Jesus…how unoriginal

After being at this for a while, nothing surprises me anymore.  It’s almost to the point where I don’t even expect critics of the Christian message to do their due diligence and investigate whether what they read on Atheist’s blogs is even accurate.  Here’s the next example.

jesus myth


  • Born of a virgin? Nope, his parents were Isis and Osiris.
  • Birth announced by a star in the East? No.
  • Walked on water? There is no record of this in any Horus story.
  • Healed the sick and restored sight?  Close.  He did perform miracles, which is nothing strange considering he was a god.  However, there’s nothing similar to Jesus’  resurrecting the dead (Lazarus) or exorcised demons.  I also wasn’t able to find healing the sick and blind specifically.
  • Crucified, dead for 3 days, resurrected? Nope, nope, nope.  Not only was Horus not crucified, crucifixion was not invented until long after (circa 600 BC) the Horus story was already in circulation.  As for resurrected, not really.  Horus, while hiding in a marsh with his mother Isis, was bitten by a poisonous scorpion.  Isis cried out for help.  A spell was utterd which restored Horus to life. The Metropolitan Museum of Art says the following about an inscription found pertaining to Horus: “On the stela Isis speaks and recounts that while she and Horus were still hiding in the marshes, the child became ill. In her despair, she cried for help to the “Boat of Eternity” (the sun boat in which the god travels over the sky), “and the sun disk stopped opposite her and did not move from his place.” Thoth was sent from the sun boat to help Isis and cured Horus by reciting a catalogue of spells.”  In most cases Horus is described as being sickened then cured of the sickness through spells.  Nothing suggests he was dead for three days either.


  • Born of a virgin on December 25? Nope.  He was “born” out of the side of a mountain, not a virgin.  If Mithra was “born” on December 25, it is of no consequence since Jesus wasn’t.  No one even makes the claim that Jesus was born on ‘Christmas’.  December 25 is the day on which his birth is celebrated.
  • Birth announced by a star in the East? Not that I can find.  It’s not surprising since he wasn’t born at all, he was formed from a mountain.
  • Had 12 disciples?  No dice.  In the Roman version of the Mithra story he has two companions, and in the Persian version, he has one.  The reference for 12 disciples comes from an image of Mithra slaying a bull with 12 other figures around him.  Quite a stretch if you as me.
  • Performed miracles? Yes, this one is correct.  However this is not very significant considering Mithra is supposed to be some kind of deity.  Gods perform miracles.
  • Dead for 3 days then resurrected?  Wrong again.  There are some 4th century AD sources suggesting that he died, the earliest sources don’t mention his death at all much less a resurrection.  Given the late attestation of a death — but no burial or resurrection — any attribution of such is more likely influenced by the Christian culture and not the other way around.


  • Born of a virgin?  Ha ha… no.  When Krishna was conceived and born his parents already had 7 other children.
  • Birth announced by a star in the East?  There are no accounts of any stellar events surrounding his birth.
  • Performed miracles? Possibly.  But as with the others, none are of the kind that Jesus performed i.e., healing the sick.
  • Called “Son of God”?  Not only is Krishna never referred to as “Son of God” in any Krishna stories, he isn’t even referred to as any of the other traditional titles assigned to Jesus.
  • Son of a carpenter? There is no mention of Krishna’s father, Vasuveda, being a carpenter or anything else for that matter.
  • Resurrected from the dead? No, he was not resurrected.  He was killed by a hunter while meditating in the woods.  His soul ascended into heaven while his body was cremated.


  • Born of a virgin on December 25th?  Dionysus was the result of the physical sexual affair between a mortal woman, Semele, and Zeus.  This precludes a virgin birth.  The celebration of Dionysus’ birth is not his birth date but rather his ‘second birth’, and that was celebrated on January 6th…not Christmas.
  • Travelling teacher?  He was proclaimed to be a travelling teacher.
  • Turned water into wine?  Oohh…so close.  Dionysus was called “the God of the vine”, but that’s where it ends.  In the 2nd century a Greek Romance was written and says he introduced wine to the world.  In it Dionysus is quoted as referring to the wine as “the water of summer” but is never said to have turned water into wine in any story.
  • Called “Holy Child”?  Of all the titles Dionysus shares with Jesus is “Savior”.  However, it’s in reference to him saving people from the wrath of Pentheus, not from their sin or a salvific context like Jesus.

