Amar M'lumad B'libo "Eyn Mashiach"
The learned man says in his heart "there is no Messiah!"^[1]

As was pointed out in the essay on the gospels, more than half the world's population accepts Jesus as the Messiah. This claim is found in the fact that both Christians and Muslims accept this claim, and those two groups combine to form roughly three billion people. Still, one might be bothered by the fact that the two religions that hold this alleged "Prince of Peace" in such high esteem also happen to be the most violent religions on earth. There is a certain savagery and arrogance that is deeply intertwined with the history of Christianity and Islam.

The very concept of a Messiah^[2] is rather primitive. This is an idea created to calm people who are not satisfied with the current state of their society. With the belief that a savior will come, one can rest easy feeling that in the future all wrongs will be made right. The Jews originated the western idea of the final Mashiach, or anointed one, who will come and save the world. The Christians adopted this idea, and claimed that Jesus was that man. The Muslims went along with the Christians in claiming that Jesus was the Messiah, not knowing what the word meant.

Still, things have not gotten better. Jewish Messiahs such as Shabtai Zvi (or Sabitai Zevi) and Menachem Schneerson have come and gone, but the world is generally the same. Because of this, the Jews generally have agreed that all previous Jews claiming to be the Messiah (including Jesus) were actually frauds. As for the Christians, one coming of the Messiah was not enough; things are still generally the same, so now they await the second coming of their Messiah! As for the Muslims, their religion seemed to totally strip "Messiah" of its meaning, thus he is just another messenger of God. Still, they too need to believe in a future savior, so they await the Mahdi (which is equivalent to the Judaic concept of Mashiach).

The Muslims and the Christians, though they rarely agree on anything, are united in their disgust of Jewish opposition to the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Still, one wonders what proof the Christo-Islamic world has to support this claim. If they have no evidence to support the Messiaship of Jesus, then they have no right to try and impose their foreign Messianic occult beliefs on the Jews, who are quite happy with their own superstitions.

For the Christians, they'd be better of doing as the Muslims do, and reject the TaNaKh^[3] as holy scripture. Since the Christians hold the TaNaKh as the word of God, their claim that Jesus was the Messiah is totally ripped to shreds by the Bible itself. The gospel attributed to Matthew includes Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin in some translations) in Jesus' genealogy. Jeremiah 22:30 says of Jeconiah "Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah." If none of Jeconiah's offspring can sit on the throne of David, none of them can be the Messiah.

Furthermore, Jesus cannot be the mythical figure known as Mashiach to the Jews, because that being was supposed to free the Jewish homeland of oppression, and return the Hebrew exiles to Israel. The time that immediately followed the period in which Jesus allegedly lived was not the least bit similar to the Messianic kingdom of peace that was to be established. Rather than peace, Jesus' alleged life was followed by the Roman sacking of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the exile of the Jews.

Of course, all these points will mean nothing to a Muslim. As was already said, Islam has totally stripped "Messiah" of its meaning. Jesus was the Messiah, but at the same time was just another prophet. Jesus was the Messiah, yet still another prophet, Muhammad, had to be sent. Jesus was the Messiah, yet still we have to wait for his second coming, as well as the coming of the Mahdi (though, not necessarily in that order). Still, there are problems with Islamic Messiah. Somehow, Jesus was given the name Issa in the Qur'an. Arabic translations of the Bible usually call Jesus "Yasuwa," which is very close to the Hebrew "Y'shua^[4]." These Arabic Bibles also happen to call Esau "Issa." The following is from Ahmed Deedat's book "Christ in Islam":

The Holy Quran refers to Jesus as "Eesa", and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his "Christian" name. Actually, his proper name was "Eesa" (Arabic), or "Esau". (Hebrew); classical "Yeheshua", which the Christian nations of the West Latinised as Jesus. Neither the "J" nor the second "s" in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic language.

The word is very simply - "E S A U" - a very common Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called "Genesis". There was at least one "Jesus" sitting on the "bench" at the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Josephus the Jewish historian mentions some twenty five Jesus' in his "Book of Antiquities". The New Testament speaks of "Bar-Jesus"- a magician and a sorcerer, a false prophet (Act 13:6); and also "Jesus-Justus" - a Christian missionary, a contemporary of Paul (Colossians 4:11). These are distinct from Jesus the son of Mary. Transforming "Esau" to (J)esu(s) - Jesus - makes it unique. This unique (?) name has gone out of currency among the Jews and the Christians from the 2nd century after Christ. Among the Jews, because it came to be the proper name of their God(?) - their God incarnate. The Muslim will not hesitate to name his son - "Eesa" - because it is an honoured name, the name of a righteous servant of the Lord.

Regardless, the Islamic Jesus is not the least bit historical. This is a man who was born of a virgin, and preached the coming of Muhammad. If we treat this claim as historians would treat it, we would go along the following lines: This "son of Mary" that is mentioned in the Qur'an is also found in other literature, which refers to him as "Jesus." The earliest of this literature goes all the way back to 60 CE, and none of the early manuscripts that allegedly record the life of this man make any mention of him using the word "Allah," or "Zakat," or predicting the coming of Muhammad. The Muslim claims regarding Jesus cannot be supported with the earliest available sources.

As a further blow to both the Christians and the Muslims, there is no proof that Jesus was a historical character at all. The Secular Web has a wonderful section of Jesus Historicity which is highly recommended by the Freethought Mecca. Scholars such as John Remsberg^[5], Michael Martin^[6], G.A. Wells^[7], and others have put forth theories that bring Jesus' very existence into doubt. The canonical gospels are the earliest sources, but they badly contradict one another, and therefore cannot be considered reliable. There are mentionings of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, but these are generally regarded as being interpolations. In short, there is no evidence to support his existence.

