The Christ as a Roman Myth


Dennis "Nazgno" Tackett

In the 1800's Scholars and wanna-bes descended upon the knowledge of other Christ "saviors" of previous cultures. In their haste to prove that the Jesus story was indeed a copy of past ancient savior myths, they began to form the other myths around that of the Romanized Christ. As an example Mithras was not born of a virgin nor on December 25th. Horus was not born of a virgin nor is it proved that he was born on Dec.25th as many tried to claim. This has done a great disservice to efforts to establish the true knowledge of the Ancients. More modern misconceptions have become "fact" while the original ancient writings are ignored.

It is not a word for word or event for event comparison that is to determine the actual validity of any one claim of similarities among these myths. We accept the multitude of other God/Men as just that, myths. We accept that Horus was a myth, as was Mithras,Glycon, Dionysus and Opheus. So how did the ancient forge their myths? The Ancients had ideas concerning the characteristics that a God/man would have. They revealed or created their Gods according to that formula.. When a new god/man was created as a part of a new myth it was a new god/man based upon old ideas or concepts. So the ideas stayed steady as the names and details of the stories changed from one god/man to the next.
Proto-Christian scholars and clergy have long employed a tool known as "If not all then none" This really means that if any facet of the previous myth is not as such in the Christ story, then the Christ story was not copied but is an original. It works for them except that it is a fallacy of reasoning. Copyright infringements are usually brought for small sections of stolen materials, not entire stories. In other words no two myths are exactly a like and this in itself does not prove copying of ideas and concepts did not happen.
If we begin to drop the illusion of the earlier "scholarly" efforts to expose the "16 saviors" and return to original text we can forget the blow by blow descriptions and focus on the important concepts and ideas that are shared. If these God/men myths were created based upon certain characteristics, properties and principles, we should be able to isolate these and make a good comparison of the Roman Christ myth to see if it shares these also.
We need to set a criteria of inclusion which encompasses a large percentage of repetitions in various myths to merit inclusion. By doing this we can gain a consistent idea of the characteristics and properties of the Pagan or ancients god/men. Therefore these are listed somewhat in an order of occurrences in all other myths. Also those that apply to the Roman Christ myth will be noted as such.

1) Came from Heaven Roman Christ (yes)
2) borned via a mystical birth- (yes)
3) God as father, mortal as mother. (Yes)
4) Son of God. (Yes)
5) In fulfillment of prophesy. (Yes)
6) Proclaimed by God in divine sent dreams. (Yes)
7) Performed miracles. (Yes)
8) Brought Salvation. (Yes)
9)Suffered and died. (Yes)
10) Came back to life. (Yes)
11) Asscended to heaven. (Yes)
12) Had disciples. (Yes)
13) Raised the dead. (Yes)

Not all myths share every detail. Like all soft drinks don't share the same ingredients yet all are known as soft drinks. Jesus was a new Pagan god/man built on the understanding of those of that time which were heavily influenced by the concepts and properties of the god/men and religion of the ancient pagans. Jesus was a god/man of his time and place. A fabrication of a pagan god/man of Roman flavor. It is hard to deny this if one looks solely at the similartities for that which they are, as written historically recorded concepts.

This is not to say that Christ did not exist. It is to say that anyway you cut it, the similarities of his story and the Pagan myths are remarkable. We have a double standard in that we accept everyone elses story as a myth. Yet, when it comes to Jesus it is not a myth, it is historical fact.