I was able to fact check these claims in about an hour.  Universities and museums have websites with verified biographies of all the “copycat” myths, so the information is readily available.  In fact, it is only on skeptics’ blogs that make the claim that prior deities have the same details of Jesus’ life.   Why is this?  Why are these claims that the details of Jesus’ life are stolen from prior myths still being made when they are so easily fact checked and found to be not at all similar?

y u not honest


  1. Apparently, your fact checking is somewhat biased.

    I guess followers of a specific belief often reject any evidence contrary to their belief.

    • I refrenced university and museum websites. Just read them. This is why this belief that they are so similar is so prevalent among you atheists. You dont read them for yourself. You find some website that says they are similar and thats good enough for you.

  2. Funny, the museum website you link to has no account of Horus’ origins. You must have gotten that from somewhere else.

    If only you could take a look at reality outside the bubble of your belief.

  3. No one even makes the claim that Jesus was born on ‘Christmas’. December 25 is the day on which his birth is celebrated.

    Why would you celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25 then?

    • The Christians of the day used it to take “hyjack” the importance away from others.

      Have you debunked my debunking yet? I know youve been googling looking for sources outside atheist blogs for confirmation.

  4. Any luck trying to debunk my debunking?

    It seems you seldom address my questions or statements, so why would expect me to try to keep fighting your straw-men? Take a look at the link I provided and explore those pages objectively without your presuppositions.

  5. December 25th is not the only day Christmas was celebrated, and still isn’t. Others celebrated it on Jan. 6. The history of it is traced here.

    That Dec. 25 was chosen to hijack pagan celebrations is another myth.

    • If my perception of why 12/25 was chosen is wrong I’m ok with it. Jesus’ birthday isnt a large part of my Christian convictions especially since its not asserted in the bible.

      • “If my perception of why 12/25 was chosen is wrong I’m ok with it.”

        Didn’t have time to write more (we’re in the middle of a move), so I hope my short comment didn’t make you think I was attacking yours. It’s just one of the things I hear a lot and wanted to pass on the info.

        I admit to being perplexed by Christians – or anyone else, for that matter – who actually believe Jesus was born on Dec. 25th.

  6. I have no need to defend anything some other atheist says, as you would say the same about other Christians who make bold statements. I’m sure you would not come to the defense of Glenn, Marshalart or Dan if they as Christians said something you didn’t entirely agree with.

    I just love the way you constantly criticize the criticism without addressing the actual subject matter.

    The Christians of the day used it to take “hyjack” the importance away from others.

    You mean they stole it.

    Why do you think the actual day of the birth of god on earth is not known? Would you not think that this day would be somewhat important to you?

    • You tried to debunk my post by linking to a google search. You are so intellectually dishonest its not even funny. It totally inhibits any conversation ee could possibly have because you think you are entitled to ask questions and never answer any. Seriously, whats your deal?

  7. That Dec. 25 was chosen to hijack pagan celebrations is another myth.

    Apparently, Kunoichi doesn’t even read the pages she references.

    In the end we are left with a question: How did December 25 become Christmas? We cannot be entirely sure. Elements of the festival that developed from the fourth century until modern times may well derive from pagan traditions.

    • Z

      Youre not the serious intellectual you believe yourself to be. You have yet to bring anything to the table. Can you admit these were false claims made by some atheists or not?

    • Apparently you can’t read, either.

      “Elements of the festival that developed from the fourth century until modern times may well derive from pagan traditions.”

      “Elements of the festival” has nothing to do with the date, but how it is celebrated and “may well” means it could be from that… or not.

      I see no problem with elements of “pagan traditions” being included in festivities. These are cultural, and culture is an important part of the human condition. My ethnic background has been Christian for 1000 years. It had many rich cultural traditions that my pagan ancestors carried on when the chose to become Christians. They simply changed the symbolism and metaphors from pagan to Christian. I am not about to turn my nose up at my cultural heritage because some of them come from my pagan ancestors a millenia ago. It’s what they symbolize now that matters.