The stories about Jesus are often taken from previous stories. Many of the alleged miracles Jesus is reported to have performed are modeled after the stories of Elisha and Elijah in the TaNaKh. The concept of Jesus being the "son of God," born of a virgin, et cetera, is one that is found in numerous Greek, Persian, and Vedic folklores. The following are excerpts from Timothy Freke's The Jesus Mysteries:

Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my Mysteries that I tell my Mysteries."-- The Gospel of Thomas

On the site where the Vatican now stands there once stood a Pagan temple. Here Pagan priests observed sacred ceremonies, which early Christians found so disturbing that they tried to erase all evidence of them ever having been practiced. What were these shocking Pagan rites? Gruesome sacrifices or obscene orgies perhaps? This is what we have been led to believe. But the truth is far stranger than this fiction.

Where today the gathered faithful revere their Lord Jesus Christ, the ancients worshiped another godman who, like Jesus, had been miraculously born on December 25 before three shepherds. In this ancient sanctuary Pagan congregations once glorified a Pagan redeemer who, like Jesus, was said to have ascended to heaven and to have promised to come again at the end of time to judge the quick and the dead. On the same spot where the Pope celebrates the Catholic mass, Pagan priests also celebrated a symbolic meal of bread and wine in memory of their savior who, just like Jesus, had declared: He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.

When we began to uncover such extraordinary similarities between the story of Jesus and Pagan myth we were stunned. We had been brought up in a culture which portrays Paganism and Christianity as entirely antagonistic religious perspectives. How could such astonishing resemblances be explained? We were intrigued and began to search farther. The more we looked, the more resemblances we found. To account for the wealth of evidence we were unearthing we felt compelled to completely review our understanding of the relationship between Paganism and Christianity, to question beliefs that we previously regarded as unquestionable and to imagine possibilities that at first seemed impossible. Some readers will find our conclusions shocking and others heretical, but for us they are merely the simplest and most obvious way of accounting for the evidence we have amassed.

We have become convinced that the story of Jesus is not the biography of a historical Messiah, but a myth based on perennial Pagan stories. Christianity was not a new and unique revelation but actually a Jewish adaptation of the ancient Pagan Mystery religion. This is what we have called The Jesus Mysteries Thesis. It may sound far-fetched at first, just as it did initially to us. There is, after all, a great deal of unsubstantiated nonsense written about the "real" Jesus, so any revolutionary theory should be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism. But although this book makes extraordinary claims, it is not just entertaining fantasy or sensational speculation. It is firmly based upon the available historical sources and the latest scholarly research. While we hope to have made it accessible to the general reader, we have also included copious notes giving sources, references, and greater detail for those who wish to analyze our arguments more thoroughly.

Although still radical and challenging today, many of the ideas we explore are actually far from new. As long ago as the Renaissance, mystics and scholars saw the origins of Christianity in the ancient Egyptian religion. Visionary scholars at the turn of the nineteenth century also made comparable conjectures to our own. In recent decades, modern academics have repeatedly pointed toward the possibilities we consider. Yet few have dared to boldly state the obvious conclusions that we have drawn. Why? Because to do so is taboo.

For 2,000 years the West has been dominated by the idea that Christianity is sacred and unique while Paganism is primitive and the work of the Devil. To even consider that they could be parts of the same tradition has been simply unthinkable. Therefore, although the true origins of Christianity have been obvious all along, few have been able to see them, because to do so requires a radical break with the conditioning of our culture. Our contribution has been to dare to think the unthinkable and to present our conclusions in a popular book rather than some dry academic tome. This is certainly not the last word on this complex subject, but we hope it may be a significant call for a complete reappraisal of the origins of Christianity.

My favorite example of course is the comparison of Jesus to the son of Kunti as related to us in the Mahabharata. Now, in both the Bible and the Qur'an, Jesus' mother is visted by a celestial being, in this case the Angel Gabriel. The celestial being tells her that she is going to give birth to a son. She is shocked to hear this, and replies that it is impossible considering that no man has touched her. The celestial being replies that such things are easy for God. the same story appeared in the Mahabharata centuries before the Gospels of Qur'an were ever written. In that story, the virgin named Kunti is visited by a celestial being, in this case, the sun god Surya. The celestial being tells Kunti the same thing Gabriel told Mary, and Kunti's reply is exactly the same!

"Kunti had been amazed, then horrified when he [Surya] told her that he could not leave without giving her a child. 'I am yet a maiden,' she protested. 'What will everyone say?' Surya smiled. By his power she would conceive a son and still remain a maiden."
[Mahabharata, Abridged Translation by Krishna Dharma, p. 62]

And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East, And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing. He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste ? He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained.
[Qur'an, Translation by M.M. Pickthall, Surah Maryam 19:16-21]

NOTES

(1) This is a play on Psalms 14:1, which says Amar Naval B'libo "Eyn Elohim," or "The fool says in his heart 'there is no God.'"

(2) In Hebrew, Mashiach, and in Arabic, Masih.

(3) That is, the Old Testament.

(4) Y'shua happens to be the name the "Jews for Jesus" group gives to Jesus.

(5) See Remsberg, The Christ.

(6) See Martin, The Case Against Christianity.

(7) See Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, The Jesus Myth, and The Historical Evidence for Jesus.