Constantine in 312 CE and the rise of Catholicism.
So after this 90% for the Myth, the most popular secular theory today of the man deified gets the last 10%.
The probability for the miraculous prophet (Islam...) is negligible.
Concerning Christianity's hypothesis, if we add to this historical study another short one based on scientific & philosophical arguments, its chance drops to a plain zero.
 
Open Popup menu to navigate other pages