  8. Your incessant name calling doesn’t lend itself to the discussion, John.

    Your beef in this post calls to task the people who make lists comparing the Jesus story to several god stories before it.

    It’s not my task to defend every single item in those lists.

    It can be clearly seen despite any single discrepancy you may find, however, that there are many similarities and calls into question the veracity of the Christian claims. It is understandable that, as a Christian, you would balk at any comparison and scoff at anyone attempting to do so.

  9. I think a simple google search reveals the fact that stories involving virgin births exist before Jesus came around.

    Greek: Leda, Perseus, Hephaestus
    Hinduism: Karna
    Egypt: Horus, unless you think she had intercourse with a severed penis
    Finnish: Marjatta

    It is not my responsibility to defend those stories, just to point to the fact that the Christian claims of a virgin birth are not unique claims.

    I love the way you keep trying to shift any burden away from yourself for believing in what you do by demanding others defend themselves.

  10. John,

    Because “Atheists Have Small Penises” receives so many hits on Google, it must be true.

    Tiny is right. “I guess followers of a specific belief often reject any evidence contrary to their belief.”

  11. All of this stuff you pulled is from the documentary Zeitgeist. It’s as nutty as conservatives on the opposite end of the spectrum.

    What you should really try to dispute is scholarly research on religion. (or maybe you will just agree with it.)

    Overall – I agree. Mal-information like this is as bad and counterproductive as anything else.

  12. Also, if it took you an entire hour to fact check this stuff that was entirely too long. There are entire website dedicated to disproving the movie’s premise. Here’s one example:

    • No, I wanted to look up each claim from the actual myth accounts themselves. I wasnt goint to take someone else’s word the the clown who created the graphic. Z took someone’s word and got caught. No look at how silly his projection of knowledge looks.


    This is an exact outline of what you have above. For everyone else’s reference as well.

  14. You’re right, John
    I should just stick to all the Christian websites, Fox News and Conservapedia.

    The bible is flawless. Jesus as the real god is true.
    Virgin birth? Yepper, real, and never been done before or since.
    Performed miracles? Absolutely, like no one else.
    Died and resurrected? Of course. Why not?

    Never mind the fact you believe this stuff and never have the need to defend that belief, it’s an outrage that anyone could ever say that any of these actions have ever been attributed before!

    • Look at what youve resorted to. This is the most childish I have ever seen you act. I am deeply disappointed.

      Why are you digging your heels in so strongly when you are so demonstrably incorrect?

  15. Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy did quite a thorough job of dismantling these misrepresentations in their book The Jesus Legend. There are two versions of the book, one is oriented toward the more casual reader, while the other is oriented toward the more scholarly minded. It’s pretty well sourced and covers this territory well.

  16. Yes, look what it comes down to.

    So, just to be clear – you want me to make a case for all the previous god-story claims against your god-story claim? Pre-Christian mythology versus Christian mythology?

    Again, instead of actually trying to defend your beliefs, you’re insisting others defend a position you insist they take. Classic.

    Foolishly, I must admit, I played along with your game for a while there.

    • You are so out of touch Z. I dont want you to defend the graphic. I want you to admit its claims about Jesus and the other is false. You refuse to do it. Instead you shoveled yourself in deeper by making more false claims of virgin births.

      You essentially are having a temper tantrum right now and its all because you cant admit the Jesus/myth similarities are lies and exaggerations.

  17. So, just to be clear – you want me to make a case for all the previous god-story claims against your god-story claim?

    I want you to admit its claims about Jesus and the other is false.

    Confirmed. Thank you.

  18. mmmike917 says:

    Hey! I have big news! Did you all know that the sinking of the Titanic is a hoax? It’s nothing but another copycat story! I know because there was a fictional novel published in 1898 entitled “Futility” in which a purportedly unsinkable luxury steam liner named the Titan met its end on an April night on its maiden voyage in the North Atlantic by striking an iceberg. There were not enough lifeboats on the Titan and more than half of the ship’s passengers perished. There are other suspicious similarities as well, check them out (,_or_the_Wreck_of_the_Titan)! So you see, this shows that the sinking of the RMS Titanic on April 14th 1912 is just a rehashing of an older version of the same story with just slightly different characters, dates, etc. Just thought you’d like to know. WHAT!!? JESUS IS A MYTH TOO!!?? NOOOOOO!!

  19. Oh yeah dude, no one believes in the Titanic anymore, except for delusional old people and homeschoolers.

  20. “You mean they stole it. ”

    How do you steal a day? Does that mean that, if one cultural or religious group celebrates on a certain date, no other religious or cultueral group can celebrate on or around that date, otherwise they are “stealing” it?

    I invite you to check out See how many free days you can find that isn’t already used by some other religious or cultural celebration. Most have several events celebrated on the same day. Are they all stealing from each other? Or is just one the “real” day, and all the others are stealing it? What about the days before and after? Are the events from those days “stealing” to?

  21. Come on now Kunoichi, you can’t seriously expect everyone to think outside of the box, let’s be real now…

    I once knew a girl who told me that she found it very interesting that the word “belief” has the word “lie in it”. I, somewhat taken aback by her incredible lapse in reasoning, pointed out that it does indeed include that word… but only in English. She replied by saying that that fact makes it even MORE significant. [insert: Jesusfacepalm.jpg][lol]

  22. Without getting into the argument about which side is right or wrong, I’d just like to point out that you can’t claim that you have included University and art museum references (as you do in your first comment, all the way back up at the top) and then only include one reference to an article about an old artefact that’s not even been peer-reviewed.

    At the moment, this post reads like you’re just angrily responding to the picture and just refuting any claims without research behind them. Reference actual research when you claim to do so, or expect to be challenged over it’s authenticity and veracity.

    • Christopher

      I wasnt writing a research paper. I cited the museum because I directly quoted from the site. However, the facts I raise are even found on Wikipedia. They arent difficult to check which is why it’s so ridiculous that atheists even offer these false similarities.

      Like I said. The only place these similarities are offered is on skeptics blogs and websites and none cite any documentation, but that doesnt seem to bother the skeptic.

      • No, I know you weren’t writing a research paper, you were refuting a meme using Wikipedia, which must be the most bizarre use of internet circular logic ever made. My point was that you can’t claim to reference University research papers, as you did in your comment, without then making any reference to them.

        • Go back and reread. I didnt use Wikipedia as a reference. I said the same information can be found on Wikipedia.

          I also didnt say I used research papers. Universities run sites for Greek and other mythologies. They have the mythologies for the different gods so they can be read.

          Lastly, the meme was merely a compacted complaint slung at Christians by skeptics on a regular basis.

          Are you saying my response to these claims is false?

          • It’s literally your first comment! Underneath the post. You were responding to a sceptical comment and said that you used university papers and art museum websites as references, but you didn’t ever mention which ones they were, thus making me doubt the veracity of your research.

            Whilst we’re on the subject (and I wasn’t going to bring this up, but the way that you react to basic constructive criticism regarding a lack of High School level referencing has been such an affront to common sense that I feel that I must), I believe that your response to these claims is false because in order for them to be true you must accept that Jesus Christ is the son of God, whilst also being God; a claim backed up by absolutely no historical or archaeological evidence. I am not saying that a man called Jesus (or, most likely, Jehoshua) was not alive 2,000 years ago, nor am I saying that there was not a man who travelled around healing people as some sort of teacher/priest/self-styled holy man. What I am saying is that the only proof that this man was the son of God is that he said he was, and other people believed him. These people spread the word, wrote books about it, and lots of people started believing it. That is the way religion starts, that is the way religion works. It is a monstrous carbuncle on the backside of society and these sceptics that you so vehemently dismiss because they do not conform to your world view are responsible for every single major scientific and technological advance humanity has made – they had the freedom to do this because they were not restricted by religion, and very often did it in spite of religious pressure. They theorised and invented, created and perfected everything that now allows you to spew some ball-achingly badly researched nonsense about deities that share a remarkable similarity but never actually existed.

            • You dont have to accept Jesus as god to see the accusation of similarity are false. Its not about whether the bible or the myths are true, its that the details claimed to be similar just arent accurate.

              I find it intellectually disingenuous to dismiss my rebuttal due to lack of footnotes yet dont reject the skeptic’s accusations which not only lack footnotes it lacks accuracy!

              My first comment says I refrenced websites, not research papers (they arent synonymous you know). But if you like I’ll link the sites for you. After which your response will be what?

  23. mmmike917 says:

    “These  sceptics that you so vehemently dismiss because they do not conform to your world view are responsible for every single major scientific and technological advance humanity has made”

    Hi Christopher,
    Since you seem so gung-ho on providing references, would you mind providing one for this little ditty? Did you know that most of the major branches of science were pioneered by Bible-believing Christians? Run down the list: Faraday, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur, Galileo, and many more besides…ALL of them devout men of faith. Not only that, their Christian faith was the driving force behind their scientific pursuits, not merely incidental to them. Meanwhile, the kind of skepticism John often criticizes here would be, and in many cases HAS been, devastating to scientific advancement. It is no accident that modern science developed out of predominantly Christian cultures. Those mythical “Dark Ages” imposed by the Church we always hear about are exactly that…a myth. Historians have long abandoned the notion that Christianity inhibited knowledge during the Middle Ages. The only ones who seem to still believe that are the same skeptics who produced the meme above.

  24. I just want to add a few things.
    First, the instances of virgin births listed above require a stretch to tie them to the virgin birth of Jesus. They are dissimilar in scope and narrative. As far as I can tell (and I caution I am not an expert on ancient mythology), Mithra was born from a rock as John says, every example of Greek and Roman “virgin births” is a technicality by claiming that sex between a God and a mortal is not “sex”, and though there were at least five Horuses in Egyptian mythology- I can’t find a hard reference that any were born of a virgin.
    To take that information and say that the biblical narrative is “plagiarized” is a bit disingenuous. It shouldn’t be surprising that religions have a tendency to supernatural claims, miracles, amazing creation stories and the like. If I wanted to invent a religion, I would include such things. If there was a real God that was worth worshiping, I would expect such things. This point is so trivial as to barely be noteworthy.

    As a neat aside, the virgin birth of Jesus was not actually mentioned in the oldest NT book that talks about the life of Jesus, Mark. It also is not mentioned in any of the Pauline gospels, which predate the books of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.
    That said, it is also not explicitly mentioned in John, which is the youngest of the four accounts of Jesus- and the birth itself is not mentioned in either John or Mark.

  25. Paul says in Romans that Jesus was “born of the seed of David, according to the flesh”, which could be interpreted otherwise. I’m not trying to lobby that the virgin birth was supplemented into the Jesus story, I’m just suggesting that I find this issue far more interesting than whether “a bunch” of ancient religions have some marginal similarities to each other.
    Mark and John both do not narrate the birth of Jesus, though John does talk about Him as being born of the Father (the capital F father), which implies that He is the Son of God.
    Either way, I don’t find the argument that religions are suspiciously all filled with supernatural events and teacher/student relationships all that interesting or noteworthy.

  26. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are two different accounts tracing lineage back to David, understood by most scholars to be for Joseph and Mary respectively. Though I was always perplexed why Joseph’s pedigree even matters.
    If you want to PM me about your ideas, feel free…..

    • The reason Joseph’s pedigree matters is he likely adopted Jesus as his own making him legally privileged to Joseph’s inheritances and such. However if the 2 different geneologies are not for 2 different people why werent they ever fixed to match? Skeptics seem to think therr were all kinds of edits made for an agenda, this seems like a no brainer.

  27. Joseph’s genealogy ought to be irrelevant to what Jesus is entitled to. That seems like a weak explanation.
    I accept the majority opinion that the conflicting genealogies are for two different people, I just note that Joseph’s ought to be irrelevant.

    • Jews are very proud and meticulous about their family’s line. It’s only irrelevant to you and us in this culture. First century middle east it would have been very important to people.

  28. The other concept to think about is the age of sacred texts. The Bhagavad Gita is academically dated to 1500BC. The second thing to consider is how contradictory the fundamentals are in religions. I translate the poster to me mean almost plagiarism. If that is the case then the fundamentals of the religions would also be the same with the only difference being the ethnicity and geographical origins of the religious figures. Also, I have read information from an Asian atheist that claims that Christianity corrupted their indigenous beliefs. They claim that what is now known was borrowed from Christianity.

    “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20, NKJV).

    Could it be that there was one original source of truth and man has since changed it?

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: