It's my 6 year anniversary on Tumblr đĽł

tannertan36
taylor price
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

Love Begins

Kiana Khansmith
Sade Olutola
cherry valley forever
ojovivo

shark vs the universe
Cosimo Galluzzi
tumblr dot com

izzy's playlists!
Misplaced Lens Cap
trying on a metaphor
Xuebing Du
Show & Tell
Mike Driver
art blog(derogatory)

⣠Chile in a Photography âŁ

seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from Argentina
seen from Costa Rica

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from France
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
@sirtravisjacksonoftexas
It's my 6 year anniversary on Tumblr đĽł

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Diluvia
By Travis Jackson
Emerging from oaks at the witching hour, a specter, Diluvia.
Pregnant belly, blue skin, glowing eyes, enigmatic Diluvia.
Her gown white and ethereal, containing bleeding memories,
memories of a black river and a wicked king, haunting Diluvia.
Massive of body, massive of belly, lumbering everywhere she goes,
yet never leaving a track, even in mud. Diluvia.
A pickup at midnight, its driver sees her too late.
Brakes screeching, yet it hitsâŚflying through a mist. DiluviaâŚ
She walks through a graveyard, whispering to herself, chanting,
The dead shake the ground as she walks by. Diluvia.
A gamer in his room, playing before a worldwide audience, all of
which stare in horror at what appears behind him: Diluvia.
A baby crying in a hospital, sick, near death, until he is healed,
smiling at the approaching hand of his healer: Diluvia.
All eyes on Texas, for its monster has ventured beyond,
filmed across continents. A true nomad, this Diluvia.
Bo, a troubled insomniac, poisoning himself in his dark house,
discovering that he is not alone, face to face with Diluvia.
Fleeing, running in vain, Bo is sucked into a swirling
vortex emerging from her opening belly, from Diluvia.
Bo, naked, floating in darkness, a chain connecting him to his captor.
Other failed suicides float within the womb of Diluvia.
Years before, a poet imagined a ghost, its past. He
then made his character a tulpa, a thought form, real! DiluviaâŚ
Marvin the Martian and Alexis Bledel: Parallelomania for Fun!!!!
1. Both originated in America (Marvin the Martian was invented in the USA, Alexis Bledel was born in the USA).
2. Both speak English.
3. Both have been on TV.
4. Both have elicited laughter (Marvin the Martian on Looney Tunes, Alexis Bledel on Gilmore Girls).
5. Marvin the Martianâs cartoons consist of two genres (comedy and science fiction): Gilmore Girls consists of two genres (drama and comedy, a âDramedyâ). Alexis Bledel has likewise played in several films that were more than one genre (Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, Post Grad, etc).
6. Marvin the Martianâs cartoons are partly science fiction: Alexis Bledel has played in Handmaidâs Tale, a science fiction TV series.
7. Marvin the Martianâs cartoons are partly comedy: Alexis Bledel has played in films and shows that were partly comedy (Post Grad, Gilmore Girls, etc)
8. Marvin the Martian is a villain. Alexis Bledel has played villains (Becky in Sin City, Officer Kate Logan in The Kate Logan Affair).
9. Marvin the Martian is cold blooded, having no qualms about wiping out Earth: Alexis Bledel depicted Violet, a cold blooded assassin in the movie âViolet and Daisyâ who had no qualms about killing large numbers of people.
10. Both have fans.
11. Both wear skirts.
12. Both are connected to Warner Brothers (Looney Tunes, which Marvin is a character in, was made by Warner Brothers. âGilmore Girlsâ was likewise made by Warner Brothers).
13. Both are soft spoken.
14. Their first names each consist of six letters.
15. Both âAâ and âIâ are in their first names.
16. Â Both âLooney Tunesâ and âGilmore Girlsâ, the shows that made both Marvin the Martian and Alexis Bledel famous, have each five letters in the second parts of their names.
17. In the cartoons, Marvin the Martianâs plan to destroy the Earth was foiled by Duck Dodgers of the 24½th century, a character with superhuman durability (capable of surviving explosions big enough to destroy planets, can withstand laser fire, etc). In Sin City, Becky, the prostitute that Alexis Bledel plays, plans to have the mob take back control of the prostitutes who run Old Town (a part of Basin City)âŚonly for her plan to be foiled by Dwight McArthy, an antihero who has superhuman durability (He could fall multiple stories from a skyscraper without suffering harm, survive punches from super strong opponents, etc).
18. Marvin the Martian was armed with a ray gun called a âA-1 Disintegrating Pistolâ (and was shaped like a pistol): Alexis Bledel has played characters armed with pistols (Becky in Sin City, Violet in Violet and Daisy, Officer Kate Logan in the Kate Logan Affair).
Sources:
Duck Dodgers is a character from four Looney Tunes short films and the Duck Dodgers television series. He is a spoof of the classic sci-fi c
Charles Martin Jones (21 September 1912 â 22 February 2002) was an American animator, director, cartoon artist, screenwriter, and producer.
Known for: Gilmore Girls, Sin City, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
1h 59m | PG
1h 28m | PG-13
âFrom Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Centuryâ by David Mansour, 303
âSandbows and Black Lights: Reflections on Opticsâ by Stephen R. Wilk, 188
âWar and the Media: Essays on News Reporting, Propaganda and Popular Cultureâ by Barbara S. Hugenberg, Paul M. Haridakis and Stanley T. Wearden (Editors), 80
Gilmore Girls (TV Show)
âWelcome to the Gilmore Girlsâ Documentary
Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life (Miniseries)
Sin City (Movie)
Violet & Daisy (Movie)
Sin City: a Dame to Kill For (Movie)
Post Grad (Movie)
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (Movie)
The Kate Logan Affair. (Movie)
The Handmaidâs Tale (TV show).
Looney Tunes (Episodes such as âHaredevil Hareâ, âDuck Dodgers in the 24 ½ Centuryâ, etc).
Duel of Yule
By Travis Jackson
Santa in his sleigh, flying into the night. Odin intercepts, riding on 8-legged Sleipnir, challenging St. Nick to a Dule of Yule. Â
Odinâs holds Gungnir, unrivaled spear, in his right hand. In his left, a bag filled with cursed axes, swords and spears, Duel of Yule. Â
Such weapons cause berserker rage, such weapons Odin will give to the worldâs children, should he win the Duel of Yule.
Horrified, Santa calls upon mighty Rudolph, who turns, his brethren follow. They flee. Odin pursues! Thus begins the Duel of Yule.
Santa unleashes coal from his bag, a mighty river of egg nog from his small cup! Odin rides through it all! Duel of Yule!
Lifting Gungnir, Odin throws it, aiming true as ever. Santa is pierced, bleeding snowflakes, quickly healing, Duel of Yule!
Santa creates a giant Christmas tree! It grabs Odin by the neck! Sleipnir runs onto it! His hooves set it on fire! Duel of Yule!
Odin summons his ravens, his wolves. Santa summons his elves. Night clouds stained with blood, Duel of Yule!
Santa pulls out his naughty list, seeing Odinâs name, stabs it with his pen. Odinâs side erupts with light, pain! Duel of Yule!
Odin slays 8 reindeer with mighty Gungnir. Rudolph collides with Sleipnir, impaling him with his antlers, Duel of Yule!
In the air, god and saint grasp hands, with the force of megatons! Power against power! Santa sheds a tear. Santa fadesâŚDuel of Yule!
Odin howls in victory, until Rudolph shines his nose. Odin is blinded! Rudolph swallows him whole! Duel of Yule!
Rudolph lands, elves land, all mournâŚuntil Santa reappears, alive, it seems, taking his bagâŚand Odinâs bagâŚDule of Yule!
âSantaâ rides off on Rudolphâs back. âMerry Christmas to all!â âSantaâ says with fiery eyes, âcourtesy of LOKI!â Duel of Yule.
I Rebuke Your âRefutationâ: My Response to Justin the Zoroastrian
When I post anti-Jesus mythicist arguments online, sometimes I receive backlash fromâŚwell, Jesus Mythicists. Many will try to argue around the facts, while others will make stuff up, some do both.
Justin Tehmton Haubrich, aka Justin the Zoroastrian, is one such individual.
 I mentioned him in a previous article titled âDid Judaism and Christianity borrow from Zoroastrianism?  Um, NO, and Mughal War Elephants will show you why.â. I mentioned how, on a previous Twitter thread (that went over the same material), he wrote the following in reply:
ââJesus was visited by Zoroastrian priests, the magi. In the apocryphal Syriac infancy Gospel it is written that Zoroaster prophesied the birth of Jesus. #FactsMatter: The concept of heaven and hell, final resurrection, the devil, angels and demons, etc. all originate from Zism.â
I responded, but the tweet thread broke, becoming out of order. I do have 12 replies, which I numbered in order to show a level of order, but itâs a little irritating to read them in proper order when they are all over the place. I eventually turned the information in that broken thread into an article and posting it on Tumblr, which is far better at writing long articles than Twitter. I thought that was the end of it.
I was wrong.
Justin discovered my article on Tumblr and then wrote one of his own called âA Refutation of an anti-Zoroastrian Evangelicalâ. What follows was a lot of wordsâŚand no list of sources, all in the attempt to refute someone who he claims is a âspasticated brainwashed evangelicalâ (eye roll moment). ItâŚdoes nothing of the sort, but it is a great testimony to the fact that fiction can be fun. I will be posting a link to his article in my sources section, but for now, Iâm going to post what he wrote in piecemeal and dice it up.
 Major debunking ahead!
 Letâs post the first part of his article:
âA few years ago I was browsing Twitter when I stumbled upon a thread written by a pseudo-intellectual evangelical Christian apologist from Texas by the name of Sir Travis Jackson. In this thread, the evangelical was attacking Zoroastrianism, my ancestral Iranian religion.
 As an advocate and defender of the ancient Zoroastrian faith, I didn't hesitate to get into a theological debate with him.
 During the debate, I so thoroughly wrecked him, that he deleted the thread and retreated from Twitter to Tumblr so he could continue the debate without me.â
 Well, for starters, I didnât delete the thread. My 12 replies are still on it. The thread was broken, and some tweets were probably lost, but you can still go and see the replies yourself:
 https://twitter.com/travisdon1981/status/1180258590269071366Â
Along with this, I didnât retreat from Twitter to Tumblr: I have both a Twitter page (which has over 9000 followers) and a Tumblr page. I simply chose to write articles on Tumblr due to it being far better to write articles on it than Twitter (which requires hordes of tweets to accomplish. With Tumblr, you only need to post once).
Plus, if he did quote unquote âdemolish meâ, then why didnât he reply to any of the twelve tweets I posted in reply to him (watch him reply to them after this article is up in order to save face. If he does, check the time of his replies).
Now, letâs see what he wrote next:
âHe was seething so hard that he had to go on to Tumblr and write a 3,000 word barely coherent polemical rant to refute the Zoroastrian influence on Judaism and Christianity, where he mentions me by name in the first few paragraphs. I didn't even know about it until today. You can read it here: https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/627024203052433408/did-judaism-and-christianity-borrow-from
Seething? Barely coherent polemical rant? Sure, and I have some beach front property in Nevada that Iâd like to sell him.
Next:
âIn order for this spasticated brainwashed evangelical to cope with the insecurity that he was feeling towards his beliefs, he had to jump through some very impressive mental gymnastics to refute my views. He should get a gold medal for that.
 I have lived in Oklahoma my whole life so I have dealt with my fair share of Iranophobic anti-Zoroastrian evangelicals like him in the past. The evangelical christians are well-known for their bigotry, ignorance, judgemental intolerance, hostility, political extremism, incoherency, hypocrisy, and insular close-mindedness towards people of other faiths and ways of life. I have experienced it time and time again. It is a reputation they have thoroughly earned.â
Nice Ad Hominems, slander and projections. For someone whose accusing me of bigotry, heâs definitely acting as such when it comes to evangelical Christians.Â
Hmmm...
Next:
âThe Zoroastrian community, on the other hand, has earned a reputation of being honest, egalitarian, philanthropic, kind, joyous, charitable, industrious, entreprenuerial, and resilient in the face of adversity. The Zoroastrians have maintained their faith and tradition for thousands of years, surviving countless invasions and genocides from various bloodthirsty armies, and have made contributions to the fields of philosophy, science, literature, art, architecture, and jurisprudence. The ancient Zoroastrians literally invented Human Rights under King Cyrus. They are also well known for their rich cultural traditions such as Nowruz and their interfaith cooperation and positive relations with other religious communities. They also gave the world Freddy Mercury.
 If you don't believe me, just ask the Hindus what they think of us. They love us. And we love them.â
Oh, so Christians have never been honest, egalitarian, philanthropic, kind, joyous, charitable, industrious, entrepreneurial, and resilient in the face of adversity? Christians havenât maintained our faith and traditions for thousands of years? We didnât survive countless persecutions, invasions and genocides? Christians havenât made contributions to the fields of Philosophy, science, literature, art, architecture, jurisprudence, etc? Keep in mind, Christianity has been an evangelical religion since the beginning (Matthew 28:19). Oh, and prove that the Zoroastrians invented human rights.
Oh, thatâs right, no source.
Oh, and we gave the world Elvis.
Next:
âAnyways, here is my refutation to Sir Travis Jackson's refutation:
 The argument presented in Travis Jackson's article against the fact that Judaism and Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism is weak and lacks evidence.â
Really? Please provide that in a sources list.
Oh, sorry, you havenât (watch him edit his article and add a sources list later. Hence why the printscreen button is so awesome! Indeed, these are screenshots of his article:
Next:
âThe article argues that the Wise Men or Magi who visited Jesus were astrologers and not Zoroastrian priests. However, the term "Magi" was used specifically to describe Zoroastrian priests, and there is evidence that they were known to travel beyond Persia to conduct religious ceremonies.â
You obviously didnât read the article. Words change meaning over time. Used to be the case that âMagiâ only applied to an ancient Persian religious caste. However, the term got so intermingled with the concept of astrology that by the first century BC, the term could mean simply âfortune tellerâ or those who promoted esoteric cults in the Mediterranean region (keep in mind, the Persians didnât rule the Mediterranean region: the Romans did, and they also ruled Israel at the time). True, the Wise Men or âMagiâ came from the east, but the East was regarded in that time period to have the best astrologers, and the East wasnât only populated by Zoroastrians. The term, in the context of the Roman Empire at the time, simply meant an astrologer/fortune teller or promoter of arcane/esoteric cults. It could refer to people from multiple faiths (and I doubt anyone would argue that Zoroastrianism was a âesoteric cultâ at the time. It was a major religion). Justin just ignored these facts and spouted falsehood. There is no evidence that they were Zoroastrian priests.
Next:
âSir Travis Jackson argues that the Syrian Infancy Gospel is too late to be used as evidence that Zoroaster predicted Christ's birth. However, the fact that the text was written in the 6th century AD does not necessarily mean that it did not draw on earlier traditions. Moreover, the author ignores the fact that there are other sources that suggest a connection between Zoroastrianism and Christianity, such as the Acts of Thomas and the Clementine Recognitions.â
Nice appeal to Possibility Fallacy. Youâd have a better case if you argued for the possibility of contemporaneous written documents about Christâs death possibly existing (not long before others such as Thallus and Josephus wrote about him), but youâre talking about multiple centuries, dude. Also, oral traditions change over time. Even controlled oral traditions will alter after a hundred years. Even if there was an earlier ancient text that mentioned that Zoroaster predicted Jesus birth (no evidence for such), youâd have to prove that it was written before the New Testament (um, good luck). And as for his âActs of Thomasâ and âThe Clementine Recognitionsâ, heâs shifted the buck: notice, he doesnât say that these ancient texts state that Zoroaster predicted Christâs birth: he just says that they suggest a connection between Zoroastrianism and Christianity. What connection? Why doesnât he post an academic link to a credible university or one that has a link to these texts to show this?
Very deceptive.
Plus, the Acts of Thomas was written in the 3rd century AD, while the Clementine Recognitions were written during the 4rth century AD, still too late to have had an influence on the Gospels (and once again, no evidence that they were derived from oral traditions or texts that predate the New Testament).
Next:
âTravis argues that the Jews did not borrow the concepts of heaven and hell, angels and demons, the devil, and the final resurrection from Zoroastrianism because these concepts were already present in pre-Zoroastrian Iranian religion. However, this argument overlooks the fact that Zoroastrianism played a key role in shaping the development of these concepts in Judaism and Christianity. For example, the Jewish concept of Satan was influenced by the Zoroastrian figure of Angra Mainyu, and the idea of a final judgment and resurrection was taken from the Zoroastrian concept known as Fareshokereti.â
Played a key role? Did the concept of Pazuzu and Kingu play a key role in developing the figure of Angra Mainyu? Did Seth? Plus, heâs ignoring the fact that countless cultures have a devil figure without having to borrow the idea from Zoroastrianism or other religions. Why couldnât the ancient Hebrewsâs Satan have been influenced by the Egyptian God Seth (Egypt was a closer neighbor than Persia for most of its history), or Kingu and Pazuzu? Why couldnât they have come up with the concept on their own? Keep in mind, Kingu was a Babylonian demon, and while the Israelites were under the domain of the Persians for quite a while, they were before that under the dominion of Babylon.
Why favor Angra Mainyu over Kingu or Pazuzu or Seth?
Oh, and what source is he using?
Where is the sources list?
Next:
âWhile it is true that many cultures and religions had the idea of an afterlife, including a realm of demons or evil spirits, the concept of Heaven and Hell as a binary choice for souls after death is unique to Zoroastrianism. This is not just a general idea of an afterlife, but a specific concept that has similarities to the Christian and Jewish belief in an eternal reward or punishment. Additionally, there is evidence that Jewish and Christian ideas of Heaven and Hell developed after contact with Zoroastrianism, particularly during the Babylonian exile of the Jews in the 6th century BCE, where they would have been exposed to Zoroastrianism.â
You mean âZoroastrianism was the first to invent the concept of Heaven and Hell as a binary choice for souls after deathâ, not that it is unique to Zoroastrianism. Indeed, the argument is flawed, considering that Christians are not going to spend eternity in Heaven: they will be in the New Jerusalem, a colossal city that will be found on a New earth, lowering from Heaven itself (Revelation 21-22). Plus, Justin doesnât cite a source here (typical). Which makes sense, considering that the ancient Egyptians had a binary choice between Heaven and their version of Hell. The Norse Vikings likewise had the same idea. Along with this, as I showed in my article, just because a person or religion came up with a concept that a later person or religion attained ages later doesnât = that the latter borrowed from the former, as I showed in my historical examples (Did the inventor of the modern battle tank derive his idea from war elephants or the DaVinci Tank? Â Did Alfred Russel Wallace steal the idea of Evolution from Charles Darwin? Evidence, please). Along with this, whose to say that the Israelites werenât exposed to Zoroastrianism until the exile? Persians didnât travel to the Levant for trade? They never crossed the Tigris and Euphrates in caravans? Evidence, please.
Oh, thatâs right; we only have your word.
âWhile it is true that other cultures had similar concepts of lesser spirits or gods, the idea of angels and demons as specific categories with distinct roles is again unique to Zoroastrianism.â
Prove it.
Oh, thatâs right, no sourcesâŚ
âIn Zoroastrianism, there are good and evil spirits that are in constant conflict, which is similar to the Christian and Jewish ideas of angels and demons. While there may be similarities to other cultures, the specific concepts of angels and demons in Christianity and Judaism are likely influenced by Zoroastrianism.â
And the Viking gods and the evil Jotuns or Frost giants were in constant conflict as well. Did they derive their belief from Zoroastrians as well?
âWhile it is true that other cultures had similar concepts of a devil or evil deity, the specific concept of a single entity that is in constant conflict with God is again unique to Zoroastrianism. The concept of a fallen angel or Satan in Christianity and Judaism is likely influenced by Zoroastrianism, particularly given the similarities in the descriptions of the Christian devil Satan and the Zoroastrian devil Angra Mainyu.â
Tell that to Apophis, aka Apep, the mighty evil serpent that was thought to try and swallow RA and his barge every day (multiple gods had to help keep this from happening).
âFinally, the article argues that the concept of heaven and hell, angels and demons, the devil, and the final resurrection were not borrowed from Zoroastrianism because the ancient Iranians worshipped gods called "Daevas" that were later considered demons by Zoroaster. However, this argument does not negate the numerous historical occurences of Zoroastrianism making contact and exerting influence on Jewish and Christian beliefs through the Persian Empire, as there are similarities to be found between their religious texts.â
UmâŚwow, what a mischaracterization. I merely pointed out that the Zoroastrians borrowed from earlier religions. This is what Justin accuses Christians of, even though his faith has borrowed. Plus, I listed aspects of the pagan world which the Bible does indeed borrow from (Behemoth and Leviathan, Tartarus, etc), and showed that it ultimately didnât matter that it derived elements from pagan origins: God can use whatever he wants to get our attention, and can repackage pagan concepts into monotheistic ones (temples existed before the Jewish Temple was ever built).
âOverall, while the article attempts to refute the claim that Judaism and Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism, it fails to provide convincing evidence to support its argument.â
Tell it to the multiple of sources that I posted at its end.
Sources that also appear below, along with several others: Â
 Sources:
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/627024203052433408/did-judaism-and-christianity-borrow-from
 "Archeological Study Bible" 946, 1560
 âIVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testamentâ by Craig S. Keener, 48, 728
 âThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianismâ by Michael Stausberg, 464
 https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Wiley_Blackwell_Companion_to_Zoroast/cm_-CAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Syriac%2Binfancy%2Bgospel%2Bzoroaster%2BCentury%2BAD&pg=PA464&printsec=frontcover
 âThe Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translationâ Edited by J.K. Elliot, 100
 https://books.google.com/books?id=TXMcJPy1axAC&pg=PA100&dq=Arabic+Gospel+of+the+Infancy+Elliott&sig=J2qCmZX8U2VKEmZ2x02_QWPmiVc#v=onepage&q=Arabic%20Gospel%20of%20the%20Infancy%20Elliott&f=false
 https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-shouldnt-we-trust-the-non-canonical-arabic-gospel-of-the-infancy-of-the-savior/
 https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-shouldnt-we-trust-the-non-canonical-gospels-attributed-to-thomas/
 http://www.self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Syriac_Infancy_Gospel
 https://brill.com/view/journals/scri/14/1/article-p223_15.xml?language=en
 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancythomas.html
 https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gq8mxx/yazidi-gobekli-tepe-is-172
 âThe Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythologyâ by Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Stormâ, 200, 208-09, 258, 262, 264-65, 271, 274, 292, 316-17, 360, 363, 386, 484-85
 https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-tank-produced
 âTitans and Olympians: Greek and Roman Mythâ by Tony Allan and Sarah Maitland (Consultant: Dr. Michael Trapp), 34, 52-53, 108-11
 http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/10/01/ancient-egyptian-hell/
 https://www.cracked.com/pictofacts-687-12-inventions-created-by-different-people-at-same-time/
 https://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-strangest-cases-simultaneous-invention/
 âWar Elephantsâ by Konstantin Nossov (Illustrated by Peter Dennis), 14-17
 âLeonardo Da Vinci Renaissance Artist and Inventorâ By Stephanie Kuligowski, 32
 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Leonardo_da_Vinci/n0Z_gY25Nm8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Da+Vinci+Tank&pg=PA32&printsec=frontcover
 https://www.leonardodavinci.net/
 https://www.leonardodavinci.net/armouredcar.jsp
 âHow to Fly a Horse: The Secret History of Creation, Invention, and Discoveryâ By Kevin Ashton, 51.
 https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-was-alfred-russel-wallace.html#:~:text=A%20life%2Dchanging%20friendship,Usk%20(now%20in%20Monmouthshire).&text=Bates%20introduced%20Wallace%20to%20the,the%20New%20World%20and%20Oceania.
 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-darwin-didnt-know-45637001/
 âAncient Discoveries: Ancient Tank Techâ documentary.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE-6ckpAq3g
 https://electricliterature.com/what-if-someone-else-writes-a-book-exactly-like-mine-before-i-get-a-chance/
 âZondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance: Second Editionâ by Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, 519, 1076, 1083, 1454, 1488, 1584, 1596, 1604.
 âThe New Strongâs Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Red Letter Editionâ by James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D. and John R. Kohlenberger III, 397-98, 844-45, 852-53 of main concordance, 189 and 258-59 of Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary, 205, 247 and 275 of Greek Dictionary of the New Testament.
 âAncient Egyptian Netherworld Booksâ by John Coleman Darnell and Colleen Manassa Darnell, 8.
 https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Ancient_Egyptian_Netherworld_Books/eWV0DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Ba+and+Ka+spirit+and+soul&pg=PA8&printsec=frontcover
 âThe Way to Eternity: Egyptian Mythâ by Fergus Fleming and Alan Lothian (Consultant: Dr Joann Fletcher), 138.
 http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/10/01/ancient-egyptian-hell/
 http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/soul.htm
 http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hell.htm
 https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/ancient-egyptian-soul-0012390
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMf1OKxT390&t=12s
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxGARM5cYKY&t=291s
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a56vrXRp2Nw
 âSpirits, Faeries, Leprechauns and Goblins: An Encyclopediaâ by Carol Rose, 13-14, 291
 https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-africa/egyptian-demons-and-magic-exorcising-evil-spirits-008845
 âEpics of Early Civilization: Middle Eastern Mythâ by Michael Kerrigan, Alan Lothian and Piers Vitebsky (Consultant: Jeremy Black), 24, 26, 41-42, 44, 46, 58, 93
 âEncyclopedia of Gods: Over 2,500 Deities of the Worldâ by Michael Jordan, 260
 âEncyclopedia of Demons in World Religions and Culturesâ by Theresa Bane, 157, 250
 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Demons_in_World_Religion/njDRfG6YVb8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Hanbi%2Bgod%2Bdemons&pg=PA157&printsec=frontcover
 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Demons_in_World_Religion/njDRfG6YVb8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Pazuzu%2Bencyclopedia%2Bdemons&pg=PA250&printsec=frontcover
 âUniversity-Edition. A to Z. Akkadian-English Dictionaryâ Maximillien De Lafayette, 417
 https://www.theoi.com/Pontios/Iris.html
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Iris-Greek-mythology
 https://www.ancient.eu/Ahriman/
 âMother Earth, Father Sky: Native American Mythâ by Tom Lowenstein and Piers Vitebsky (Consultants: Hugh Brodie and Alan Marshall), 80.
 âCharting the End Times: A Visual Guide to Understanding Bible Prophecyâ By Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, 131-32
 https://www.ancient.eu/Jesus_Christ/
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Magi
 âEncyclopedia of Imaginary and Mythical Placesâ by Theresa Bane, 77-78
 âHinduism: An Alphabetical Guideâ by Roshen Dalal, 274
  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Niflheim
 https://www.history.com/topics/religion/hinduism
 âNorris McWhirterâs Book of Historical Recordsâ by Norris McWhirter, 40-42
 https://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-4.htm
 https://www.ancient.eu/article/701/ancient-mesopotamian-beliefs-in-the-afterlife/
 https://biblearchaeology.org/research/new-testament-era/4022-a-brief-history-of-the-septuagint
 âThe Illustrated Atlas of Jewish Civilization: 4000 Years of Historyâ by Josephine Bacon (Consultant Editor Martin Gilbert), 35-36.
 https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/pyramids-in-latin-america#:~:text=Some%2080%20years%20before%20the,the%20capital%20city%20of%20Cuzco.
 https://www.ancient.eu/Olmec_Civilization/
 https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/the-egyptian-pyramids#:~:text=The%20oldest%20known%20pyramid%20in,into%20something%20much%20more%20ambitious.
 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1180258590269071366.html?refreshed=yes
 https://www.worldhistory.org/Apophis/
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Possibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCp-ayAp7fE
 https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/clementinerecognitions.html
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actsthomas.html
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/628382559793987584/was-jesus-a-mythical-figure-based-on-zarathustra
https://www2.cbn.com/news/entertainment/faith-elvis-presley-stepbrother-reveals-details-about-his-bible-habits
 And yes, here is his article:
 https://zoroastriancowboy.tumblr.com/post/713276355010330624/a-refutation-of-an-anti-zoroastrian-evangelical

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
A Collection of Memes
Was Jesus a Mythical Figure Derived From the Apis Bull? Um, NO, and Here is Why:
Ancient Egyptian religion was quite fascinating, involving a massive plethora of gods (many of them depicted as animal-human hyrbids), magical burial rites, beautifully crafted idols and a mythology at times so sexually explicit that it gives Greek myth a run for its money. Â
One of the most fascinating figures of Ancient Egyptian religion was the Apis Bull.
Now and again, a calf was born in ancient Egypt that met (or somewhat met) the following requirements to be the Apis Bull, a bull thought to be the incarnate god Ptah:
 1. Born of a âvirginâ cow who was impregnated by Ptah (more on that later).
2. Was black.
3. Had a mark on its back that looked like a vulture or eagle, or a hawkâs or vultureâs wings, depending on what source you read.
4. White mark on its forehead that looked like a diamond.
5. Had a mark resembling a crescent moon on its right side.
6. Its tail had double hairs.
7. A birthmark or lump resembling a scarab under its tongue.
 When such a calf was discovered, it was spoiled, treated like a big time Hollywood celebrity. It lived in a temple compound in Memphis, where it had a whole slew of cows to mate with.Â
No, not that Memphis. The ancient Egyptian city of Memphis!Â
It also had gold covers to sleep with. The Apis Bull was led daily into a courtyard, allowed to roam free. Priests would watch him while he was in the courtyard, believing that they could predict the future by seeing how the bullâŚmoved. They also thought that its movements inside the Temple, specifically from one room to the next, also had prophetic elements. Indeed, there was also a special chamber with several grates where Apis Bulls were lead in order to give people their fortune. This latter activity worked in the following manner: during a feast day or other holiday, the bull was lead inside the chamber, during which time people would ask things about the future. Both food and symbols were placed beyond each grate. The Apis Bull eventually chose to exit by means of one of the grates, and whatever choice it made was supposed to answer peopleâs prophetic questions. Â
Yes, yes, it seems silly to us, but then again, we have modern psychic hotlines so we canât act that too high and mightyâŚ
Indeed, its supposed prophetic powers didnât end there. On at least one occasion, when adolescents were singing hymns about the Apis Bull as they accompanied him, the bull was believed to have made spirits enter and possess the teenagers, which resulted in them prophesying. One Apis Bull was thought to have predicted the demise of Roman General Germanicus as well.
How did it do so?
What sign did it give that Germanicus was going to kick the bucket?
Well, its sign wasâŚchoosing not to eat when Germanicus tried to feed it.
Did anybodyâŚstop to think thatâŚit simply didnât like the food? Or that it was already full? Or that it was sick, or that Germanicusâ hand was stinky? Etc?Â
Along with this, the Apis Bull was thought to speak to people in their dreamsâŚif they slept in its temple. These dreams were considered prophetic.
Nostradamus, eat your heart out.Â
Most of these pampered bulls lived to be 14 years old, dying of natural causes. However, if any of the poor schmucks made it to 25 and didnât croak, the Egyptians, who had spoiled the bull, caring for it like a god (as they thought it was)âŚwould drown it.Â
Didnât pay to be a god in ancient Egypt.Â
After its demise, the Apis Bull was no longer considered Ptah incarnate, for Ptahâs essence had left the body. However, it was thought to have become the god Osiris, lord of the dead, after it croaked.Â
Whether in life or death, it would never escape its divine status. Indeed, the Egyptians mummified Apis Bulls, putting a gilded mask on them. The bull mummies were put into sarcophagi, then taken to Saqqara, where they were finally laid to rest in catacombs. However, after an Apis Bull died, another was sought out, and sure enough, when one was found it was treated in like manner, and thus the cycle continued down and down through the centuries, until Egyptian religion faded into history.
The Apis Bull was a fascinating part of Egyptian history and mythology, one that-you guessed it-Jesus Mythicists like to cite as evidence for their pseudohistorical beliefs. Indeed, some of them believe that Jesus was a mythical character thatâs at least partially derived from the historical Apis Bulls.
Their evidence?
Once againâŚparallels.Â
Now, it is true that they do parallel (Or should I say âparallelâ) often. Consider the following:
 1. The Apis Bull was born of a virgin cow (Once again, more on that later). Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.
2. The God Ptah impregnated the âVirginâ cow with himself, becoming a bull incarnate. God supernaturally impregnated Mary with Jesus, who is God the Son incarnate in human flesh.
3. The Apis Bull was fully a bull, but also fully a god. Jesus is fully man and fully God.
4. Osiris, the god whom the Apis Bull was believed to be the embodiment of after death, was thought to be both the King of the Underworld and a former Pharaoh of Egypt. Along with this, the Apis Bull was treated like a King in both life and death: Jesus, a descendant of King David (Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38 (Note: though both Matthew and Luke trace Josephâs, Jesusâ stepfatherâs, ancestry, itâs a known fact that ancient Israelites would most often marry their first cousins. Thus, most likely, the genealogies most likely, to a certain extent, reflect both Josephâs and Maryâs lineage. Considering the following passages, it becomes a certainty), John 7:42, Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8) is King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:11-16 (compare with Revelation 1:9-18) and was given the royal treatment during his Triumphal Entry (Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-10, Luke 19:28-40, John 12:12-19 (Note: throwing cloaks before him, the use of palm branches and the recognition of Jesusâ Davidic lineage by the crowd, as well as the Disciples calling him a King and that the Jewsâ hopes for a return of the Davidic monarchy reached fever pitch during the time of the year that Jesus enter Jerusalem, all point to a royal aspect of his Triumphal Entry).
5. A bull was recognized as an Apis Bull if it met the requirements (to a certain extent, more on that later) as noted above. Jesus was recognized as the Messiah due to his fulfillment of Messianic Prophecies (such as the Virgin Birth prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, compare with Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38, 2:1-20).
6. The Apis Bull was thought to predict the future. Jesus predicted the future (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21:5-36
7. Some Apis Bulls who lived too long were killed. Jesus was executed.
8. Apis Bulls who were 25 years old were drowned by some of the very people who had venerated and cared for it, thus a âbetrayalâ. Jesus was betrayed by Judas (who was one of his disciples), and it led to Jesusâ crucifixion.
9. The Apis Bulls died, but were thought to be reborn. Osiris, the Egyptian god whom the Apis Bull was the embodiment of in death, died and was resurrected (more on that later). Jesus died, then rose from the grave.
10.   Both the Apis Bull and Jesus did miracles (Speaking to someone in their dreams, sending spirits to possesses people and understanding human speech and desiring to be worshipped (things that no normal bull is smart enough to do) all indicate that the Apis Bull was considered a miracle worker).
11.   The Apis Bull represented the harmonious balance of the universe. Jesus sustains all creation (Hebrews 1:3).
12.   The Apis Bull was usually depicted in art as having a solar disk between its horns. Jesus is often depicted in art as having a halo around his head.
13.   The Apis Bull was worshipped. Jesus was worshipped (Matthew 14:33, 28:17, Luke 24:50-52).
14.   The Apis Bull was a divine servant. Jesus washed his disciplesâ feet, exemplifying servanthood (John 13:1-17. Keep in mind, this was the job for Non-Jewish slaves), and took the form of a servant (Philippians 2:5-7).
15.   Both often not accurately depicted in art (the Apis Bull was sometimes depicted as a minotaur. Jesus is often depicted throughout the world as either white, black, Asian, Native American, even as resembling a Hindu deity, none of which resemble how Jesus would have really looked. Jesus is often depicted as having long hair, yet in real life he didnât (See 1 Corinthians 11:14).
16.   Both lived in the Mediterranean region.
17.   When an Apis Bull died, people anticipated the discovery of a new Apis Calf, which would be seen as the godâs return. Christians likewise anticipate the Second Coming of Christ.
18.   Ptah, whom Apis was the incarnation of while alive, was a creator deity who created things by thoughts, hand and speech (some sources say just thoughts and speech): Jesus is the creator, called the âWordâ (John 1:1). God spoke creation into existence (Genesis 1, see also Psalm 33:6).
19.   Ptah, of whom Apis was thought to be the incarnation of, was a god of craftsmen, and defended craftsmen as well as boatbuilders, stonemasons, blacksmiths and those of several other similar professions. Jesus was both a carpenter and the adopted son of a carpenter (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3). (Note: the Greek word for carpenter, âTektonâ, can also refer to a wood craftsman, stonemason, fabric artificer and metal worker).
20.   At ancient Memphis (akak Mennefer), Ptah was one of a triad of gods (the others being Nefertem and Sekhmet). Jesus is one of the persons of the Trinity of God (the others being God the Father and God the Holy Spirit).
21.   Ptah, of whom Apis was thought to be the incarnation of, created the gods: Yahweh (whom includes Jesus as God the Son)created the Bene Elohim, powerful supernatural beings that the ancient Israelites believed were the âgodsâ of the pagans (See Michael Heiserâs books âSupernaturalâ, âThe Unseen realmâ and the documentary âThe Unseen Realmâ for more information on the Bene Elohim. More on them later).
22.   Osiris, the god whom the Apis Bull was believed to be the embodiment of after death, was the god of the dead, judging them in the afterlife. Jesus will judge the living and the dead (2 timothy 4:1). Yahweh (Of Whom Jesus is a member of the Trinity), will judge the Dead in the future (1 Peter 1:4-5, Revelation 20:11-15).
23.   The Apis Bull was a mediator between mortals and Osiris, Autum andâŚhimself (as Ptah). Jesus is mediator between God the Father and mankind (1 Timothy 2:5).
Wow, 23 parallels! Looks like there is a connection, right?
 UmâŚWRONG!
 Letâs go over the weaknesses of this line of argument:
 1. JESUS ACTUALLY EXISTED.Â
There is a consensus among historians that Jesus actually existed. The ancient evidence is undeniable, save for those who have a vested interest in believing otherwise. Jesus is an established historical figure. His existence is not up for debate amongst mainstream historians. Jesus Mythicism is about as fringe as flat earthers, Moon landing deniers and the idea that vaccines cause autism.
And yet, despite mainstream history books and websites indicating that Jesus is a historical figure, Jesus Mythicists continue to put their heads in the sand, trying to evoke parallels with mythical figures as a self defense mechanism against accepting an inconvenient truth.
Sorry, Al Gore, I had to borrow that phrase again.Â
Indeed, not only is Jesus a historical figure, but his crucifixion is likewise a historical fact. Jesus wasnât a fictional character derived from the real Apis Bull: he was a real man. His crucifixion wasnât derived from the drowning of Apis Bulls; he was really crucified. Indeed, there is also substantial evidence that Jesus rose from the grave, as seen in âThe Case for the Resurrection of Christâ by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, as well as âThe Case for Christâ by Lee Strobel. The facts presented in those books undercuts the idea that Jesusâ resurrection was a myth inspired by that of the repetitive reincarnation of the Apis Bull.
By now, Jesus Mythicists will fume, claiming that, even with the above information, the vast majority of the other parallels are still in place, and thus, most of the Gospel accounts of Christ are derived from the Apis Bull.
Are they right?
Answer: Do orangutans ever preform âDueling Banjosâ?Â
 2. THE PARALLELS ARE NOT AS GOOD AS THEY APPEAR.
 Letâs take a closer look at those parallels again, shall we?
 A. Virgin Birth?
There are several different versions of the myth of the Apis Bullâs conception:
 1. The god Ptah impregnates a virgin cow while taking a form of fire, inseminating her with his seed.
Inseminating?
I.e, putting his sperm inside her?
Sounds a lot like sex, doesnât it?Â
Indeed, its on par with how Zeus impregnated a mortal woman named Danae by having sex with her while he was in the form of a shower of gold.
Thus, this virgin cow wasnât a virgin for long.
2. The cow is struck by lightning, which impregnates her with the Apis Bull.Â
At first, this seems like a sexless conception. However, not only does the cow receive Apis when this occurs (possibly indicative of sex), but lightning was considered fire from heaven in the ancient world, which adds weight to the idea that the first two versions of the myth are not actually all that different. Indeed, some sources state that this lightning bolt was indeed the fire Ptah used to impregnate a virgin cow, and that it was bona fide sex.
However, there are two crucial differences when it comes to Herodotusâ version:
1. Ptah is not mentioned.
2. The cow is not said to be a virgin; its just said to be incapable of having anymore offspring after giving birth to the Apis calf.
Now, considering that Herodotus mentioned countless marvels reported to him during his investigations, which included anything from dog-headed men and giant ants to griffins and a woman giving birth to a lionâŚit seems odd that Herodotus wouldnât mention that the mother of the Apis Bull was a virgin cow.
Did his Egyptian sources fail to give him this interesting tidbit of information?
Did Herodotus not listen closely enough to the information?
OrâŚwas he told one of several different versions of the myth?
Keep this in mind as we continue.
Nevertheless, even if Herodotusâ version of the Apis Bullâs conception myth is indicative of a sexless conception, its not indicative of a virgin one.
Indeed, neither version is.
3. The cow is impregnated by special moonlight.Â
Although this version has a bona fide sexless conception, once again, the cow is not said to be virgin; its merely a cow thatâs in heat. We learn this from Plutarch in his book âOn Isis and Osirisâ.
Both PlutarchâŚand HerodotusâŚdo not refer to this cow as a virgin.
Coincidence?
Or indicative that, in some versions of the myth, the cow was not actually a virgin before it was impregnated by Ptah?
The latter seems far more likely.
True, Plutarchâs sources on Egyptian mythology only reached back 6 centuries, but the accounts that he wrote down were reflective of Egyptian myths of the 1rst century AD at the very least (remember, his written sources go back 6 centuries before his time).
Why is this important?
Jesus lived in the 1rst century AD (possibly born just right before the dawn of the first century AD).
He started his movement about 30 AD or so.
The Gospel oral tradition started in that time, and was later written down as the Gospels.
The written Gospels were a product of the first century AD.
And yet, during this time, the idea that the Apis Bullâs mother was not a virginâŚwas common place amongst ancient Egyptians.
Does it really seem likely that the Gospel story of the virgin birth of Christ was derived from a well-known story of a cow who had sex with a god and gave birth to a bull? Because that was the dominant version of the myth at that time.
4. The cow has sex with an Apis Bull, becoming pregnant with his successor (and, since its his next reincarnation, himself).Â
In not ONE of these myths is the Apis Bull a virgin that conceives without having sex. Even in the one where itâs a virgin, its virginity ends the moment Ptah releases his sperm inside her (remember, they didnât have artificial insemination back then).
Oh, BTW, forgot to add: Not only did Isis, whom the âvirginâ cow was the incarnation of, have sex while in her full goddess form (she had sex with her husband Osiris, conceiving Horus), but she, oddly enough, had sex with OsirisâŚbefore either of them were even born!
Repeat, they got it on in the womb before they were even born!Â
So even if the Isis cow was a virgin and conceived without having sex (which she didnât), Isis herself isnât a virgin. Her being incarnated as a virgin cow doesnât take away from the fact that she had sex anymore than God being incarnated as a Jewish Rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth doesnât take away from the fact that he created the universe (he just didnât do so while as an incarnated man).
Given all of this, we can dismiss this âParallelâ. The only leg it has to stand on is that, at one point, in some versions of the myth, the cow was a virgin before being impregnated, and yet not only was it having sex with a god in order to get pregnant in these versions of the myth, Isis, the goddess whom she was the incarnation of, was anything but. Athena was actually a virgin mother in Greco-Roman myth, and her siring of her son Erichtonius was a FAR greater parallel with the Virgin birth of Christ than that of Isis and the Apis Bull, and yet even THAT parallel is not very strong, as I noted in a previous article.
In other words, itâs a pitiful parallel.
Letâs discard it and move on. Â
Oh, but before we go: People who try to make this parallel work tend to disregard the Virgin birth passage of Isaiah 7:14, which was written CENTURIES before the New Testament. And before any Jesus Mythicists argue that the Hebrew word translated as Virgin in the passage (âAlmahâ) doesnât actually mean virgin: it actually does in some contexts, and Isaiah 7:14 involves more than just a virgin conception (though virginity is nevertheless still tied into it). There are also both aspects of dual fulfillment of prophecy and Midrashic interpretation techniques that likewise overrides objections in terms of context (See my article on Athena and the Prophet Isaiah in the sources section below for more information).
Given this, we have to ask an important question; which is more likely to have an influence on an emerging Messianic Jewish movement of the first century that would later be called Christianity: The conflicting tales of the Apis Bullâs conception, or the virgin birth messianic prophetic passage of Isaiah 7:14?
Hint: Jews, Hebrew BibleâŚ
 B. Impregnates a Female With himself?
Its true that, while Ptah impregnates a cow with his incarnated form, Yahweh in the New Testament likewise impregnates Mary (without sex) with the incarnation of God the Son. However, its interesting to note that, not only does the messianic prophecy of the virgin birth of the Messiah noted above indicates that God would supernaturally impregnate the virgin as a sign, but that the Messiah is indicated elsewhereâŚto be divine.
You see, in Isaiah 9:6-7, the Messiah (who is indicated as human in context), is nevertheless not only called âMighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peaceâ, it states that he will have an eternal reign. Itâs no coincidence that the Gospel of Luke alludes to this passage (Luke 1:32-33). Jeremiah 23:5-6 similarly implies a divine nature to a future human king. Psalm 110 indicates the divine nature of the Messiah, and Micah 5:1-5 indicates that he existed before he was even conceived, which fits well with it (compare to John 8:58, where Jesus says âTruly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM!â). Keep in mind, Micah 2 is partially quoted in Matthew 6 (In the latterâs context, the chief priests and scribes were summoned by Herod the Great after he learned from the Wise Men that the Messiah had been born. He asked the priests and scribes where the Messiah was to be born, and they stated Bethlehem, then quoted part of the passage).
These passages do not refer to a demigod, like Perseus or Achilles; demigods were, according to myths, half mortal and half human, not fully gods and fully men. Plus, I never heard of a demigod who existed before he or she was conceived! No, these passages indicate that the Messiah is fully GodâŚwhile also fully human. Born, growing up, and yet at the same time divine.
Combined with Isaiah 7:14, we can conclude that God would impregnate a virgin supernaturally with his incarnated form, a fully man and fully God messiah. Â
Now, what is more likely to have on a 1rst century messianic Jewish movement that would one day be called Christianity?
A bull that was thought to be both Ptah incarnated and the product of an affair between a cow and Ptah himself?
Or the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy, which tells of God supernaturally causing a virgin to conceive and give birth to his incarnate human form, a Messiah who is fully humanâŚand fully divine?
Hint: Jewish culture, Hebrew BibleâŚÂ
Next?
 C. Fully Bull/Man and Fully God?
Yes, the Apis Bull was fully bull and fully God. Jesus was fully man and fully God.
Um, do you know which biblical figure is indicated in Old Testament prophecy to be both fully man and fully God?
The Messiah!
See the above!
 D. Kings, and Royal Treatment?
Though both were treated as royalty, the Apis Bull was ALWAYS treated as such upon being recognized as such (unless it got too old and was thus killed). Jesus was only treated as a king once, and that was during his Triumphal Entry. Indeed, he was treated poorly in his home town of Nazareth (Matthew 13:53-58, Mark 6:1-6, Luke 4:16-30). Even in places where he was treated better, he wasnât treated as a king. The only exception was Jerusalem, and as the events of the trial and crucifixion of Christ shows, this didnât last long.
Still, Osiris, whom the Apis Bull personified at death, was both a former pharaoh and current king of the Underworld. He was also reborn kingship personified, so he does give the Apis Bull a big touch of royalty.
Having said that, the God in the Old Testament is both referred to as a king and described in a kingly manner (2 chronicles 13:8, Psalm 10:16, Isaiah 37:16, Daniel 6:26. Keep in mind, Jesus is a member of the divine trinity, and thus would have been seen as included in such statements). One very interesting parallel between Osiris and Yahweh as presented in the Old Testament is that both were at one time kings over human nations: the former over Egypt, the latter over Israel, before the Israelites demanded a king (1 Samuel 8:4-9). However, just as the vast majority of the âparallelsâ between Jesus and Osiris fail (see sources section below), The parallels between Osiris and the way that God is presented in the Old Testament are likewise quite slim. Nevertheless, God, as presented in the Old Testament, is presented in a kingly manner, and the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, would have been the religious text that ancient Jews would have been most familiar with.
Given the above, we need to ask an important question: which would have a greater impact on an emerging 1rst century Messianic Jewish movement that would one day be called Christianity: the pagan myth of King Osiris, or King Yahweh as presented in the Hebrew Bible?
Hint: Jews, Hebrew BibleâŚÂ
Next?
 E. Meeting Specific Requirements?
Yes, both the Apis Bull and Jesus met requirements to be considered gods. However, not only where the requirements for the Apis Bull not fully adhered to (such as the requirement that its mother was to be a virgin cow (thankfully for the Egyptians, this wasnât always a requirement due to different myths about the Apis Bullâs origins!), but the requirement standard was even less strictly adhered to in Greco Roman times. In that era, just having one of the requirements was good enough. Compare that to Jesus, who fulfilled hundreds of messianic prophecies.
Repeat: hundreds.
Thatâs not including the fact that many aspects of Jesus and his life were oddly foreshadowed countless times in the Old Testament. Moses, Samson, the story of Abrahamâs attempted offering of Isaac, the story of the Old Testament Joseph, Noah, the Old Testament passages on Passover, these and many more have striking similarities to events in the life of Christ as presented in the New Testament. Taken together, these countless parallels and prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament FAR outweigh the 20 something parallels between Christ and the Apis Bull. The requirements for the Jewish Messiah, fulfilled in Christ, are a far different level than those requirements for the Apis Bull. Â
Next?
 F. Both predicted the future?
Many gods were thought to be able to predict the future. Apollo, a major Greco Roman god, was a god of prophecy. The Moirae, or Fates, knew the destiny of each mortal. Indeed, they crafted each humanâs future (though Zeus could override it, and men could alter their future by influencing the Fates). Both Gaia, Greek goddess and personification of the Earth, and Ouranos, Greek god and personification of the starry sky, predicted that Cronus, god of time, would be overthrown by one of his offspring. Along with this, the God of the Old Testament was known to be able to predict the future (Isaiah 46:9-10). Indeed, all of his Prophets (of which there were many) received their prophecies from the Lord himself (Zechariah, for example, saw visions from the Lord that foretold the future).
Which is more likely to influence an emerging 1rst century messianic Jewish movement that would one day be called Christianity: a bull thought by pagans to predict the future, or the God of the Old Testament, whom Jews believed could predict the future, and his numerous Old Testament prophets?
Hint: Jews, Hebrew BibleâŚÂ
 G. Killed?
Some Apis Bulls were killed, not all. Indeed, most werenât, because the average age that they croaked was 14, while only those that lived up to 25 were killed. Jesus was indeed killed. Plus, there is a BIG difference between crucifixion and drowning.Â
 H. Betrayal?
Yes, just as the Apis Bull was (technically) betrayed, so was Jesus betrayed. However, it should be noted that Jesusâ betrayal by a friend for 30 pieces of silver, as well as his violent death were predicted in the Old Testament in stunning detail (Psalm 22, 41:9, Zechariah 11:12-13, Isaiah 53).
NowâŚwhich is going to have a greater chance of influencing an emerging 1rst century Messianic Jewish movement that would one day be called Christianity: a bull drowned by pagans, or Messianic Prophecies in the Hebrew Bible?
Again, hint: Jews, Hebrew BibleâŚÂ
BTW: as noted above, mostr Apis Bulls died of old age. Only some were drowned, but most died of natural causes. Thus, the majority of them were not âbetrayedâ.
Next?
I. Resurrection?
First off, reincarnation is not the same thing as resurrection. Second thing, yes, Osiris was raised from the dead, but he didnât do so on his own: Isis raised him from the grave. Jesus, on the other hand, raised himself from the dead.
Big difference. Â
Indeed, Osirisâ story is far more similar to that of Lazarus and other biblical figures who were resurrected by Christ than the story of the resurrection of Christ himself.
Next?
 J. Both were miracle workers?
All gods were miracle workers, for all had supernatural powers.Â
Next?
 K. Balance/sustain the universe?
True, the Apis Bull was thought to balance the universe, while Jesus sustains it. Balance, sustain, one at first might think that these are so similar that there HAS to be a connection between the two.
However, Iâll see your Apis Bull, and raise you The Greek concept of the Logos.
Although Jesus being called the âWordâ (Greek âLogosâ) in John 1:1-3 harkens back to God creating the universe with his voice (more on that later), itâs a known fact that ancient Greek philosophers had the concept of the âWordâ (repeat: Greek âLogosâ), a divine logic thatâŚdrum rollâŚ
Drum roll, everyoneâŚ
âŚbestows order to the cosmos!
It was thought to be an ordering principle for all of creation.
Along with this, some in the Stoic school of Philosophy eventually personified the logos, identifying it as a pneuma.
What is a Pneuma?
Spirit, which they thought was a mixture of air and fire.Â
And guess what?
Such spirits were thought to have (another drum roll)âŚreason!
Indeed, Pneumas were thought to be filled with it!
A spirit being thatâs omnipresent, filled with knowledge and gives order to all of creation?
Sound familiar?
Thus, while Jewish readers would first think of Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:6 upon a first reading of John 1:1-3, ancient Greek readers would think of the Logos philosophical principle, the Logos spirit. Indeed, the Greek understanding melds quite well when combined with Hebrew 1:3. Â
Given this, we donât have to invoke the Apis Bull to understand John 1:1-3 and Hebrew 1:3: We have the Hebrew Bibleâs account of creation, Psalm 33:6 and Greek Philosophy to do that.
Next?
 L. Halo?Â
The origin of the halo in artwork has nothing to do with Ancient Egypt and everything to do with Greco-Roman culture. Yes, the halo was originally used in artistic depictions of a god, but although Apis was depicted with a sun disk, the Halo specifically was originally used in depictions of the sun god Helios.Â
The only connection between this and the sun disk of Apis is the sun, thatâs it. It wasnât derived from the Apis Bull.
Now, Jesus Mythicists are no doubt frothing at the mouth and pointing their finders, wanting to argue that the reason Jesus was depicted with a halo is because he was a mythical figure partially derived from the Greek god Helios.
I just rolled my eyes so hard that it hurt.
Excuse me for a minute, I need Tylenol. Â
Now, with that over: The problem with that theory is that the Halo was later used in many depictions of Roman emperors. It wasnât until the 4rth century that Christian artists added the halo to depictions of Jesus. It makes sense to do so, considering that Jesus is depicted as, for all intents and purposes, a divine Caesar in the New Testament, one superior to the earthly Caesars (The Greek word âGospelâ (meaning âGood newsâ) was used for Emperor cult celebrations, their birthdays were celebrated (Augustsâ at least was celebrated with a choir), choirs were used in emperor worship and emperors were called âlordâ and âsavior (Compare all of this with Luke 2:10-12. Ancient Christians in the Roman empire would have caught these allusions). Angels, saints and the Virgin Mary were depicted with halos in later centuries.
Thus, Jesusâ halo was not derived from the Apis Bullâs sun disk. Â
Next?
 M. Both worshipped?
Thatâs what people did when it came to their gods, big deal.
Next?
 N. Divine Servants?
Yes, both were servants, but the problem with this parallel is Isaiah 52:13-53:12. This passage is a messianic prophecy that not only has striking parallels with the life of Christ as presented in the Gospels, but is also both quoted and alluded to in the New Testament in reference to Jesus (Matthew 8:16-17, Matthew 20:28, Matthew 26:28, Matthew 27:59-60, Mark 10:45, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, John 12:37-38, Acts 8:32-35, Romans 10:16, Hebrews 9:28, 2 Peter 2:21-25). It also refers to the Messiah as a servant twice (52:13 and 53:11).
NowâŚwhich is going to more likely have an influence on a first century messianic Jewish movement that would one day be called Christianity?
A bull thought by pagans to be a divine servant?
Or messianic prophecies that described the Messiah (who is indicated in the Old Testament as divine)âŚas a suffering servant?
Hint: Jewish culture, Hebrew BibleâŚÂ
Next?
 O. Both often not accurately depicted in Art?
A problem that many animals and historical figures had in history. Artwork depicting a strange animal was found in the ancient Peruvian city of Tiahuanaco, an animal that looked like a hippo-rhino hybrid. It was thought by biologists in the 1930s to be a Toxodont. Toxodonts were a group of prehistoric animals that died out in the ice age, animals that were quite rhino like. One species, Toxodon Platensis, had both hippo and rhino-like features, and is at times depicted by modern artists as quite hippo like. Â
So, it seems like a good candidate for what the ancient Tiahuanaco artist was trying to depict, right?
Wrong!
You see, the biologists who identified the animal in said artwork as a Toxodont (which, by the way, died out long before Tiahuanaco was built) werenât informed by archeologists that the image wasâŚin realityâŚthat of a puma! The artwork wasnât mean to depict cougars as they really look, but to convey an aspect of its essence. Â
If you compare a Toxodon with a pumaâŚyou can understand how intentionally way off the ancient artist who crafted the cougar art was. Â
Likewise, Medieval artists had a devil of a time depicting certain animals in art, rendering Hippos, hyenas, elephants and other animals foreign to them in highly absurd ways.Â
Neanderthals were depicted as hairy ape-like brutes before scientists realized how human in appearance they actually were.Â
Buddha was from India, yet countless depictions of him in art show him to be Asian in appearance.Â
Due to an ancient translation error in Exodus 34:29-35, Moses was often depicted as having horns on his head (the text in the Hebrew actually states that his face glowed, not that he had horns).Â
And letâs not forget the history of paleo-artists, how dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals were initially depicted erroneously, only for such errors to be corrected with later evidence (the Iguanodon comes to mind. Below is how it was initially depicted, compared to more current artwork depicting Iguanodon).
Not much of a parallel.
Plus, if people were using the Apis Bull myth to construct the figure of Christ, how would they have anticipated that Jesus would eventually be depicted as far, far different from a Galilean Jew? Indeed, considering the established historical fact that Jesus DID exist, the idea that Christians borrowed the element of false artistic rendering of the Apis Bull, intentionally depicting Jesus in art as different from what he actually looked like, is even more absurd.
Next?
 P. Both lived in the Mediterranean region?
LOL so we countless other godsâŚand Individuals thought to be gods! Pharaohs were thought to be gods. Petsuchos, crocodiles thought to be the Egyptian god Sobek incarnate, were kept in the ancient Egyptian city of (Take a guess?) Crocodilopolis (Iâm not pulling your chain: thatâs the name of the city). Some Caesars, including Caligula and Domitian, sought worship while they were still alive, while all other Caesars were worshipped after they died (that is until the Empire became Christian). Â
Oh, and where was Yahweh worshipped during Old Testament times?
Hint: Israel is in the Mediterranean region.
Once again, Jewish culture, Hebrew BibleâŚÂ
Next?
 Q. Anticipated return?
Yes, just like Petsuchos!
Oh, and BTW: you might want to compare the passages about the return of Christ, the Battle of Armageddon and his Millennial Reign (Revelation 19:11-20:6) with Zechariah chapter 14 and Joel 2:1-11.
Notice the similarity?
Which is going to more likely have an influence on a 1rst century Messianic Jewish movement that would one day be called Christianity: The continual return of a paganized bull, or the biblical prophecies about God coming with an army at his back to reign on Earth forever?
Once again: Jewish culture, Hebrew BibleâŚ
 R. Creating Things by Their Word?
First, Ptah didnât create everything: Humans and animals were created by Khnum. Jesus, however, being the Word of Logos of God, created everything (John 1:1-3).
Second, itâs no coincidence that Genesis 1 has God creating the heavens and the earth with his words. Itâs also no coincidence that Psalm 33:6 states that God created the heavens and stars by speaking. When you take both passages into consideration, and compare them with John 1:1-3, you can see what the author of John is indicating: Jesus, Godâs âWordâ (Greek Logos), was creating the heavens and the earth during the seven days of creation. Targums, Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible, reinforce this view, using the Aramaic word for âspeakâ (âmemraâ) in reference to Yahwehâs acts of creation. Keep in mind, some Targums date centuries before Christianity arose. Itâs possible that Targums use of memra may have had an influence on this creation passage in John.
Now, letâs ask ourselves: Which would have a bigger influence on the writing of John 1:1-3?
A pagan Egyptian god who created some things by his thoughts, hands and words?
Or the Hebrew God, depicted in the Old Testament as creating everything by the power of his voice?
Once again: Jewish culture, Hebrew BibleâŚ
 S. Carpenter Connection?
I guess you could call a carpenter a craftsman of sorts, but Jesus wasnât a patron deity of craftsmen like Ptah: he is God incarnate in human flesh who happened to work as both a rabbiâŚand a carpenter. Along with this, Ptah was not the only god of craftsmen in the ancient world. The Greeks had Hephaestus (Roman Vulcan). Indeed, unlike Ptah/Apis, Hephaestus actually was depicted as riding a donkey, just like Jesus (Matthew 21:1-5, Mark 11:1-7, Luke 19:28-35, John 12:12-15), This, combined with the fact that he is almost always, if not always, depicted in human form, makes Hephaestus more like Christ in this regard than Ptah/Apis!
Course, before Jesus Mythicists say âYou shot yourself in the footâ, not only are Hephaestus and Jesus about as similar to each other as pan cakes and space shuttles, but the Gospels state that Jesus riding on a Donkey was a fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 (which is quoted in both Matthew and Johnâs accounts).
Jesus Mythicists keep forgetting Jewish culture and the Hebrew Bible.
You know, the bedrocks of Jewish life?
 T. Trinity?
No, Ptah was not a member of a trinity. He was a member of a triad of 3 different gods, not three persons within a godhead. A trinity is FAR different from three gods. Indeed, not only was Ptah not considered a member of a triad throughout Egypt, but other locations in Egypt had their own triads. Thebes, for example, had Amun, Mut and Khonsu. Heck, if you want to try to argue (repeat: try to argue) for a Pagan equivalent of the Trinity, youâd do better either use the Hindu Trimurti or the Moon Goddess âtrinityâ of the Greco-Roman world (Diana, Selene and Hecate were all Greek moon goddess that because so fused in character that they were eventually at times depicted as a single unified moon goddess (sometimes with three heads). In this fused form, each goddess represented a lunar phase: Selene the full moon, Hecate the new moon, Diana the crescent moon.
And yetâŚnot only are these latter âtrinitiesâ not an exact match for the Christian one, the Christian Trinity is beyond human understanding.
Now, Jesus Mythicists will protest, arguing that its possible for a pagan mythology of three gods to evolve into a concept like the Trinity. Indeed, theyâd also argue that its possible for a 1rst century messianic Jewish movement to adopt either aspects of a triad or pagan âtrinityâ and come up with one of their own.
Well, itâs not impossible that such things could occur (though the latter is HIGHLY unlikely), BUTâŚthere is a problem.
You seeâŚthe Hebrew bible, which predates the NTâŚhas passages that support the Trinity.
God refers to himself several times as âusâ The Holy Spirit (also called the Spirit of the Lord) is mentioned in the Old Testament on several occasions (Genesis 1:2, Judges 13:25, 14:6, 14:19, 15:14, Psalm 51:11-13, Isaiah 11:2, 48:16, 61:1, etc). Indeed, Isaiah 63:10 indicates that the Holy Spirit can experience grief! It also makes a curious distinction between Yahweh and the Holy Spirit. An even stronger distinction is seen in Isaiah 48:16, where Yahweh sends both his own divine Spirit and the Prophet Isaiah to the Israelites (see full chapter for context). Likewise, while there are several angels called âangel of the lordâ, there is one being called âAngel of the Lordâ thatâs pictured as somewhat distinct from God, is nevertheless identified as God (Genesis 16:13, 22:12, Exodus 2:3-6, 23:20-22, Numbers 22:35-38, Judges 2:1-2, 6:11-14, Zechariah 12:8). Along with this, there is something curious to be found in Deuteronomy 6:4, which is a passage that refers to the oneness of God:
âHear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.â
The Hebrew word for one, âEchadâ, doesnât just imply âOneâ or âunityâ. It actually indicates a plurality with said unity.
These, and many other passages (including Psalm 45:6-8, Psalm 110:1 (Keep in mind King David wrote that verse. Who is Davidâs Lord, and his is lord over that lord?), are together evidence of Godâs plurality in the Old Testament. They meld quite well with New Testament passages on the Trinity as well.
Whatâs most likely to have been an influence on the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine of a 1rst century messianic Jewish movement that would one day be called Christianity?
Pagan triads?
Trimurti?
Moon Goddess âTrinityâ?
Or Hebrew bible passages showing God is one, yet more than one?
Answer: Jewish culture, Hebrew Bible, etc⌠Â
 U. Creator of Gods?Â
This parallel needs more explanation before we can see if it has any merit.Â
According to Divine Council Theology, there is a council composed of Yahweh and supernatural beings called âSons of Godâ (Genesis 6:1-4, Deuteronomy 32:8 (more on variant readings later) Job 1:6) Glorious Ones/Celestial Beings (Jude 1:8, 2 Peter 2:10) and âgodsâ (more on that later. See Psalm 82:1, 6). Though at times referred to as angels in a seemingly loose sense (Jude 1:6, 2 Peter 2:4 (see âIVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testamentâs section on both Jude 1:6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-6 for more details), they are nevertheless differentiated from angels proper (i.e. messenger spirits) in 2 Peter 2:10-11. Though angels have greater supernatural powers, they wonât even think about slandering them, due to their higher rank (2 Peter 2:11). Lucifer seems to have been a member as well (Jude 1:8-9). Passages that refer to this divine council include Psalm 82 (which, though quoted by Christ in John chapter 10 and believed to therefore, in context, to refer to the Jewish people, the idea that Jesus is using it to refer to the Jews has been debunked), Psalm 89:5-7, Daniel 7:9-10, 1 Kings 22:19-23. As I mentioned previously, some passages refer to members of this divine council as âgodsâ, but the Hebrew word translated as âgodsâ in those passages is âElohimâ, and although Elohim is one of the names of God, its also a term that refers to any supernatural being, including demons and the spirits of dead humans. Thus, when God is referred to as Elohim, it means that he is THE Elohim, the biggest boy on the block. Nevertheless, its interesting to note that some will still refer to them as âgodsâ.Â
Why?
In Deuteronomy 32:7-9, Moses speaks of the deep past, when God divided mankind. This of course is referring to the story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). In this passage of Deuteronomy, it states that God fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God, the Bene Elohim (verse 8). In the next verse, it states that the Israelites are the Lordâs portion. This means that God had other people groups live in regions ruled specifically by specific members of the divine council (who are in turn subservient to God), while God was directly in charge of the Israelites. Given the religious nature between God and the Israelites, it seems that, after the sin of the Tower of Babel, God basically gave humanity over to their sinful passions (in a quite similar way to what we find in Romans chapter 1), letting them worship anything other than him, including members of the divine council. Thus, the pagan gods of old were not just mere idols and imagination; they were real supernatural beings.Â
This is support by the following passages:
 âThey stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded.â
Deuteronomy 32:16-17 (Emphasis mine).
âNo, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.â
1 Corinthians 10:21 (Emphasis mine).
 Indeed, this Divine council is chastised by God in Psalm 82.
Given all of this, we can conclude that, at the very least, there is a divine council, where God holds court with high-ranking Bene Elohim or Celestial beings which are differentiated from both angels (2 Peter 2:10-11) and archangels (Jude 1:8-9). Though God needs no council, and cannot be overruled by members of the Divine Council, he nevertheless chooses to make use of said council, just as he doesnât need Christians to spread his Gospel (Heâs almighty), but uses us nevertheless to spread his good news. The evidence is so impressive it would be insane to deny it.Â
But does this mean that the Celestial Beings (I love that title the best, so Iâm going to run with it!) are trulyâŚgods?Â
At first, this seems to definitely fly in the face of the Biblical doctrine of monotheism. However, some who hold to divine council theology would say that passages that indicate that there is only one God should be interpreted as being on par with saying something like âOur home townâs Hockey team is the ONLY hockey team!â or âTaco Bell is the ONLY fast food joint!â. Those statements donât literally mean that there are no other hockey teams or no other fast-food joints; they simply mean that there are no hockey teams like OUR hockey team, no fast-food joints LIKE Taco Bell. It means that they are unrivaled. The fact that God is unique in his very being, that he one of a kind, with no other being like him, is used to support this view. No other being is all powerful, no other is all knowing, no other is omnipresent, no other is all loving, no other being has always existed without having to be created. All of these attributes belong solely to God.
Thus, its not a question of no other gods: itâs a question of no other god like our GOD. There are many so-called gods, but only one is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and timeless: Yahweh.
Plus, considering that the Celestial beings are supernatural beings, and that they were worshipped as godsâŚwell, a god can be defined as a supernatural being that is worshipped and prayed to.Â
Now, with all of that considered, letâs remember that Jesus created everything, according to John 1:1-3. âEverythingâ would include the Glorious Ones/Celestial Beings of 2 Peter 2:10 and Jude 1:6, the members of Godâs Divine Council who were worshipped by pagans as gods.Â
Thus, Jesus created the âgodsâ, right?Â
Well, letâs look again at those âgodsâ, shall we?
The Celestial beings could be, in essence, the same kind of being as angels (including fallen angels), only having higher rank. They could also be a different kind of supernatural being (though angel can be applied loosely to any non-human supernatural being that serves God, hence why the fallen Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4, who were thought to be imprisoned for their crime, were called âangelsâ in Jude 1:6).  Either way, there is no evidence that these beings are of a âgod raceâ, on par with what we see in pagan mythologies. Indeed, the idea that they are true gods because they are supernatural beings who were worshipped as gods doesnât prove that they are true deities. The spirits of dead Roman Caesars, for example, were worshipped as gods in ancient Rome. They are supernatural beings (spirits of the dead) and were worshipped as gods. Does that mean that they are in essence different from any other departed spirit? Does it mean that the Caesarâs ghosts are a divine race of beings different from angels and human souls? No, they are no different from any other human spirit; they were simply human spirits who were worshipped as gods. In like manner, just because these Celestial Beings were worshipped by pagans as gods doesnât = that they are truly divine race; one could see them as supernatural beings who were worshipped as gods without claiming them to be gods. Indeed, as mentioned previously, the term âElohimâ can refer to any spirit being, so when we see the divine council being referred to as âgodsâ, it need not indicate that they were a truly divine race of beings. Supernatural, yes, but divine, no.
True, Jesus did call these beings âgodsâ (Greek âTheosâ) in John chapter 10, but we have to remember that, while the passage, like the vast majority of the New Testament, was written in Greek, Jesus may very well have been speaking Aramaic when he made this statement (a common language in the region at the time). Jesus spoke both languages, so itâs highly unlikely that he pronounced all of his teachings in Greek. Indeed, many of his teachings are indicative of Aramaic origins. The Aramaic word for gods is âElahâ, and it would have been the word Jesus used for âgodsâ if he spoke in Aramaic during the events of John 10. Elah is the equivalent of the Hebrew âEloahâ.
And what is the plural form of âEloahâ?
You guessed it: Elohim!
This is quite fascinating, as such supernatural beings, even if singular, were nevertheless referred to at times in the plural sense (The Prophet Samuelâs departed spirit is called an âElohimâ in 1 Samuel 28:13-14). Nevertheless, the Aramaic word is ultimately linked to Elohim, a word that could refer to any supernatural being.
Plus, even if Jesus is speaking Greek (and thus quoting from the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, which uses âTheosâ (âgodsâ) in Psalm 82), one could still conclude that at least some of the Jews amongst him would have known that Theos was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Elohim, which, though can refer to a god, at its basic level refers to any supernatural being.
Thus, Jesusâ message in John 10 is basically âIf Celestial Beings were called Elohim, then why canât I be referred to as THE Elohim, as God? If they can be called âSons of Godâ (Bene Elohim, a grand title for high-ranking supernatural beings who serve God), then how much more can I, God the Word, be called Son of God (I.e. God the Son, a member of the Divine Trinity)?â
Course, even if the âgodsâ passages in Psalm 82 were in reality meant to refer to the Celestial Beings âgodsâ, it could be argued that such beings are referred to by God in the passage (as well as by Christ in John 10) as âgodsâ in a figurative sense, just as many erroneously believe that the passage refers to Jews as gods in a figurative sense (though despite many translations rendering the word as âgodsâ, the term âElohimâ, in reference primarily to a supernatural being, is more correct). Â
Thus, Jesusâ message in John 10 could be conveyed as âIf the Celestial Beings can be called âgodsâ in a figurative sense, then why canât I, Yahweh incarnate, be called âGodâ in the literal senseâ?
Either way, this undercuts the idea that these beings were intended to be thought of as a race of gods. The only way we can refer to them as gods in a technical sense is that they are supernatural beings that are worshipped as gods, but if we are going to therefore conclude that they are literally in essence a species of god, then weâd also have to conclude that the souls of dead Caesars are a race of gods different in essence from those of other departed mortals.
Still, to be fair, if we want to define gods as supernatural beings that are worshipped, then the Celestial Beings fit that bill, so there is a somewhat parallel here between the Apis Bull (as Ptah incarnate) and Jesus Christ.
HoweverâŚwhen Jesus Mythicists try to use a combo of old and new testaments to argue their case, they really shoot themselves in the foot. You see, the Old Testament indicates that Yahweh is the creator of everything (Genesis 1-2, Proverbs 16:4) which includes the Celestial Beings, and the Old Testament, aka the Hebrew Bible, was written long before Jesus was born.
Once again, whatâs more likely to influence a 1rst century messianic Jewish movement that would one day be called Christianity?
Ptahâs creation of the gods?
Or the Old Testament fact that God created everything, including the Celestial Beings of the Divine Council?
Once again: Jewish culture, Hebrew BibleâŚ
V. Judge of the dead?
 Well, Osiris, whom Apis embodied while dead, was the judge of the dead in Egyptian Mythology. However, if you want to look at a real parallel with New Testament passages about Jesus judging the dead, you need not look at Egyptian mythology.
You need to look at the Old Testament.
Letâs look at two passages from the Book of Daniel. First, Daniel 7:9-10:
âAs I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came out from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened.â (Emphasis mine).
Though in an end times context, this passage at first doesnât seem to have any bearing on the origins of Christ presented as the judge of the dead. However, things become perplexing when we turn to Daniel 12:1-3:
âAt that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.â (Emphasis mine).
Notice that this judgment of the dead also involves people being saved whose names are foundâŚin a book.
One of the same books mentioned in Daniel chapter 7?
Itâs obvious that a judgment of the dead occurs in thus passage, and though Michael is named in it, its easy to spot that God, not Michael, is the one raising the dead.
ButâŚwhere have we seen all of this before?
Well, among other parts of the New Testament, the Book of Revelation:
 âThen I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.â -Revelation 20:11-15 (Emphasis mine).
Notice the similarities with what we find in the book of Daniel? This is even more interesting when you compare Revelation 20:13 with Revelation 20:4-6, which both mentions the resurrection of the righteous deadâŚand separates it from the resurrection of the damned. Both events occur at two different times, and Revelation 20:13 is seemingly showing the latter resurrection.
Now, what is more likely going to influence a 1rst century messianic Jewish movement that would one day be called Christianity?
The Egyptian myth of the god Osiris judging the dead?
Or Old Testament prophecies that tell of end times judgments of the dead?
Once again: Jewish culture, Hebrew BibleâŚ
W. Mediator Between Gods and Men?
Yes, both are mediators. However, its funny to note that in Isaiah 53:12, which is the last verse of a large Messianic prophecy that both has many striking parallels to the life of Christ and is also both quoted and alluded to often in the New TestamentâŚstates the future messiah not only bore the sins of manyâŚbut also makes intercession for transgressors (referring to a future event in context).
Repeat: Intercession for transgressors.
What is another word for âintercessionâ?
Mediation.
And what is another word for âIntercessorâ?
Answer: Mediator!!
Which is more likely to influence a first century messianic Jewish movement that would one day be called Christianity?
A bull thought to be mediator between mortals and pagan gods that observant Jews obviously didnât worship?
Or a messianic prophecy that states, among other things, that the Messiah would be intercessor for transgressors, i.e. sinners?
Once again: Um, Jewish Culture, Hebrew BibleâŚÂ
Wow! All 23 parallels rendered absolutelyâŚNOTHING!!!!
Indeed, this is especially the case when we compare the hundreds of messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, and the Old Testament figures whom Jesus parallels (Moses, Samson, etc). However, before we go over those, we have to bring up yet another point:
 3. PARALELLS MEAN DIDDLY SQUAT!!!
 Parallels, on their own, mean nothing in terms of origin. You have to have more than mere parallels to indicate that a historical figure is a myth derived from another mythical figure, or that a historical figure is a myth derived from another historical figure, or that a historical event is in reality a fiction derived from another fictional event, or that a fictional or mythical figure is derived from another fictional or mythical figure, so on and so forth. Otherwise, weâd have to conclude that modern battle tanks are fictional weapons derived either from DaVinciâs tank design or the Mughal war elephants (The latter of which were huge, often armored, at times had cannons on their backs, suffered from weaponry specifically designed to stop them, and terrified enemy troops. Just like a tank!) or that Gorillas are fictional creatures derived from bigfoot-like monsters of folklore, or that certain historical figures (and even computer programs) are actually fiction because they fit well inside mythical categories, etc. Indeed, parallels between historical figures and fictional/mythical figures, those between historical figures, and those between historical events and fictional events are quite numerous. The following are several examples:
 1. The real-life Mignonette sinking (and the subsequent cannibalism involved) shares at least 7 parallels with Edgar Allan Poeâs âThe Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucketâ (including cannibalism, and both the victimâs name (Richard Parker) and occupation (Cabin boy).
2. The Titanic Disaster shares 12 parallels with the fictional events described in the novel âFutility/Wreck of the Titanâ by Morgan Robertson (written 14 years before the Titanic sank).
3. Tay the Fem Chatbot, a real-life AI chatbot, has 13 parallels with Frankensteinâs Monster.
4. Andre the Giant, the legendary wrestler, has 18 parallels with the mythical Hercules.
5. Hitler has 26 parallels with Napoleon.
6. Alexander the Great has 30 parallels with the mythical Achilles.
  Are we going to say that the historical events mentioned above are fictional, and derived from similar fictional tales?
Are we going to say that the historical figures (and the historical chatbot) mentioned above are myths, derived in term from mythical/fictional figures?
Then why would we do the same for Christ?Â
Keep in mind, Jesus has 16 parallels with Samson and 26 parallels with Moses. Nevertheless, despite these parallels with Old Testament figures being of a FAR higher quality and FAR more sound compared to the âparallelsâ between Christ and pagan mythical figures, and despite Samson and Moses coming from the same Hebraic culture, from the same Hebrew bible⌠this still isnât enough to show that Jesus was a mythical figure derived from them, as historical evidence for his existence shows. This fact remains secured even when we see Jesusâ similarities with other biblical figures, such as Isaac and the Old Testament Joseph. It also remains secure when we note both the countless Old Testament allusions found in the New Testament and the countless cited Old Testament passages in the New Testament. If Jesus Mythicists were clever about their argument (and not into both sensationalism (as the idea of a Pagan origin of Christ generates) and not dedicated to âowningâ Christians with paganism, theyâd try to argue that, considering all the countless parallels between him and Old Testament figures, between the New Testament and the Old Testament, and the Old Testament allusions and citations (including Messianic prophecy citations) in the New Testament and the hundreds of Messianic Prophecies fulfilled in ChristâŚJesus was a mythical figure derived from a combination of Old Testament figures and passages.
I mean, thatâs a HUGE amount of parallels and connections, right?
However, they donât generally make such an argument. One reason why they donât do so is because it wonât have as a much of an effect (and wont sell as many books. What rhymes with BarrierâŚ). Indeed, Old Testament figures that share parallels with Christ are considered types, Old Testament heroes of faith whose lives were echoes of a coming New Testament reality, a coming of the Jewish Messiah named Jesus (hence the term âTypologyâ), so that hampers the effect that such an argument could have in terms of atheistic evangelism. Also, the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure derived from the Old Testament has multiple problems, such as the fact that, among other things, Jews by and large in the first century AD expected a coming warrior Messiah. Given the intense longing for such (a hunger fed by suffering under at times harsh Roman rule), if the early Jewish Christians had created a fictional Christ, one would expect Christ being depicted less like a suffering servant and, in some way, more like a conquering hero (perhaps, among other things, depicted as generating a fiery sword and clashing with demons that he cast out of people, firing arrows of fire at them as they fled, etc). Indeed, they would have written little to nothing about the crucifixion if this was the case (not what 1rst century Jews expected of a warrior messiah). This is probably one reason why most 1rst century Jews didnât convert to Christianity: though the Messiah as suffering servant was noted in the Old Testament, Jews by and large were anticipating an equivalent of Judas Maccabeus to fight the Romans and restore the Jewish Kingdom.
If youâre going to craft a fictional Jewish Messiah in the 1rst century, and desire Jewish converts, you need to know your audience.
The Disciples, all 1rst century Jews, didnât know their fellow Jews?Â
Thatâs not evidence of a fictional Jewish messiah: its evidence that a real Jesus of Nazareth didnât meet their expectations and was thus rejected as Messiah.
Letâs also bring up the fact that, in the Gospels, Jesus never ever addresses major controversies of the first century church, such as womenâs role in the early church and over whether Gentile converts should be circumcised or not, etc. If 1rst century Christians had invented a fictional Christ, one would imagine that theyâd have said fictional Christ address such topics in the Gospels. We could also bring up the fact that the church was being persecuted during the first century, and thus, inventing a fictional Jewish Messiah of an emerging new religion could potentially lead you to be fed to lions.Â
Would you risk such a fate for fiction?
Or would you risk it for a real flesh and blood man that you believed to be the Messiah, the Son of the Living God?
Also, the idea that Jesus was a mythical character derived from Messianic prophecies rests on the metaphysical assumption that the miraculous doesnât exist, an assumption that cannot be proven, is not based on science (which studies the natural world, not the supernatural world, and doesnât allow for supernatural hypotheses (due to science not studying it), hence why creationism isnât science) and goes against numerous airtight Philosophical arguments that indicate that there is a God and thus the supernatural. They donât want to accept the idea that the reason Jesus seemingly fulfilled those prophecies isâŚbecause he fulfilled them. Meanwhile, Christians easily interpret the biblical connections between Jesus and Old Testament Messianic prophecies as evidence that Jesus simply fulfilled them. Typology and the biblical doctrine of prophecy makes it hard for Jesus Mythicists to argue that Jesus was a mythical figure derived from the Old Testament.
However, they most often choose to go down the Pagan path, because in that case, there is neither typology nor fulfilled prophecies to adhere to. Its an attempt to undercut the historicity of Christ-and thus Christianity-from the root.
Yet their tactic is in vain, because the evidence does not support their precious wishful thinking.
Jesus is a historical figure.
Oh, and BTW, Jesus Mythicists: heâs also the Son of the Living God!Â
  Sources:
âThe Way To Eternity: Egyptian Mythâ by Fergus Fleming and Alan Lothain (Consultant Dr. Joan Fletcher), 12, 51, 67-68, 70, 96
âThe Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythologyâ by Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm, 268, 308, 310, 316, Â
âTitans and Olympians: Greek & Roman Mythâ By Tony Allan, Sarah Maitland and Dr. Michael Trapp (consultant), 79
âThe Encyclopedia of the Godsâ by Michael Jordan, 21
Plutarch, "Isis and Osiris", 12, 43
âThe Historiesâ by Herodotus, 1.84, 2.153, 3.27-29, 33, 64, 102, 105, 116, 4.13, 27, 191
âThe Encyclopedia of the Ancient Roman Empireâ by Carlos Gomez (General editor), 83, 186
âThe Archeological Study Bible (NIV)â, 1721
âThe Bible Background Commentary: New Testamentâ by Craig S. Keener, 96-97, 156-57, 185, 230, 285-86
âA Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literatureâ, Third Edition (BDAG, Revised and Edited version), by Frederick William Danker and Walter Bauer, 995
âZondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance, Second Editionâ by Edward W. Goodrick and John Kohlenberger III, 185, 1596
âThe New Strongâs Expanded exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Red Letter Editionâ, by James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D, and John R. Kohlenberger III, 95 of the concordance, 248 of its Greek Dictionary of the New Testament
âSystematic Theology Volume 2: God, Creationâ by Dr. Norman Geisler, 278-79, 88-90
âSystematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrineâ by Wayne Grudem, 226-230
âEvidence That Demands A Verdictâ by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, PhD (Updated and Expanded Ed), 143-171, 208-231
âEvidence For Christianityâ by Josh McDowell, 194-244
âSupernaturalâ by Michael Heiser, 19-21 Â
âESV Study Bible, 2608-09, 2635-661
âAnswering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3: Messianic Prophecy Objectionsâ by Michael Brown, 17-32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCp-ayAp7fE
âHistorical Atlas: A Comprehensive History of the Worldâ
Chief Consultant Dr Geoffery Wawro, pages 84-85, 106-07
âThe Encyclopedia of the Ancient Roman Empireâ
General Editor: Carlos Gomez (3 others worked on it), 200-201
âThe West: Encounters and Transformations (Concise Edition)â, by Brian Levack, Edward Muir, Michael Maas and Meredith Veldman, 111-114
âThe Illustrated Atlas of Jewish History: 4000 Years of Historyâ by Martin Gilbert and Josephine Bacon, 41-42
âThe Biblical World: An Illustrated Atlasâ by Jean-Pierre Isbouts (National Geographic), 134, 267-70
âIn the Footsteps of Jesusâ by Jean-Pierre Isbouts (National Geographic), 226
âNorris McWhirterâs Book of Historical Recordsâ, by Norris McWhirter, 42
âDid Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazarethâ by Bart D. Ehrman
âThe Foundations of Western Civilization: Course Guidebookâ by Professor Thomas F.X. Noble, 89-96
âThe Other Side of History: Daily Life in the Ancient World: Course Guidebookâ by Professor Robert Garland, 227-29.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Jesus_Christ/
https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Jesus_Outside_the_New_Testament/lwzliMSRGGkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Mara+bar+serapion+Jesus&pg=PA53&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Historical_Jesus_in_Context/HIp_0N3uPPcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Thallus+Jesus&pg=PA405&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Handbook_for_the_Study_of_the_Historical/LuKMmVu0tpMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Lucian+of+Samosata++Jesus&pg=PA2162&printsec=frontcover
https://brill.com/view/journals/jshj/jshj-overview.xml
https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/17737
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/its-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-christmas-mythicisms-in-the-air/10098732
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbtspV95k48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn0L9QZWyq8
"Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium"
by Bart Ehrman.
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/john-dickson-why-historians-dont-doubt-jesus-existed/13687464
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/john-dickson-revisiting-the-historicity-of-jesus/13730526
https://merionwest.com/2022/01/18/in-reply-to-jesus-mythicism-is-about-to-go-mainstream/
âThe Middle East: The Cradle of Civilization Revealedâ by Dr. Stephen Bourke (13 other historians worked on it), 294-95
https://www.britannica.com/art/halo-art
https://www.worldhistory.org/Apis/
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_World_Religions/dbibAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Apis+Bull+sired+light&pg=PA65&printsec=frontcover
https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/apis/
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sacred_Bull_Holy_Cow/s_KxhuShJSEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Ptah%2BInseminated%2Bcow%2Blightning&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover
https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/bullcult/
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ptah.htm
https://www.worldhistory.org/Memphis_(Ancient_Egypt)/
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Egyptian_Mythology/3hgGNb6wM2kC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Plutarch+Egyptian+Mythology&pg=PA41&printsec=frontcover
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnB2Uj7gWSE
https://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Moirai.html
https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Apollon.html
https://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanKronos.html
https://www.worldhistory.org/Caligula/
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Following_Osiris/sVcjDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Osiris+king+of+the+Underworld&pg=PA475&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Israel_s_Only_Shepherd/L8neBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Domitian+roman+emperor+thought+he+was+a+god+wanted+to+be+worshipped+while+alive&pg=PA167&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Pagan_Holiday/dJY8HvKIVZ0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Lion%2BLeontopolis%2Bincarnation&pg=PA319&printsec=frontcover
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Targum
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hephaestus
https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Hephaistos.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
âAncient Mysteriesâ by Peter James and Nick Thorpe, 231-44
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-toxodon.html
âPrehistoric Lifeâ by Angeles Gavira Guerrero and Peter Frances (Senior Ed.), 432.
âThe Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creaturesâ (Revised Ed) by Douglas Palmer (Consultant Editor), 253.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/la-chapelle-aux-saints
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/1909-reconstruction-of-the-La-Chapelle-aux-Saints-Neandertal-by-Kupka-published-in_fig3_247933255
https://www.michelangelo.net/moses/
âThe Apologetics Study Bible (HCSB) by Ted Cabal (General ed.), 142
âThe Hebrew Bible: A translation With Commentary, The Five Books of Mosesâ by Robert Alter, 351-52
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-discovery-of-iguanodon.html#:~:text=Discovered%20in%20Sussex%20in%201822,start%20our%20fascination%20with%20dinosaurs.
âAncient Discoveriesâ, Ancient Tank Tech Episode.
âWar Elephantsâ by John M. Kistler, 211-12, 214
âWar Elephantsâ by Konstantin Nossov, 14-19
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-does-the-old-testament-say-about-the-trinity
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Egyptian_Mythology_Ancient_Gods_and_Godd/RSshBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Apis%2BBull%2BMediator%2Bgods&pg=PA21&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_New_Cultural_Atlas_of_Egypt/zqYSQYXkai0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Apis%2BBull%2BMediator%2Bgods&pg=PA172&printsec=frontcover
https://thedivinecouncil.com/Heiser%20Psa82inJohn10%20RegSBL2011.pdf
https://beliefmap.org/gospel-stories/jesus-sayings/aramaic-substratum Â
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/elahh-aramaic.html
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/elowahh.html
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Power_of_the_Almighty/HCSGJHT45sMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Elohim+plural+of+Eloah&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Job/2T2lDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Elohim+plural+of+Eloah&pg=PR15&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Evangelism_and_Christian_Apologetics/dfkAWzzqsJMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Elohim+plural+of+Eloah&pg=PA356&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Encyclopedia_of_God/wG_XP083ogcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Aramaic+Elah+equivalent+Hebrew+Eloah&pg=PT107&printsec=frontcover
https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-based-teaching-from-israel/the-messiah-is-god/
https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/divine-titles-of-the-messiah
https://jewsforjesus.org/jewish-resources/messianic-prophecy/the-messiah-would-be-the-suffering-servant/
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/intercession.html
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/intercessor.html
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/624904287995265024/do-so-called-similarities-between-jesus-and
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/628287347439665153/alexander-the-great-and-achilles-examining-the
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/628111397046370304/is-jesus-one-of-the-dying-and-rising-gods-and
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/627024203052433408/did-judaism-and-christianity-borrow-from
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/629456545082736640/was-jesus-a-mythical-figure-based-on-moses-um
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/629703829423865856/was-jesus-a-mythical-figure-based-on-samson-um
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/615781564580773888/was-jesus-a-fictional-character-based-on-pagan
https://www.army.mil/article/256344/master_gunners_a_tank_crews_key_to_success#:~:text=Brandishing%20these%20impressive%20vehicles%20onto,a%20gunner%20and%20a%20loader. Â
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/684519740337733632/was-the-virgin-mary-a-mythical-figure-derived-from
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/628113211750776832/do-supposed-parallels-between-the-gospels-and
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/what-is-science/science-has-limits-a-few-things-that-science-does-not-do/
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/glossary/supernatural/
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/whats-natural/
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/glossary/natural/
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/science-and-religion-reconcilable-differences/
https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-argument.htm
https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cosmological-argument.htm
https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/ontological-argument.htm
https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/teleological-argument.htm
https://strangenotions.com/god-exists/Â
https://www.zmescience.com/other/medieval-elephant-56720/
The Swords of Ophir
By Travis Jackson
âBring the initiate. And the bloody traitor.â Sir Rollo said.
Sir Rollo motioned with his head, his dark steel pot helm frightened a nearby buzzard, sending it darting to the south. As another knight nodded and walked away, Sir Rollo looked over the side of Bishopâs Tower, which despite countless centuries was untouched by decay. Why would anyone build a tower over a thousand feet high, he thought, looking down at the bleak nighttime landscape. If his order had built it, it would have been far shorter, twice as thick and even more remote.
Still, no other tower has enough lurking magic for a proper initiation...
Red lightning flashed in the east.
âThe enchantment works.â Two other knights said in unison. Sir Rollo turned, counting ten knights besides himself, all standing close to the edge of the tower, their backs resting on merlons. One more knight, and we can begin, Sir Rollo thought.
The Swords of Ophir were the greatest fighting force in Lowland Empire, warriors feared for, among other things, their strength, brutality and uncanny ability to sniff out danger. For some reason it was impossible for them to suffer a surprise attack; all such attempts ended with the knights pouncing on their would-be attackers from behind. Nobody knew how they did so, though there were rumors that witchcraft was involved. Others said that they simply had a good sense of smell, and some said-
The tower door slid open. A large, long-haired man wearing a white tunic and short green leather britches emerged from it, pouring water on his head from a cup. Behind him, the knight that Sir Rollo sent walked up onto the tower, a bound woman in his arms. Sir Rollo watched as the man in the white tunic poured water on himself again, then dropped the cup, lifting his hands skywards. More red lightning fell.
The door slid shut.
âPositions, everyone!â Sir Rollo said.
Dropping the woman onto hard cold stone, the other knight joined his brethren. They stood in a circle around the top of the tower. Sir Rollo stood right before the southernmost merlon, locking eyes with the initiate. Nodding to the other knights, Sir Rollo drew his great sword out, holding it upwards with both hands. The other knights did the same. A bolt of red lightning struck nearby, shaking the earth with its thunder.
âInitiate! State your name!â Sir Rollo said. Wide eyed, the woman tried to scream through her cloth gag as the initiate looked upwards. The rain was falling harder now.
âDobs, Son of Lord Hood!â the initiate said. The knights lifted their swords higher.
âWhat is your business here, Dobs, Son of Lord Hood?â Sir Rollo said, cocking his head. He was pleased to see the initiate smile.
âI am here to enter the Sacred Order of the Swords of Ophir!â
âA noble pursuit, yet why should we let you enter our order?â
âI have passed the first tests, my lord.â
âWhich tests?â Rollo said, knowing the tests well yet asking anyway, as was custom. The initiateâs smile grew. The woman wailed and tried to cut the ropes binding her hands on one of the stones as he replied.
âI have passed the test of prayer, I have passed the test of church, I have passed the test of holy water-
âThree holy privileges that will be denied to you once youâve proven yourself tonight.â Sir Rollo said, interrupting him as he had many an initiate after they mentioned holy water,
âA sad sacrifice, yet one that will serve the pious cause, one that will serve to defend the church.â
Sir Rollo studied the initiate.
âWhat else?â
âI have also passed the test of the deathly kiss.â The Initiate said.Â
âAdministered by Lady Esther, the head of our order.â Sir Rollo said with a nod.
At the mention of Lady Esther, the bound woman all but went mad, moaning as she continued to attack her bonds, the stone proving sharp but not sharp enough.
âThe Lady Esther is always pleased when a new knight is added to our order. Perhaps, if we let you in, you might one day become one of the elders of our order, second in power only to our dear Lady Esther. Such eldersâŚsurround you now.â
Sir Rollo approached the initiate slowly, lowering his sword.
âDo you swear to protect this blessed, Christian empire with your sword and shield?â
âI do, Sir Rollo!â
âDo you swear to protect the sacred church?â
âI do, Sir Rollo!â
Another red lightning bolt cam down, far closer than the others. The thunder almost made the tower tremble. Sir Rollo was pleased by its sound.
âDo you swear to protect the innocent?â
âI do, Sir Rollo!â
âIf you see parents abusing their child, will you stop them, hack their limbs off and feed them to the fire?â
âI shall, Sir Rollo!â
âIf you see a husband abuse his wife, will you knock his teeth out with your gauntlets? Will you have your steed stomp on his fists?â
âI shall, Sir Rollo!â
âIf you see a witch exercising her dark arts, will you feed her your blade? Will you leave her remains to the wolves?â
âI shall, Sir Rollo!â
Nodding, Sir Rollo walked around the initiate, at one point stepping on the womanâs belly. As the woman grunted and got into a fetal position, Sir Rollo looked to the south, seeing more red bolts fall.
âSo, you say.â Sir Rollo said, turning his attention back to the initiate,
âBut will your words hold up to the ancient test? Your second to last test? The most important testâŚof all?â
âThey will, Sir Rollo!â
âWill you remain standing, or burn when the test is initiated?â
âI will stand, not burn, Sir Rollo!â
Sir Rollo grinned.
âWe shall see.â
Walking towards the southernmost merlon, Sir Rollo lifted his sword again. As the red lighting drew closer, the knights chanted in Sumerian laced with Horite verbs. The chanting grew as the woman emitted a muffled scream, the prayed to God, tears falling from her eyes as she looked at the dark sky above. Sir Rollo raised an eyebrow. You should have thought of prayer before spying for the Kingdom of Matherud, Sir Rollo thought.
âI stand here, before the 12 elders, ready for my task.â Dobs said, closing his eyes.
Red lightning flashed nearby. The subsequent boom rattled both the tower and those upon it. The woman screamed louder.
âI stand ready, I stand in honorâŚI stand to await the test that will prove me of noble worth!â
The knights looked skyward, storm clouds obscuring their view of the stars. They spoke in unison.
âLET THE BLESSED APKALLUâŚDECIDE YOUR FATE!â
Huge, winged blue men appeared in the clouds, albeit for a split second. Then red lightning spilled down, falling onto the knightâs swords. As the thunder roared the bolts slithered together, then came down on the initiate. Dobâs scream pierced even the thunder, his body trembling. The knights chanted in Akkadian as the red lightning bolts spilled down the tower, down onto the earth, down onto Gilsa River nearby, its black waters bubbling.
After seven secondsâŚthe lightning vanished.
In the center of the towerâŚDobs remained standing, his body and clothing smoking. Sir Rollo nodded slowly, then pulled out a black necklace from his pocket, laden down with a blue onyx stone. Sir Rollo stood before the initiate, cocking his head again.
âThe Apkallu, mighty spirits of old Sumer, have deemed you worthy for this brotherhood. Will you accept this Necklace of Order, the kind of necklace that we all don upon entrance into the brotherhood?â
A necklace youâll inherit from a long dead member of our order, Sir Rollo thought with sadness. Only a few initiates were lucky enough to don a necklace once worn by a fellow brother, instead of one freshly made. Better prove yourself worthy of the privilege in battle, Sir Rollo thought.
âI do, Sir Rollo!â
The knight looked down at the woman.
âThe prisoner was found guilty of treason. Her certificate of execution was brought with her to our tower. We are to carry out the kingâs justice.â
Sir Rollo looked at Dobs, his piercing green eyes narrowing.
âBefore you wear the necklace, before you become one of the Swords of OphirâŚthere must be blood. This is the final test.â
Dobs looked at the woman. His jaw muscles tensed.Â
âWill you shed this blood?â Sir Rollo said.
Dobs nodded, then grabbed the woman. Lifting her up, he held her arms tight, keeping her from squirming. As the woman cried, Dobs nodded to Sir Rollo.
âBy this blood, by this life...I prove myself worthy.â
Grinning, Dobs bit down onto her neck. As she squealed and moaned her blood fell to the tower, her skin turning white. After a few seconds, Dobs dropped her lifeless body. Just as pale, Dobs looked at Sir Rollo, licking his lips. As the knights studied him, Dobs bared his fangs and hissed. As Sir Rollo put the necklace on him and spoke, the other knights hissed as well.
âWelcome, brother.â
Was the Virgin Mary a Mythical Figure Derived From the Egyptian Goddess Neith? Um, NO, and Here is Why:
âIn the depths of eons past, there was the primordial mound, which erupted out of the Waters of Chaos. Pregnant with divine energy, the mound generated Neith, the first goddess and mother of gods. Mighty and terrible in power, she found herself undisputed master of the worldâŚa world that was dark, lifeless. However, she formed within herself Atum-Re, the Sun. Over several moons she grew heavy with him, until the time came to deliver him onto the dark world. Straining in the waters of chaos, she delivered Atum-Re, bringing the first daylight. His mother overjoyed, she called his name, but he could not see her. Considering his brightness, itâs no wonder that he didnât! He cried, his tears metamorphosizing into both men and women. Nevertheless, Neith discovered her baby, the Sun, the Father of Gods...â
 What you just read is one of several Egyptian creation myths. This particular one featured Neith, a war goddess who was a big favorite of the ancient Egyptian city of Sais.Â
Like Gaia, the primordial earth goddess of ancient Greece, Neith was capable of getting herself pregnant without having to do the hunka-chunka with a dude. However, unlike GaiaâŚits proven that she was a virgin before she impregnated herself. Â
Cue Jesus Mythicist drool.
While most who are knowledgeable of the facts wouldnât make a big deal out of this in relation to Christianity, some Jesus Mythicists will claim that Mary, the virgin mother of Christ, was a pure mythical figure derived from her. Others will say that, at the very least, the story of Christâs virgin birth was derived from the myths of Neith giving virgin birth to Atum-Ra or Atum-Re (a combination of Atum and Ra. In some myths, she simply gave birth to Ra). They may also try to draw a connection with tales of Neith giving virgin birth to Isis, Sobek/Sebek, and the Canaanite/Phoenician goddesses Anat and Astarte (Old Testament Ashtoreth). I could also mention the myth of her âgiving birthâ to Apep/Apophis, but not only do some sources say that she simply created him, but even in the myths where she is his âmotherâ she brings him into being by spitting into the primordial watery chaos, which was personified in ancient Egypt as the god Nun. Thus, we have a myth of a goddess impregnating a god, who gave birth to a demonic serpentine deity who was big enough to swallow the sun.
Nun.
Poor schmuck.
Curiously, Neith was laying in the primeval waters when she gave birth to Ra, thus Nun is technically his âfatherâ. However, Neith accomplished the pregnancy on her own.
Are Jesus Mythicists right?
Is Mary a mythical figure derived from Neith?
Um, NO, and here is why:
 1. WALK LIKE A VIRGIN!
Mary and NeithâŚdonât have much in common. Yes, both are female, both are of the ancient world, both are of the Mediterranean region, Mary receives prayers like Neith does (though not as an actual deity), both are miracle workers and mediators. However, these similarities not only pale compared to those of say Alexander the Great and Achilles, or Andre the Giant and Hercules (and both Alexander the Great and Andre the Giant were real historical figures), but these parallels narrow when we consider the Biblical account of Mary. In the Bible Mary is not prayed to, doesnât mediate between God and humans in her afterlife or depicted as a miracle worker (True, the virgin birth was a miracle, but she didnât bring it about consciously, anymore than the lepers Jesus healed brought their own healing about consciously. She didnât make it happen like Moses, by the power of God, made the Red Sea Part. The Virgin conception was solely the work of God). Indeed, as Iâve said, sheâs not considered a deity, only a hero of faith. Given all of this, the main crux of this Jesus Mythicist âargumentâ rests solely on the fact that both were virgin mothers.
But is this enough to prove Jesus Mythicists right?
Nope.
Although Egyptian mythology is far from consistent, Neith is at least almost always depicted as a virgin deity (though one academic site states that she was the consort of both the gods Khnum and Seth). Indeed, one of her common names was âVirgin mother Goddessâ. Along with this, she was identified with Athena, the Greek virgin goddess of war and wisdom. This makes sense, considering that Athena was technically the virgin mother of Erichthonius, a half man half snake (remember, Apep was a divine giant snake). Indeed, the way she brought him about was quite similar to how Neith brought about Apep: just as Neith spat onto the water chaos aka Nun, giving rise to Apep, so likewise Athena wiped Hephaestusâ semen off her leg (he had tried to rape her, only to be wupped instead. His semen fell on her leg in the fight) and threw it onto the Earth (personified as the goddess Gaia), which gave birth to Erichthonius. Along with this, both Neithâs and Athenaâs births were also similar: just as Athena emerged from Zeusâ forehead, Neith emerged from the primordial mound, which was personified as the god Tatjenen. I could also mention the fact that, in one version of Athenaâs myth, she emerged from the ground, just like Neith. Given all of this, it does make sense that they would identify Neith with Athena. Curiously, according to Plutarch, in his ancient work âOn Isis and Osirisâ (chapter 9), he claims that the Egyptians, who had a statue of âAthenaâ (Neith) in Sais (a major center of Neith worship), identified Isis with Athena. ThisâŚdoesnât make sense, considering that Isis, as I explained in a previous article, was far from a virgin. However, Zeus was identified by some with Yahweh, even though, among many other things, Yahweh in the Bible is never depicted as having sex, while Zeus had countless lovers. Indeed, some even identified Yahweh with Bacchus aka Liber, the Roman equivalent of Dionysus!
Yahwe...identified...with a Roman god of wine...?
Oh, but of course theyâre similar enough to each other!
About as similar as WWEâs Becky Lynch and Barney the Purple dinosaur!
To be fair, the identification was made primarily due to supposed similarities in worship rituals instead of similar stories, but not only do some of these parallels not hold any water (Plutarch claims that Jews routinely got drunk on the Sabbath. Um, Deuteronomy 21:20, Proverbs 20:1, 21:17, 23:20-21, 29-35, Isaiah 5:11, 22, 28:7, Habakkuk 2:15âŚoh, compare with Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12), but some ancients were skeptical of the connection (Tacitus, the Roman historian, noted that the religious institutions of both Judaism and Bacchus worship didnât jive, which went against the idea that Yahweh and Bacchus/Liber were one and the same) .
And yetâŚeven to this day, some think that it was a good idea to identify Yahweh with BacchusâŚ
Itâs eat up with the dumb.
Just as, youâre about to see, identifying Isis with Athena is eat-up-with-the-dumb.
The statement on the statue of Athena/Neith in Sais not only seems to indicate that Athena/Neith never had sex, but other ancient texts state that Athena was identified with Neith, not Isis. Considering that both Sais and Athenaâs virginity is mentioned in that passage of Plutarch, that Egyptian mythology (including an ancient relief depicting her over Osirisâ phallus) indicates that Isis had sex with both Osiris and Ptah (see my articles on Horus and Isis in the sources section below), and that Plutarch himself admits that Isis had sex before she was even born (Plutarchâs âIsis and Osirisâ chapter 12)âŚwell, I think even an uneducated country boy could put two and two together and figure out that Plutarch simply made a boo boo, intending to write Neith but instead writing Isis.Â
Course, considering that Plutarch wrote in the second century (the New Testament was written in the first century), Isisâ cult was a big contender with early Christianity (she was the most popular goddess in the Greco roman era) and that mystery cults would at times try to combat Christianity by borrowing aspects of it into their cults (such as when one such cult borrowed Maryâs virgin motherhood and gave it to Hera)âŚits quite possible that some members of Isisâ cult borrowed the virgin motherhood of Mary and applied it to their patron goddess. Either way, the connection between Athena and Isis is a tad weak.
The connection between Athena and Neith, however, is quite strong.
Curiously, The Romans didnât identify Neith with Minerva, their equivalent of Athena. However, they did Identify her with Diana, which is their equivalent of the Greek Artemis, a virgin goddess in her own right. Now, keep in mind, just because gods and goddesses could be identified with one another doesnât = that they shared identical myths or tales (the Zeus Yahweh identification is a big example of that). True, Athena and Neith share many similarities, but also have far more differences, as a comparison of their myths show (Athena wasnât a creator goddess, didnât give birth to the sun (indeed, didnât give birth period. Gaia gave birth to her son Erichthonius), only had one child (Neith had several), Neith didnât fight in the Trojan War or turn a temple virgin into a gorgon, etc). Same goes with Diana and Neith, who share even less similarities.
Nevertheless, the case for Neith being a virgin mother is strong.
OrâŚis it?
Its interesting to note that, occasionally, Neith is depicted as being a hermaphrodite. Sheâs sometimes seen as having a phallus. She has one when she is being depicted as a creator goddess, such as in creation myths involving her.
Creation mythsâŚthat involve her impregnating herself with RaâŚ
UmâŚahemâŚcould it be that the reason she was called a virgin mother goddess is because she simply didnât have sex withâŚanyone else?
Could it be that the reason she got pregnant with Ra is becauseâŚshe [censored] herself?
If soâŚthen she actually put her phallus inside her vagina and ejaculated, conceiving Ra.
Um... Iâll let you process that for a moment.
I guess one might technically call such reproduction âasexualâ, considering that sheâs not technically doing the hunka-chunka with another beingâŚand that when people sexually pleasure only themselves, itâs called masturbationâŚnevertheless, one could easily surmise that she was having sex with herself.
Is this what really happened in the myth?
Did Neith have sex with herself, siring Ra and other gods?
I canât say so with 100% certainty, but given the evidenceâŚit seems likely.
Needless to say, this would make Neithâs virgin motherhood far different from Maryâs, which didnât involve sexual acts.
Still, a savvy Jesus Mythicist might say âSo what! There are other differences between Mary and Neith too, and yet itâs conceivable that the myths of Neith, over time, could warp into those of Mary!â
At first, this might seem to those ignorant of what the Bible really says about both Mary and the virgin birth of Christ to be sound.
However, this objection fades when you realize that, centuries before Christ was bornâŚIsaiah the Prophet predicted a virgin birth. Â
Specifically Isaiah 7:14:
âTherefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.â
As I explained in a previous article, although Almah, the Hebrew word translated as âvirginâ, doesnât usually mean virgin, it can when the context requires it. Indeed, it refers to a young girl whose just entered puberty, someone who was incapable of getting pregnant and having a baby (girls can only start getting pregnant about two weeks before their first bleeding). Keep in mind, girls were not allowed to marry until they had their first bleeding, and that took on average 2 years after a girl started entering puberty.
Thus, in Israelite culture, such girls were always expected to be virgins.
Course, some Jesus Mythicists might try to argue that Isaiahâs prophecy itself was inspired by the virgin motherhood of Neith, yet this would indicate that the virgin birth of Christ, as recorded in the Gospels, only has an indirect connection with Neithâs mythos, not direct. Plus, just because both Isaiahâs prophecy and Neithâs mythos involve virgin motherhood doesnât = one was borrowed from the other, or that Mary never existed, let alone never gave virgin birth to Christ. After all, the circumstances of Erichthoniusâ birth bear a striking similarity to the modern procedure of Reciprocal In Vitro Fertilization. Just as Athena wiped Hephaestus semen (which was enchanted by her touch) off her leg and threw it to the ground, where Gaia gives birth to it, likewise, in Reciprocal IVF, a womanâs egg is extracted, joined with sperm, turns into an embryo, then put inside another lady, who later gives birth to the child. Also, there are women who have gotten pregnant without ever having sex in the modern world, thanks to both IVF and artificial insemination. Are they mythical figures derived from the mythical Neith, or the biblical Virgin Mary? Indeed, science is on its way to making it possible for women to become pregnant without the need for either sex or male sperm donors, thus kicking us dudes out of the baby-making business. Indeed, scientists already made a mouse named Kayuga who had no biological father. She was conceived by taking two eggs from two different mice, taking stuff out of both, and combining them into a brand-new egg. When scientists eventually learn how to properly perform the same feat in humans and make the procedure available to the public, virgin women will be amongst those whoâll sign up to become the âMothers of Tomorrowâ.Â
When this new breed of virgin mothers walks the earth, should we deny their existence because they share virgin motherhood with Neith?
Oh, forgot to mention: due to the ongoing development of artificial wombs, along with the differences the arrangement of chromosomes between men and women, its likely that the first âvirgin parentâ (i.e., one who will only need their own genetic material to produce a child, not needing that of another person) will be aâŚdude!
You read that right: the first person to conceive a child completely on their own will most likely be a dude!
Heâd only need his own genetic material (used to make artificial eggs) and an artificial womb (one not inside his body), and heâd be set. Virgin dudes would be capable of having kids on their own in this situation (though to be fair, many would prefer to have such artificial wombs built into hot women androids and impregnate them the old-fashioned way. Yeah, I went there).
Why is this important?
Because, according to one Egyptian myth, the god Atum gave birth to both the god Shu and the goddess Tefnut byâŚmasturbating.
UmâŚwow, thatâs just not right!
Keep in mind, in this version of his myth, in which he created himself, Atum started masturbating right after he was created, so he was a virgin when he did this.
So, when virgin fathers with artificial wombs arise (i.e., artificial wombs not implanted into women robots) âŚshould we deny these menâs existence because they will bear an odd similarity with an ancient myth of Atum producing children without the aid of a female?
Just because a real-life person or event is similar to a myth or religious tale doesnât = that real life person or event is either partly or fully a fiction derived from the older myth or religious tale.
 Sorry, Jesus Mythicists.Â
 Sources:
âThe Way To Eternity: Egyptian Mythâ by Fergus Fleming, Alan Lothian and Dr. Joann Fletcher (Consultant), 24, 33-34, 56, 58, 62, 64, 83Â
âThe Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythologyâ by Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm, 264-65, 268-69, 300, 306, 316, 317Â
âPlato: Timaeus and Critiasâ, by Desmond Lee (Translator), 34
âHerodotus: The Historiesâ by Aubrey De Selincourt (Translator), 119-20Â
https://mythology.net/egyptian/egyptian-gods/neith/
 http://www.egyptianmyths.net/neith.htm
 https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/neith/
 https://www.worldhistoryedu.com/neith-origins-family-meaning-symbols-powers/
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Neith
 https://www.worldhistory.org/Ra_(Egyptian_God)/
 âLetter of Aristeasâ, 15-16
 https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm
 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Birth_of_Christianity/GaYKGrqXCwEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Letter%2BAristeas%2BYahweh%2Bzeus&pg=PA585&printsec=frontcover
 âQuaestiones Convivalesâ by Plutarch, 4.6
 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0312%3Abook%3D4
âThe Historiesâ by Tacitus Cornelius, 5.5
 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0080%3Abook%3D5%3Achapter%3D5
 âFact et dicta memorabiliaâ by Valerius Maximus, 1.3.3
 http://www.attalus.org/translate/valerius1a.html
 âClash of the Godsâ Documentary series, Zeus episode
âEncyclopedia of Godsâ by Michael Jordan, 38, 67,
âThe Penguin Dictionary of Classical Mythologyâ by Pierre Grimal, 72, 128-29, 246
âTitans & Olympians: Greek and Roman Mythâ By Tony Allan, Sara Maitland and Dr. Michael Trapp (Consultant), 91-95
 https://www.worldhistory.org/Dionysos/Â
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Come_Let_Us_Reason/g8Pnq8T-scIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Plutarch+Isis+Osiris+2nd+century+AD&pg=PA154&printsec=frontcover
  âMonotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquityâ by Matthew V. Novenson, 40-45
 https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Cult_of_Divine_Birth_in_Ancient_Gree/ifrHAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=was+Neith+a+virgin%3F&pg=PA52&printsec=frontcover
   https://www.google.com/books/edition/Invented_Knowledge/l2BrqdFg5AkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Diodorus+Siculus+Athena+Neith&pg=PT298&printsec=frontcover
 https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Isis_and_Osiris*/A.html
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Danaus-Greek-mythology
 https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/5D*.html Â
 https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/3E*.html
 https://www.theoi.com/Text/DiodorusSiculus5B.html
 https://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias2C.html
 https://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias9A.html
 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04165.htm
 âAnswering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume Three: Messianic Prophecy Objectionsâ by Michael L. Brown, 17-31
 âMiracles of Mary: Apparitions, Legends, and Miraculous Works of the Blessed Virgin Maryâ by Michael S. Durham.
 https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/m/marian-prayer-reasons-why.php#:~:text=Catholics%20do%20not%20pray%20to,half%20of%20the%20Hail%20Mary).
 https://fertilitynj.com/services/lgbtqia-family-building/reciprocal-ivf/
 https://extendfertility.com/reciprocal-ivf-lgbtq-couples/
 https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/women-who-have-never-had-sex-give-virgin-birth-through-ivf-say-doctors-a6670101.html
 https://nypost.com/2022/02/17/virgin-mom-reveals-how-she-became-pregnant-with-miracle-baby/
 https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/can-you-get-pregnant-without-having-sex#is-it-possible
 https://www.earth.com/news/pregnancy-without-men-mice/
 https://futurism.com/pregnancy-without-men-new-research-lets-us-make-babies-from-skin-cells
 âLike a Virgin: How Science is Redesigning the Rules of Sexâ by Aarathi Prasad, 4, 69-71, 189-209, 215-17, 246-48, 256
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/684245619073826816/was-the-virgin-mary-a-mythical-figure-derived-from
 https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/684519740337733632/was-the-virgin-mary-a-mythical-figure-derived-from
 https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/615781564580773888/was-jesus-a-fictional-character-based-on-pagan
 https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/627443646901436416/was-mary-the-mother-of-jesus-based-on-the
 https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/627450822918291456/was-mary-the-mother-of-jesus-based-on-the
 https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/628287347439665153/alexander-the-great-and-achilles-examining-the
Is the Virgin Mary a Mythical Figure Derived From the Real Life Queen Mautmes? Um, NO, and here is why:
OverâŚand overâŚand OVER again, Jesus Mythicists have tried to make Jesus out to be a mythical figure based on pagan gods or heroes. Theyâve used this pitiful excuse for an anti-Christian tactic on the Virgin Mary as well (big surprise there). Each time theyâve done this, their arguments have been proven false, and yet they never give up. Such arguments are both desperate and deceptive.
Theyâre also a bitâŚboring.
After all, with their anti-factual zeal, youâd think that they would have come up with more than one tactic to make their case against Christ, something more unique.
Well, as it happens, they have!
You see, these anti-Lee Strobels at times try to argue that Jesus was a mythical figure derived from Old Testament heroes such as Moses and Samson. I wouldnât be surprised if they likewise have tried to argue that Mary was a mythical figure derived from Sarah, Hannah or the unnamed mother of Samson, all of whom had miraculous (though not virgin) births, and whom two of which (Sarah and Samsonâs mother) were given a divine birth announcement by a heavenly being (Genesis 18:9-15, 21:1-7, Judges 13, 1 Samuel 1:1-20). They may also try to state that both Mary and the story of Christâs virgin birth were fictions designed to âfulfillâ the virgin birth prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. Thus, Mary was a mythical figure derived from the virgin mother of Isaiah chapter 7. However, such attempts likewise utterly fail. One important reason why is, according to Christian theology 101, aspects of Old Testament stories were types or forerunners to what occurred in the life of Christ (hence the term âtypologyâ). All of these events, though historical, also point to the future. They are hidden prophecies set in historical narrative. Thus, though the parallels between Jesus, Mary and Old Testament figures are much stronger than those with pagan figures, typology undercuts their use in a Jesus Mythicist faschion. If Jesus Mythicists were honest about it, theyâd admit that this is one of the main reasons why they donât try to make comparisons between Old Testament figures and New testament ones; itâs not only that trying to argue that both Jesus and Mary are derived from pagan mythical figures is more controversial (and thus results in more people buying Jesus Mythicist books), but the biblical doctrine of typology is an easy answer to the âJesus and Mary are derived from Old Testament heroesâ argument. Along with this, the idea that the Virgin birth story of the Gospels is a fiction intended to make a false fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 is rooted not in evidence, but in a metaphysical assumption that prophecies are never supernatural in nature, that they do not predict the future. The metaphysical idea that there is no such thing as the supernatural (an idea that cannot be proven by science, due to the fact that science only studies the natural world, not the supernatural) forces those who adhere to it to always conclude that a prophecy, no matter how well fulfilled, has to have a more âdown to earthâ nature, and thus any fulfillment has to be wrong, coincidence or downright fabrication. Such arguments speak more about the unscientific beliefs of those who make them rather than what the evidence suggests.
However, there is another tactic that they will try to use.
What is this tactic, you might ask?
Drum rollâŚ
Claiming that both Jesus and Mary are either partially or fully derivedâŚfrom historical figures.
You see, they will argue that certain legends or myths about real life historical figures are quite similar to what we see with Jesus and Mary in the New Testament. Indeed, they say that they are so similar, in fact, that we must therefore conclude that the New Testament writers borrowed from them. Â
We will deal with this line of argumentation in relation to Jesus in a later article, but for now, letâs focus on MaryâŚand the historical figure that some Jesus Mythicists will claim that she is derived from.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the great Jesus Mythicist hope: Queen Mautmes of Egypt!Â
A wife of Tuthmosis IV and mother of Amunoph III aka Amunothph III (um, more on him, along with his more well-known name, later), Mautmes was not only a real-life queen of Egypt, she also attained an element of legend, courtesy of her son (who wanted to get people to believe that the god Amon aka Amun, not Tuthmosis IV, was his father). Jesus mythicists claim to give the full myth and nothing but in both their books and sites.
And what, according to them, is the myth?
Among other things, they say thatâŚ
1. Despite being married to Tuthmosis IV, Mautmes was still a virgin (oddly, a claim they also make for Isis and Orisis, who were likewise married).
2. The god Thoth told Mautmes that she would soon become pregnant and have a son.
3. She was led by gods to kiss an Ankh or Crux Ansata (the Egyptian âcrossâ), which made her pregnant with Amunoph III aka Amunothph III.
4. That, after she gave birth, presents were given to her child.
 Wow, not only does a cross appear in the tale (Jesus is well known to have died on a cross), but the story overall sounds like a dead ringer for the biblical Christmas story, doesnât it? Heck, not only does Amunoph III get gifts like Christ (though Christ got his gifts up to two years after his birth, see Matthew 2:1-18), but both Mary and Mautmes names start out in English with an M!
Okay, give yourself several seconds to roll your eyes.
Finished?
Good!
I first learned of this âVirgin birth taleâ while reading the book âLike a Virginâ by Aarathi Prasad, which is about reproductive science. Among other things, the book showed what reproductive science will bring us in the future, including modern day virgin births (i.e. without even the need for sperm donations), artificial wombs (âBrave New Worldâ, anyone?) andâŚmale pregnancy.Â
Stop these mad scientists before itâs too late!!!Â
While most of the book was freaking awesome, pages 69-71 mention multiple âvirginâ birth stories found in world myth, including myths of certain historical figures (such as Ghengis Khan. Who knew?). The errors on those pages are legion, and have led to me writing some recent articles. Not everything on those pages are bogus (as mentioned in a previous article, Athena is kinda sorta a virgin mother), but they were nevertheless loaded with whoppers. Mautmesâ tale in this section of the book, and this led me to eventually commence an investigation into what her legend really entailed. Indeed, I eventually found a website (touregyt.net, a tourism company site. Full link will be in the sources section), which basically gave the same line, though going into more detail. Some modern Jesus Mythicist books push the same idea, as well as much older books (one of which was a non-fiction book written by the famous science fiction author H.G. Wells. Once againâŚwho knew?).
So, was Queen Mautmes really a virgin mother?
Was she the inspiration for the Biblical Mary?
UmâŚNOPE, and here is whyâŚ
 1. QUEEN, AND WE DONâT MEAN DAIRY!
 As I mentioned previously, Amunoph III wanted to re-write the story of his birth, making it to where Amun, not Tuthmosis IV, was his father. This alone indicates that the whole tale was a fabrication, but we need to delve into this fabrication further in order to see if it had any influence on the Biblical tale of the Virgin Mary.
As it turned outâŚit didnât.
One of the first things I discovered in my research is that Queen Mautmes is also known as Queen Mutemwiya/Mutemwia, while her son, Amunoph III aka Amunothph III is also known as Amenhotep III. I found this in both modern sources and several out-of-date books (including both that spouted the Jesus Mythicist party line. These sources are (unfortunately) found in the lower part of the sources section below). This was a shock to me, but not too much of one. After all, several ancient Egyptian historical figures were known by more than one name. Khufu, one of the most famous pharaohs, was also known as Cheops.
This, however, wasnât the biggest revelation.
Not by far. Â
When I read this account, I was reminded of a similar Jesus Mythicist fairy tale about Isis and her âvirgin bornâ son Horus. One of those similarities involved both tales supposedly being found carved on the walls of the ancient temple at Luxor, Egypt. Soon, I discovered that both tales are linked.
Why are they linked?
Because one was inspired, in modern times, by the other.
You see, that supposed mythical depiction on the Luxor temple that relates how Isis gave virgin birth to HorusâŚdoesnât exist. It never did. Indeed, as noted in several of my previous articles, Isis wasnât even a virgin mother, having had sex before she was even born and conceiving Horus by having sex with her husband Osiris. It seems that this modern virgin birth myth of Isis and Horus being found on the walls of Luxor was somehow derived from the real depictions of Mautmesâ legend at the temple of Luxor (and possibly one at the Temple of Karnak, which is also located at Luxor. More on the latter later). Whether it was due to mistranslation, a real-life telephone game or downright fake newsâŚthis Isis fiction is a twisting of whatâs really on the walls of the Luxor temple.
As we will see, the âvirgin birthâ tale of Mautmes and Amenoph III is likewise a twisting of whatâs really at the Luxor Temple.
 2. LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT THE BIRDS AND THE BEESâŚ
Despite what both Jesus Mythicists and out of date books indicate, the depiction at Luxor doesnât indicate that Amunoph/Amenothep was virgin born. Indeed, it indicates that Mautmes and the god Amun aka AmonâŚhad sex (repeat: SEX), which resulted in Amunoph IIIâs conception.
Repeat: SEX!!!!!!!
Now, one website showed an image of a relief at the Temple of Karnak (also located at Luxor) that depicts two gods flanking Mautmes, each handing her an ankh. Though it looks like she about to kiss one of the ankhs, there is nevertheless no evidence that this hieroglyphic is indicating a virgin birth, or that Mautmes was a virgin before the events of this hieroglyphic occurred. Plus, when I clicked on another link (found on the same website) that showed the image in greater detail, it indicated that the hieroglyphic...was found at the Luxor Temple, not the Karnak Temple. Thus, weâre back to square one.Â
Why both these 19th-early 20th century books and even some sources in the modern world (including the tourism site noted above) get it wrong is unknown. Perhaps this all leads back to a mistranslation, or perhaps fake news, similar to the Isis Luxor temple fiasco. Whatever the case, the myth of a virgin birth of Amenhotep was forged by the flaws of 19th-20th century AD scholarship. It is not in agreement with modern mainstream Egyptology.
And yet, itâs a modern myth that continues to be retold, just like other stupid Jesus Mythicist pipe dream fantasies.
Sometimes, old lies die hard.
 3. THE ANH AND THE CRUCIFIX
BTW: Letâs discuss that Crux Ansata or Ankh, shall we?
Now, as Aarathi Prasad correctly noted in her book (its otherwise an AWESOME book. I HIGHLY recommend it), the Ankh symbol refers to life. However, it did not attain its secondary moniker âCrux Ansataâ until the arrival of Christianity. Indeed, âCrux Ansataâ is what an Ankh is called when used as a Christian symbol, and it has been used as such since at least the 4rth century AD (the oldest known depiction of it as a Christian cross date back to roughly 300 AD). Thus, if there is an Ankh in the depictions of Mautmesâ myth at the Luxor Temple (which is far older than Christianity), it's not in reality a Crux Ansata. To call it such would be anachronistic. In ancient pre-pagan Egypt, the Ankh wasnât associated with crucifixion, which not only wasnât practiced by the Egyptians, but was originally a Persian practice that the Romans later adopted. Thus, even if the Ankh appears on those Luxor temple walls that has Mautmesâ myth, it would still not be a parallel with the cross of Christ or the cross as a Christian symbol. The only âconnectionsâ it has is similar shape, and the fact that it was later adopted as a form of the Christian cross (of which there are many. Keep in mind, once again the Luxor Temple far predates Christianity, being built over 3,000 years ago, with additions added during the reign of Ramses II in the 13th century BC and then during the reign of the Ptolemaic dynasty (305-30 BC). Part of it was later converted into a church (many Egyptian temples were turned into churches or had churches built within them). Indeed, the normal Latin cross, the cross that is the most well-known, was derived from the shape of crosses that were used for executions, not the Ankh. Â
 Thus, this dead-end argument needs to be put to rest.
Perhaps in a pyramid...
 Sources:
âThe Way To Eternity: Egyptian Mythâ by Fergus Fleming, Alan Lothian and Dr. Joann Fletcher (consultant), 31
 https://worldhistory.us/ancient-history/ancient-egypt/mutemwiya-and-the-divine-birth-of-amenhotep-iii.php
 https://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.php
 https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/07/19/no-the-christian-cross-is-not-based-on-the-egyptian-ankh/
 âThe Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythologyâ by Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm, 263
 âLike a Virgin: How Science is Redesigning the Rules of Sexâ by Aarathi Prasad, 69-71, 189-209, 215-17, 246-48, 256
 https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123966&page=1
 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Souvenirs_and_New_Ideas/CKWmAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Amunoph%2BAmenhotep&pg=PT129&printsec=frontcover
 https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Thousand_Miles_Up_the_Nile/2b_ECwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Amunoph%2BAmenhotep&pg=PA143&printsec=frontcover
 https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
 https://undsci.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=supernatural
 https://undsci.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=natural
 https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_matters
 https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/science_religion
 https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/natural
 https://www.britannica.com/place/Luxor
 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Khufu Â
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/khufu.shtml
 https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ptol/hd_ptol.htm#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20Ptolemaic%20Period%20(332%E2%80%93,395%E2%80%93421.
 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sacred_Worlds/tiuIAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Christians%2Bconverted%2BEgyptian%2Btemples%2Bchurches&pg=PA252&printsec=frontcover
https://www.roadunraveled.com/blog/luxor-karnak-egypt/
https://mathstat.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/Queen_Mutemwia.html
http://edoc3.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/lepsius/page/abt3/band5/image/03050740.jpg
http://edoc3.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/lepsius/page/abt3/band5/image/03050750.jpg
https://www.wmf.org/project/karnak-temple
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_History_of_Western_Architecture/39T1zElEBrQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Temple+of+Karnak+and+Luxor&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
âHistorical Dictionary of Medieval Nubiaâ by Richard A. Lobban JR, 102-03
 https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/627368980728905728/was-jesus-a-mythical-figure-based-on-the-egyptian
 https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/627443646901436416/was-mary-the-mother-of-jesus-based-on-the
 https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/627450822918291456/was-mary-the-mother-of-jesus-based-on-the
 http://www.touregypt.net/emac3.htm
 http://www.touregypt.net/aboutus.htm
 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sex_in_Religion/RdSzAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Mautmes%2BAmunoph&pg=PT281&printsec=frontcover
 https://books.google.com/books?id=JYoUdodflu4C&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=Mautmes%2BAmenhotep&source=bl&ots=bjYqbQ1jjE&sig=ACfU3U1ZrnpmJz90SFXbeVRUMVwkGYN7WQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9q4Gqq-_3AhVklmoFHUmdDbAQ6AF6BAg7EAM#v=onepage&q=Mautmes%2BAmenhotep&f=false

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Was the Virgin Mary a mythical figure derived from the Greek goddess Athena? Um, NO, and the Prophet Isaiah will show you why:
Jesus Mythicists are a pretty tenacious lot. No matte how much proof you show them that Jesus is both a historical figure and not derived from pagan gods, they continue to hold to their beliefs with an almost religious dedication. You can show them that the so-called parallels between Christ and so called pagan saviors are almost entirely bunk, you can show them that certain historical figures fit quite well in mythical archetypes (Ivan the Terrible fits the Devil Archetype, Alexander the Great fits the warrior archetype, Magellan fits the explorer archetype, etc.), and yet still existed, and that gorillas are in the same âhairy hominidâ as sasquatch and similar monsters the world over and yet still existâŚand they mostly wont accept the truth. You can even show them that the sinking of the Titanic was preceded 14 years earlier by the novella âFutility/Wreck of the Titanâ, whose fictional tale shares ACTUAL GOOD parallels with itâŚand they wonât give up their pseudohistorical fervor. Instead, they keep on making their faulty argument that Christ was a mythical figure rooted in paganism.
Just as they do with the Virgin Mary.
Jesus Mythicists will at times claim that Mary fits the mythical virgin birth archetype (a âcategoryâ that Iâll tackle in another article. BTW see the historical figures matching mythical archetypes above, notice how they fitâŚyet still exist). Indeed, some, if not all, will claim that the Virgin Mary was either partly or even fully derived from a particular mythical figure or deity. Some of these mythical figures are pretty odd choices, having almost nothing in common with Mary. Others are even worse.
Perhaps the oddest âcandidateâ is Athena.
The Greek goddess of war and wisdom, Athena is a virgin deity who was born bearing weapons and armor. Fighting in the Titanomachy (the War of the Titans), the Gigantomachy (serpent-legged giants) and in the Trojan War, Athena was considered quite a formidable deity.
But was she even more?
Was she actuallyâŚa virgin mother?
Was the Virgin Mary a mythical figure derived from her?
 Letâs take a gander at this pitiful Jesus Mythicist tactic, shall we?
 1. VIRGIN MARY AND ATHENA IN THE OCTAGON! AND HERE WE GO!
First, are there any parallels between the Virgin Mary and the goddess Athena?
Answer: only a few, and not very good ones:
 1. Both had unusual births (Athena was born out of Zeusâ forehead, while Mary, according to Catholic dogma, was born without a sinful nature; she didnât inherit the sinful nature of Adam at conception (The Immaculate Conception. BTW this is not taught in the Bible; its a tradition that was devised after the New Testament was written).Â
2. Both are female (eye roll moment). Â
3. Both from the Mediterranean region (Mary lived in Israel, Athena on Mount Olympus. Both Greece and Israel connected with the Mediterranean Sea).
4. Both were from the ancient world.
5. Both depicted as white in art (though Mary not only wasnât originally white, but sheâs also been depicted as Asian, Black, Native American, etc.
6. Both were prayed to.
7. Both miracle workers (though the Biblical Mary didnât perform miracles, extra-biblical tradition held that she had miraculous powers in the hereafter, and miracles involving the spirit of Mary have been reported).
8. If the Jesus Mythicists are correct, both are virgin mothers (more on this later).
9. Athena is a lifelong dedicated virgin: in Catholicism, Mary is a perpetual virgin (this idea arose in the second century, decades after the New Testament was written. Its not found in the Bible).Â
10. Both depicted as warriors bearing weapons (Mary is sometimes depicted as bearing weaponry in art, but not most of the time. Sheâs not depicted as bearing weapons in the New Testament).Â
11. Both embodiments of wisdom (Catholics link Mary to the feminine personifications of Holy Wisdom (called âSophiaâ) found in both Old Testament (Proverbs 8) and the Old Testament apocrypha (Sirach 1:9). Mary was not linked to such in the New Testament, the idea arises after the New Testament was written. Athena is the goddess of wisdom as well as war).
12. Both said to have defended cities from invading armies, driving the invaders away (once again, Mary is not said to have done this in the New Testament: these supposed military actions of Mary occurred long after the New Testament was written).
13. If Jesus Mythicists are correct, both their sonâs virgin births were unusual in other ways (More on Athenaâs son later. Jesus birth was heralded by an angelic proclamation, which led the shepherds to find the holy family. In some extra-biblical literature, Mary is depicted as giving birth to Christ without feeling Labor Pain, or "giving birthâ by means of supernatural teleportation (i.e. Jesus being seemingly teleported out of her womb. In one account, this teleportation was accompanied by a great light. This teleportation is to explain the extra-biblical belief that Maryâs hymen was intact despite giving birth to Jesus. Keep in mind that these extrabiblical tales, by definition, are not in the Bible (and even contradict it).Â
14. Athena is immortal. According to Catholic dogma, after she died, Maryâs body was taken up to heaven and reunited with her soul, thus resurrecting in a new immortal body (The Assumption of Mary. Once again, this doctrine is not taught in the New Testament: it arose after the Bible was written).
15. Both are mediators (In Sophoclesâ ancient play âAjaxâ, Athena is mediator between her fellow gods and humans. In Catholic dogma, Mary is the mediator between Jesus and Christians).Â
Repeat: 15 parallels (one source claims that there are countless others...without providing evidence. More on this later). Sounds impressive...yet many of these âparallelsâ are so broad as to be downright hilarious. Both female, for crying out loud? Both from the Mediterranean region (how many gods and heroes, including heroes of faith, were known from that region? Countless!)? Both from the ancient world (ancient world was of course loaded with such)? Both Miracle workers (many gods and human miracle workers were noted in the ancient world, big deal. Plus, in the Bible, Mary isnât a miracle worker). Both depicted as white in art? So are most biblical and all figures of Greek, Roman, Norse and Celtic mythology. Both prayed to? Though Mary is prayed to by Catholics, they donât see her as a goddess, let alone pray to her as if she is one. Athena, on the other hand, was a pagan deity whom ancient Greeks prayed to as a goddess.Â
However, the virgin motherhood, perpetual virginity, military imagery, defending cities, being embodiments of wisdom, their mediative duties, their unusual births, the unusual births of their sons and immortality are striking, to say the least. However, youâll notice that out of all of these parallels, all but two originate long after the New Testament was written. The Bible doesnât indicate that Mary fought in battles and bore weapons, saved cities, was extremely wise or stayed a virgin her whole life. Indeed, she had other children ( Matthew 12:46-50, 13:55-56; Mark 3:31, 6:3; Luke 8:19; John 2:12, 7:3; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5, Galatians 1:19), which debunks the dogma of perpetual virginity. The birth of Jesus was far out, but not as far out as later extra-biblical texts indicate (and any birth of a deity, or one involving a deity, would be highly unusual anyway, big deal. Course, that parallel rests on the assertion that Athena was a mother. Was she? Keep reading...). Yes, the Bible teaches that, in the future, Christians, both dead and alive, will be caught up in a rapture, attaining immortal bodies (1 Cor 15:50-55)...but nowhere in the Bible does it state that Mary underwent this; her transformation, like ours, is likewise future. And when it comes to Mary being a mediator/intercessor: though some Catholics cite the story of the wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1-12) as prooftext for this doctrine...Mary isnât praying to Jesus at the feast: sheâs simply talking to him. True, its implied in the biblical story that Mary wants Jesus to perform a miracle (in this case, miraculously make more wine), but nevertheless, this isnât a prayer, only an implied request, talking in the manner that most people do when conversing with each other. Otherwise, weâd have to conclude that everyone who spoke to Jesus in the New Testament, including Caiaphas the High Priest (who successfully plotted Jesusâ death) and Pontius Pilate (a pagan), prayed to Jesus as well! To say that this passage indicates that Mary is an intercessor between Christ and man is an unbelievable stretch.Â
The truth is, this doctrine also postdates the New Testament (seeing a pattern?).Â
Not very good parallels. Now, to be fair, you might be able to force some more âparallelsâ, but theyâd be just as strained (just like most of the âparallelsâ between Jesus and certain pagan âChristsâ). The only way some of the above parallels start to connect is if we compare Athena to Mary as she was later viewed in Catholic dogma, not as she is depicted in the Bible.
And this is a vital clue as to what might be going on here.Â
While parallels, in and of themselves, mean nothing (as Iâve shown in other articles that debunk Jesus Mythicist claims), when you combine them with the fact that several temples to Athena were built on lands that later held churches honoring Mary (with at least one such church built over the site of a temple to Athena), and the long history of religious syncretism in both the ancient world and the church (Paul identified the Unknown God of Athens with Yahweh in Acts 17:23) one could easily conclude that, instead of Athena being the origin of the Virgin Mary, her myth influenced how Christians viewed the Virgin Mary. One can easily imagine that the early church, faced with popularity of Athena aka Minerva, might have started to depict Mary as a ânewâ Athena, a new (yet not divine) religious female role model, in order to lure pagans from Athena (Just as pagans most likely added aspects of Mary to Hera and tried to lure Christians away from Christ as a result). After all, the oldest depictions of Jesus (i.e. the oldest made by Christians themselves, which depict Jesus as having shorter hair and being clean shaven) heavily borrow from depictions of pagan deities and heroes (Apollo, Hermes, Orpheus, etc). Indeed, the later depiction of Jesus as having long hair, beard and mustache was derived from the way pagan Romans depicted most of their top male deities, such as Jupiter. In this regard, we could see aspects of Athena, including her perpetual virginity, passing on to Mary as a result.Â
There is also the fact that some of these dogmas about Mary were originally found...in ancient Gnostic texts. Though the early church abhorred gnostic teachings, the Gnostics nevertheless seem to have had an influence on it.Â
However, when it comes to comparing Athena to the biblical Mary, the only parallel thatâs interesting, if true, is the idea that they are both Virgin mothers. If this is the case, it would be fascinatingâŚbut still wouldnât help the Jesus Mythicist case (Just 1 good parallel? Big whoop!).Â
Nevertheless, before we engage with Athenaâs myth, letâs go over the ways that Mary (as depicted in the Bible) and Athena actually differ:
 1. Mary is from a monotheistic background: Athena is from a Polytheistic background.
2. Mary is Jewish. Athena is a goddess of the Greeks.
3. Mary is human, Athena is a deity.
4. Mary was mortal, Athena immortal.
5. Mary, like any other human, was born like every other baby: naked and an infant. Athena was born as a full-fledged adult, bearing armor and weapons.
6. Despite both being rendered as white, they are otherwise depicted quite differently in art. Â
7. Athena never married and had sex: Though originally a virgin, Mary had sex with her husband Joseph after Jesus was born, having several more sons and daughters as a result (Matthew 1:24-25, 12:46-50. Remember, the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin is extrabiblical tradition that post-dates the New Testament by decades).
8. Mary wasnât a warrior, let alone a veteran. Athena was.
9. Mary didnât seek worshippers. Athena did.
10. Mary didnât compete with Poseidon to win the worship of Athens. Athena did.
11. There is not indication that Maryâs father ate her mother. Zeus swallowed Metis, Athenaâs mother, whole.
12. Mary, like any other human, was born of a woman in the normal way: Athena was born out of Zeusâ forehead (Zeus ate Metis while she was pregnant with Athena. She eventually emerged from Zeusâ forehead. Once again, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception didnât arise till some time after the New Testament was written. Its not biblical). Â
13. Mary aged. Athena does not.
14. Both wear different clothing.
15. Mary is never depicted in the Bible as having weapons. Athena has a spear and shield.
16. Ancient Greek religion, of which Athena was a major part of, eventually passed into history: Christianity, of which Mary is amongst its greatest heroes of faith, thrives today.
 Need I really go on?
Even if Athena turns out to be a virgin mother (I promise, more on that later), it still wouldnât change the fact that sheâs about a similar to the biblical MaryâŚas Marvin the Martian is similar to Alexis Bledel!!!!!!!!
Well, come to think of it, both Alexis Bledel and Marvin the Martian speak English, both originated in America (Looney Tunes, of which Marvin the Martian was on, was made by Warner Brothers, an American company. The late Chuck Jones, who invented Marvin the Martian and several other Looney Tunes characters, was an American. Alexis Bledel was born in America), both have been on TV, both have elicited laughter (the former on âGilmore Girlsâ, the latter on Looney Tunes), both have fans, both are connected to warner Brothers (Both Looney Tunes and âGilmore Girlsâ (the latter Starring Alexis Bledel) were produced by Warner Brothers), both are soft spoken, both wear skirts, and last but not least (eye roll) their first names each consist of six letters!
 Maybe thereâs a connectionâŚLOL!
See how stupid that flow of logic is?
And yet, Jesus Mythicists will go down that illogical road when it comes to Mary (as well as Christ).
Now, some Jesus Mythicists will change tactics, trying to argue that the myth of the virgin birth of Athenaâs âoffspringâ (more on him later) simply inspired the biblical tale of Christâs virgin birth, without going so far as to say that Mary herself was derived from Athena. They do this in order to sneak around the obvious mountains of differences between Athena and Mary. Â
ButâŚwas Athena really a virgin mother?
Prepare to be shocked.
In some versions of her mythâŚshe actually was a virgin mother!
TechnicallyâŚ
2. LAW & ORDER: DVU (DIVINE VICTIMS UNIT).
According to Greek myth, Hephaestus, the Greek god of forges and fire, had the hots for Athena (no pun intended). Athena, howeverâŚdidnât have the hots for him. Even if she had, she was a dedicated virgin. Hephaestus still wanted to get it on with Athena, though, and eventually tried to do so. Athena fled, but eventually Hephaestus caught up with her. Driven by a bestial lust, he attempted to rape the goddess.
Can you say âbad moveâ?
Athena is a goddess of war and wisdom.
Repeat: WAR and wisdom!
Guess how it turned out for little old Hephaestus?
She kicked his butt, and he never got to have sex with her.
However, some of his sperm fell onto her leg.
EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!
Grossed out, Athena took some wool, dried the semen off, and threw it away. It landed on the ground, whereâŚit eventually turnedâŚinto a baby named Erichthonius. In some depictions, he looked like a normal infant, but in others, he was half snake, half man. Athena made sure that he was well cared for, and eventually, he went on to become the King of Athens, which just happened to be named after Athena (she was also its patron goddess, due to winning a contest where she competed against Poseidon for the worship of its people).
NowâŚthis myth doesnât state that Athena had sex, let alone got pregnant. Indeed, she merely wiped semen off her leg and threw it away. If a woman wiped some guyâs semen off her leg with a rag, threw the rag on the ground and saw a half human, half snake erupts from itâŚshe wouldnât think of herself as its mother; sheâd probably either run to her vehicle and try to drive off-all the while hoping that its engine wonât fail to start like you see in many horror flicks-or get any available weapon and try to kill it!Â
Nevertheless, Athena was a goddess, and it doesnât take much to imagine from her myth that, when the semen got on her leg, some of her divine essence went into it. Thus, she became Erichthoniusâ âmotherâ. However, Greek mythology is often far from consistent: not only does Erichthoniusâ myths get swapped at times with those of a mortal named Erechtheus (as happens in Homerâs Iliad), and not only does Athena, in one version of this myth, simply vanish instead of fighting Hephaestus off, thus avoiding being touched by his semen, but while some ancient Greek sources indicate that Athena is Erichthoniusâ mother, others indicate that Gaia, the primordial Greek earth goddess was his mother. Its not hard to understand the latter idea: after all, Gaia was not just merely an earth goddess, but the personification of the earth, and Hephaestusâ semen fell on the earth. However, one could reconcile these myths, to where both Athena and Gaia are Erichthoniusâ mothers. After all, Theseus, the slayer of the Minotaur, had one mother and two fathers, one of the latter being Poseidon. Why couldnât the ancients think the same thing about Erichthonius? Why couldnât he have two mothers and a father? Along with this, considering that Gaia was the earth personified, and in the myth, Hephaestusâ semen hits the earth, where Erichthonius springs up from, it was a given in the myth that Gaia was also is mother. Thus, this Greek myth should always be understood as indicating that Erichthonius had two mothers, Gaia and Athena (keep in mind, while Athena never had sex, Gaia did). However, there is another version of the myth where Hephaestus sires Erichthonius by Atthis, a mortal woman. There is no hint of a sexless conception in this version of the myth.Â
Interesting differences for sure.
The differences build up when you look at the Roman version of this myth.
Vulcan, the Roman equivalent of Hephaestus, had built thrones for the gods, ones made out of Adamant and gold. While most of these were simply spiffy throneâs, Juno, the Roman equivalent of Hera, discovered that hers was a trap: the moment she sat in it, she found herself both levitating and incapable of getting off the throne. Vulcan refused to get her out at first (if Hera/Juno threw you off Olympus, you might be a tad angry at her too), but after he was allowed to move back to Olympus, and after Liber aka Bacchus, the Roman equivalent of Dionysus, got him seriously drunk, he relented. Zeus wanted to give him a reward.
What did Vulcan ask for?
The hand of Minerva, the Roman equivalent of Athena, in marriage.
Vulcan thought he had it made, thought that he was about to savor Minerva. Minerva, however, had other ideas, and when he tried to make love to her, she fought him off. During this clash, Vulcanâs semen fell to the earth, which gave rise to Erichthonius.Â
In this version of the myth, Vulcanâs semen didnât touch Minerva, and thus nothing of her passed on to it. Sheâs therefore isnât his biological mother in any way shape or fashion (though she still treated him like a son). Considering that the earth once again gives birth to Erichthonius, one can easily conclude that therefore Tallus or Terra, the Roman equivalent of Gaia, is his mother. However, Ovid, the ancient Roman poet, stated that Erichthonius had no mother, while Cicero, the ancient Roman writer, states that Minerva was indeed his mother (which hints that there was another Roman version of the myth where Vulcanâs semen touched her). Along with this, according to âThe Life of Apollonius of Tyana â (which, contrary to some sources, was written some time in the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD, not the 1rst century (Philostratus was born in the late 2nd century), not only did Domitian, a Roman emperor who reigned in the late 1rst century AD, claim to be the son of Athena (his real mother was Flavia Domitilla Major, a normal human woman), but that Athena, though a virgin, âbore a Drakon [Erikhthonios] to the Athenians.â (see Life of Apollonius 7. 24). However, none of these rules out the possibility that at least some Romans would have considered Tallus to be either his mother or one of his mothers (When âLife of Apollonius of Tyanaâ states that Athena âboreâ Erichthonius, it could simply be indicating that she was one of his mothers, without necessarily indicating that she gave birth to him. Indeed, as already mentioned, In Philostratusâ book, Domitian claimed to be the son of Athena, even though a mortal woman gave birth to him, and Apollonius is comparing Domitianâs claim to be Athenaâs son to Erichthonius being Athenaâs son. This comparison is far more apt when the full myth, including Erichthonius being conceived by Athena and born by Gaia the Earth, is taken into consideration. Plus, keep in mind that âLife of Apolloniusâ though somewhat a biography of the 1rst century miracle worker Apollonius, is filled with anachronisms and other errors. Also, scholars conclude that its likely that Philostratus borrowed from Christianity in order to enrichen his work on Apollonius (the New Testament was written in the 1rst century AD). If Philostratus was actually intending to mean that the virgin goddess Athena was both pregnant with and gave birth to Erichthonius, then its likely that he borrowed this idea from the Gospel accounts of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Christ. Keep in mind, there is no ancient text, let alone one that predates Christianity, that indicates that Athena became pregnant and gave birth). Indeed, aside from Ovidâs take on the myth, it should otherwise be a given that Tallus/Terra is his mother, due to the fact that, like Gaia, she is the earth personified. Vulcanâs seed fell on Tallus aka the earth, and from that union of divine seed and soil, Erichthonius sprang. Thus, Tallus/Terra, both goddess and earth personified, gave birth to him.Â
Like many Greco-Roman myths, this one has several versions, yet in most, it seems that Athena/Minerva displays maternal instinct to Erichthonius, even raising him in some versions of the myth. Thus, in some of these, she is a virgin stepmother. However, there is not getting around the fact that, in some versions of the myth of Erichthonius, Athena/Minerva is one of his mothers. Â
Now, considering that this myth predates the New Testament by at least centuries, should we therefore conclude that the story of Christâs virgin birth was derived from that of Erichthoniusâ virgin birth?
UmâŚNO.
For one, in most versions of this myth, its obvious that Gaia, the Roman Tallus, is also Erichthoniusâ mother. Not only that, but Gaia is the one who gave birth to him. Keep in mind, Gaia/Tallus both had sex and gave birth to multiple offspring long before this event. Though Athena and Hephaestus did âconceiveâ him, Gaia was âpregnantâ with him and delivered him. Thus, while we can say that he was virgin conceived, he wasnât virgin born. Even if the earth is simply just referring to the planet without any divine personification (as Ovid oddly seems to do), we canât really call it a virgin birth then (virgin is never defined as an object thatâs never had sex. Check dictionaries). Its as eat-up-with-the-dumb as calling Mithras âvirgin bornâ because he was born out of a rock!
Keep this in mind, as we continue...
Also, Christianity was originally a Jewish sect. The earliest Christians didnât see their movement as a new religion, but simply a branch of Judaism. Jesus himself was a Jewish rabbi. Now, given all of this, we need to ask a serious question: why are people trying to claim that the Christian story of the Virgin birth was derived from PaganismâŚwhile Ignoring the Virgin birth prophecy (repeat: prophecy) of Isaiah chapter 7?
The Prophet Isaiah wrote the biblical book that bears his name in the 8th century BC. Isaiah himself gives the time frame when he wrote from the time of Uzziah to Hezekiah, which occurred during that time. Although many scholars believe that chapters 40-66 were written by later authors, even if there were no good reasons to object to their belief (and as it so happens, there are), that still means that Isaiah 1-39 were the works of Isaiah the Prophet, and thus date back to the 8th century BC.
Repeat: 8th century BC!
Why is this important?
Because the prophecy of the virgin birth occurs in IsaiahâŚchapterâŚ7!
Letâs take a look at Isaiah 7:10-14, shall we?
 âAgain the Lord spoke to Ahaz: âAsk a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.â But Ahaz said, âI will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.â  And he said, âHear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.â (Emphasis mine).
Now, some may object, saying that âAlmahâ, the Hebrew word translated as virgin in the passage, doesnât mean virgin, but a young maiden. Indeed, some will argue that âbetulahâ would have been used if Isaiah was intended to refer to a virgin here. However, though Almah doesnât normally refer to virgin, it CAN refer virgins (the same actually goes for Betulah as well).
Donât take my word for it.
Take King Solomonâs.
He calls some virgins âalamotâ (plural for Almah) in the following, where he is praising his great love:
 âYou are beautiful as Tirzah, my love,
  lovely as Jerusalem,
  awesome as an army with banners.
Turn away your eyes from me,
  for they overwhelm meâ
Your hair is like a flock of goats
  leaping down the slopes of Gilead.
Your teeth are like a flock of ewes
  that have come up from the washing;
all of them bear twins;
  not one among them has lost its young.
Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate
  behind your veil.
There are sixty queens and eighty concubines,
  and virgins without number.â (emphasis mine).
Song of Solomon 6:4-8.
 âAlamotâ is translated in Song of Solomon 6:8 as âvirginsâ in some modern bibles, including the ESV and NIV (though its translated as âmaidensâ or âyoung womenâ in others). Specifically, these âalamotâ are contrasted with both âqueensâ and concubines in this passage. If you look closely, youâll see that these alamot are specifically palace virgins. This refers to the three-tiered harem system of the ancient near east. The âqueensâ were the top members of the harem, the most favored. Indeed, their sons could potentially succeed the King after he dies. Concubines come second, their sons unable to claim an inheritance unless their kingly father allows it. At the bottom were the maidens, girls who either simply hadnât given birth yetâŚor to actual virgins, who hadnât yet slept with the king. In some harems, the third tier was structured differently, with the lowest tier being composed only of virgins, the second concubines and the top tier âqueensâ, as seen in Esther chapter 2.
Now, some may object, noting that the maidens of the third tier included those who had sex and yet hadnât had offspring yet, and thus, the âalmahsâ of Solomon 6:8 are not virgins. However, the third tier need not be mutually exclusive: it can include both those who hadnât born the king children yet, and to virgins. Thus, its still indicative that âAlmahâ can in some cases refer to virgins. Others will object, saying that in the next version, Solomon refers to his love, the object of his desire in Song of Solomon, as âMy dove, my perfect one, is the only one, the only one of her mother, pure to her who bore her.â Thus, she is âpureâ as opposed to those âvirginsâ in the next chapter and thus, âvirginsâ isnât a good translation of âAlmahâ in that passage. However, if virginity was being referred to in verse 9, why is it that it doesnât state that she is âpure to her belovedâ or simply âpureâ, instead of âpure to her motherâ? Plus, some modern bible translations donât even use the word âpureâ. Indeed, some indicate that she is the favorite or perfect child of her mother. Indeed, some even indicate that she is the only daughter that her mother has. Thus, âpureâ could simply be the way her mother sees her. Indeed, the passage, as translated in the ESV and several other modern translations, note that Solomonâs love is pure to her mother, not pure to anyone else. The wording should not be seen as indicative that, out of all the women mentioned in Song of Solomon chapter 6, that only Solomonâs love is a virgin. Plus, where is the evidence that the Israelites never, ever had virgins in their royal harems? Thus, the fact that Solomon 6:8 uses Alamot, the plural of Almah, to refer to virgins is still sound.
Along with this, âAlmahâ is used of Rebekah, Isaacâs future wife, in Genesis 24:43 (translated as âmaidenâ here in the NIV and âvirginâ here in the ESV).
Why is this important?
Because sheâs stated to be a âmaiden whom no man had knownâ in verse 16 of the same chapter!
Indeed, âBetulahâ is used of her in verse 16 as well (translated as âvirginâ in the NIV and âmaidenâ in the ESV. Once again, keep in mind that Betulah doesnât mean virgin unless the context is indicative of such, something that objectors forget)!
Along with this, Almah specifically denotes a girl whoâs coming into puberty. Itâs a known fact that girls donât start having periods when they first enter puberty. Indeed, it can be on average two years before that happens. girls cannot get pregnant until about 2 weeks before they have their first periods. In ancient Jewish culture, girls could be betrothed at a young age, and yet wedding plans werenât kicked into high gearâŚuntil the girl had her first period. Though this was most likely to occur at about 13-14 years old, considering that the legal age of marriage for girls at the time was 12, sometimes a girlsâ entrance into puberty, and her subsequent first period, occurred a bit earlier. Â
Almahs were expected to be virgins in ancient Israel.
Thus, we can conclude that the passage is indeed indicating a virgin birth.
Letâs keep in mind, Isaiah 7:14 (the very passage that mentions a future virgin birth) is quoted in Matthew 1:23.
What came before Matthew 1:23?
The discovery of Maryâs virgin conception (Matthew 1:18-21).
Now, which is more similar to the story of the virgin birth of Christ: a prophecy foretelling that a virgin would both conceive and give birth to a son...or a myth were Hephaestusâ seed fell on Athenaâs lap, she wipes it off with wool and drops both to the earth, i.e. Gaia (who is no virgin), where she gives birth to a half human, half serpent?Â
See what happens when you actually consider Christianityâs Jewish context?
 Folks, the story of Christâs virgin birth wasnât inspired or borrowed from Athenaâs myth.
Itâs a real-life fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Â
 Sources:Â
https://www.thecollector.com/virgin-mary-athena/Â
https://cac.org/daily-meditations/sophia-wisdom-of-god-2017-11-07/#:~:text=In%20these%2C%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20wisdom%20of,8%3A22%2D31). Â
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Immaculate-Conception-Roman-CatholicismÂ
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Assumption-Christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6pucfGK444&t=15sÂ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q41551NTPCA&t=43s Â
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/684245619073826816/was-the-virgin-mary-a-mythical-figure-derived-from Â
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/03/29/what-did-jesus-really-look-like/Â
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DUekrCnye8Â Â
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Greek_Gods_Goddesses_4_In_1/V9G4EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Athena%2BGoddess%2BMediator&pg=PT361&printsec=frontcoverÂ
https://classics.mit.edu/Sophocles/ajax.html
https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2014/09/13/jungian-archetypes-and-historical-leaders/#:~:text=There%20are%20of%20course%2C%20too,Devil%20(Wedgeworth%2C%202009).
https://apologeticspress.org/does-mary-intercede-for-christians-2676/
âHomer: The Iliadâ, Translated by Robert Fagles, 117, 503-519 (especially 510), 533-34, Â
âApollodorusâ Library and Hyginusâ Fabulae: Two Handbooks of Greek Mythologyâ Translated, with Introductions, by R. Scott Smith and Stephanie M. Trzaskoma, 68, 152-53
âTitans & Olympians: Greek and Roman Mythâ by Tony Allan, Sarah Maitland and Dr. Michael Trapp (consultant), 70-72
âThe Penguin Dictionary of Classical Mythologyâ by Pierre Grimal, 66-67, 128, 139-40, 180-81,
âThe Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythologyâ by Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm, 27, 39, 48-49, 64
âClash of the Godsâ Minotaur episode.Â
âIVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testamentâ by John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark Chavalas, 579
âThe Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Traditionâ by Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, 151-54
âThe Portable Seminary: A Masterâs Level Overview In One Volumeâ by David Horton (General editor), 281
âZondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance, 2nd Editionâ by Edward w. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, 718, 1210, 1382, 1466
âArcheological Study Bible (NIV), 1051, 1055Â
âCan Archeology Prove The New Testamentâ by Ralph O. Muncaster, 32
âThe Roman Catholic Controversyâ by James White, 211-4
âThe Fast Facts on Roman Catholicismâ by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, 49-54
âThe West: Encounter And Transformations (Concise Edition)â, by Brian Levack, Edward Muir, Michael Maas and Meredith Veldman, 111
âHistorical Atlas: A Comprehensive History Of The Worldâ, by Dr. Geoffery Wawro (chief consultant), 84
âIn the Footsteps of Jesusâ (A National Geographic Book) by Jean-Pierre Isbouts, 86-87, 90, 115
âNelsonâs Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Bibleâ edited by John Drane, 96
âAnswering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume Three: Messianic Prophecy Objectionsâ by Michael L. Brown, 17-31
âMiracles of Mary: Apparitions, Legends, and Miraculous Works of the Blessed Virgin Maryâ by Michael S. Durham.
https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/m/marian-prayer-reasons-why.php#:~:text=Catholics%20do%20not%20pray%20to,half%20of%20the%20Hail%20Mary).
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Greek_and_Roman_Mytholog/tOgWfjNIxoMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Erichthonius%2BAthena%2BGaia&pg=PT170&printsec=frontcover Â
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Greek_and_Roman_Mytholog/tOgWfjNIxoMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Erichtonius%2BAthena&pg=PT103&printsec=frontcover
https://homer.chs.harvard.edu/read/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0525.tlg001.perseus-eng2:1.18.2-1.22.2
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Erechtheus-Greek-mythology
https://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias1A.html
https://www.theoi.com/Text/VirgilGeorgics2.html
https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/AthenaMyths.html
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Eur.%20Ion%201002&lang=original
https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/VirgilGeorgicsIII.php#anchor_Toc534252740
https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Mortals/Erichthonius/erichthonius.html Â
https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Mortals/Erechtheus/erechtheus.html
https://www.google.com/books/edition/DK_Eyewitness_Top_10_Athens/FfanDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Erichtonius%2BAthena&pg=PT127&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Companion_to_Greek_Religion/yOQtHNJJU9UC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Erichtonius%2BAthena&pg=PA227&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Heroes_and_Heroines_of_Greece_and_Rome_R/CB1fEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Erichtonius%2BAthena&pg=PA99&printsec=frontcover Â
https://www.worldhistory.org/athena/
https://www.worldhistory.org/Cicero/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI15ExvNzvM&list=LL&index=25&t=1s
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puLgX-zp0_c&list=LL&index=27
https://biblehub.com/parallel/songs/6-8.htm
https://biblehub.com/parallel/songs/6-9.htm
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Warner-Brothers
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Looney-Tunes
https://screenrant.com/looney-tunes-funniest-ways-marvin-martian-tried-blow-up-earth/
https://looneytunes.fandom.com/wiki/Marvin_the_Martian
https://looneytunes.fandom.com/wiki/Chuck_Jones
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0088127/Â
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/628113211750776832/do-supposed-parallels-between-the-gospels-andÂ
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/628111397046370304/is-jesus-one-of-the-dying-and-rising-gods-andÂ
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Horace_s_Odes_and_Carmen_Saeculare/NIwvEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Terra+earth+personified&pg=PA427&printsec=frontcoverÂ
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/philostratus-life-of-apollonius/
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Flavius-PhilostratusÂ
https://www.worldhistory.org/domitian/
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/627545088930775040/was-jesus-a-copy-of-the-paganÂ
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/virginÂ
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virgin Â
https://www.tumblr.com/sirtravisjacksonoftexas/736744949691908096/marvin-the-martian-and-alexis-bledel-the?source=share
Nuclear Bombs and Apples: Parallelomania For Fun!
1. Both are solids.
2. Both contain energy (apples have chemical energy, nuclear bombs have nuclear energy).
3. Both are different on the outside than the inside.
4. Both have a core.
5. Apples, are products of human selective breeding. Nuclear bombs are the products of human construction.
6. Some people fear apples (Malusdomesticaphobia). Some people fear nuclear bombs.
7. Apples are often oblong or roundish. There have been nuclear bombs that have been oblong or roundish.
8. Apples have tiny seeds within them that can become 30 feet tall apple trees. Nuclear bombs have small pieces of radioactive materials in them that can cause massive nuclear explosions.
9. Both have names that start with the letter A (some nuclear bombs are called âAtom bombsâ).Â
10. Some people can die from apples due to being allergic to them. People can die from nuclear bombs.
11. Some people have thought that the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate in the Garden of Eden, the fruit that contaminated them with sin, was an apple. Nuclear bombs can contaminate people with radiation. Â
  Sources:
 https://southfloridareporter.com/the-fear-of-apples-is-known-as-malusdomesticaphobia-25-more-facts/
https://web.whoi.edu/big/fall-fun-apple-history-and-breeding/
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy
https://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
https://www.historynet.com/americas-atomic-bombs-destroyers-of-worlds/
https://historicsites.nc.gov/all-sites/horne-creek-farm/apples/apple-index/apple-shapes#:~:text=When%20viewing%20an%20apple%20from,described%20as%20ribbed%20or%20lobed.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Convenient_Spy/THOhwxvPrT0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Nuclear%2Bbombs%2BOblong&pg=PA39&printsec=frontcover
https://www.livescience.com/what-was-forbidden-fruit-in-eden.html Â
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/04/30/526069512/paradise-lost-how-the-apple-became-the-forbidden-fruit
https://www.healthline.com/health/allergies/apple-allergy
https://www.healthline.com/health/anaphylaxis
https://www.homedepot.com/c/ah/how-to-grow-apples/9ba683603be9fa5395fab901f33a6977#:~:text=Standard%20or%20full%2Dsized%20trees,apples%20in%20about%20three%20years.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/properties-of-solids-lesson-for-kids.html#:~:text=A%20solid%20is%20a%20material,one%20example%20of%20a%20solid. Â
https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196220/fat-man-atomic-bomb/
Genesis Chapter 3
Was the Virgin Mary a Mythical Figure Derived From the Greek Goddess Hera? Um, NO, and Here is Why:
Hera, the Queen of the Greek Gods, is both a sympathetic character and aâŚwell, letâs face it, a schmuck. Sheâs sympathetic, due to the fact that Zeus routinely cheats on her, siring multiple gods and demigods. This of course ticked her off, so much so that she eventually had Zeus chained up while he slept. Though Zeus was incapable of breaking those chains, the Hecatonchires, hundred handed-fifty headed giants of the Underworld, snapped them for him. After hanging from the sky by a chain for a while, Hera got the message: donât try to dethrone Zeus again. Thus, she continued to suffer while Zeus slept around.
However, there was one other way that she could get back at him.
Though she couldnât really wupp Zeus, she could get after both his lovers (which to be fair is understandable) and their offspring (which isnât). Herakles aka Hercules, was one such target. Sheâs was basically to him what Lex Luthor is to Superman and Joker is to Batman.Â
Duels with monsters, dangerous quests, days-long births and numerous deaths ensued, thanks to her jealous wrath.
Like I said, schmuck.
There are other things she can be called: Vengeful, cunning, supervillain (once again, compare her vengeful acts on Hercules to those a supervillain would do to a superhero in comic books), longsuffering and bitter.
But can we call her âvirgin motherâ?
Was Hera a virgin who conceived children without need of sex?
Some Jesus Mythicists will no doubt try to argue this, saying that she was the inspiration for the biblical story of the virgin birth of Christ. Indeed, some might also claim that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a purely mythical figure derived from Hera.
But was she a virgin mother?
Was Mary of Nazareth derived from her?
Letâs investigate this, shall we?
 1. MARY AND HERA GO BOWLING!
There is really almost no need to make a comparison between these two; they are about as similar as apples and atom bombs.Â
To be fair, if you work hard enough, you can come up with 11 parallels between the above...but the parallels (some better than others) donât change the fact that apples and nuclear bombs are EXTREMELY different.
Mary and Hera share even less parallels.Â
Keep in mind, parallels in and of themselves means nothing without an actual link that connects the two.Â
Letâs first see how they compare in differences, shall we?Â
1. Mary was a peasant girl of the 1rst century AD. Hera is a goddess.
2. Mary was Jewish, while Hera is a goddess of the Greeks.Â
3. The former is from a monotheistic background, the latter polytheistic.Â
4. Mary wasnât immortal (her spirit lived on after her death, but she did die), while Hera is immortal.
5. Mary aged, Hera does not.
6. Mary is not shown to have a temper, while Hera has a serious one.Â
7. Joseph, Maryâs husband, is not shown to be a philanderer. Indeed, we have no evidence that he was. Canât say the same for Heraâs hubby Zeus.Â
8. Both are depicted quite differently in art.Â
9. Mary is human, Hera is a goddess.Â
10. Mary didnât kill anyone, while Hera did.Â
Do we really need to continue?Â
Of course we do.
Now, letâs look at their parallels:
1. Both are female (Big wupp).Â
2. Both are from the ancient world (though Hera, in her myths, is technically from the prehistoric world, though she was thought to live in the ancient one as well. Plus, many goddesses and heroes of faith were noted in the ancient world, big deal). Â
3. Both are from the Mediterranean region (so are countless goddesses and heroes of faith, big deal)Â
4. Both receive prayers (Mary does in the Catholic tradition, not in the Protestant. She never receives prayers in the Bible).Â
5. Both perform miracles (though this isnât the case for the Biblical Mary. The idea of her working miracles from the afterlife is a later extrabiblical tradition, one that not all Christians keep)Â
6. Both are depicted as white (even though Mary herself wasnât white, being a 1rst century Levantine Jew. The same thing is done to Jesus).Â
7. Both gave birth to gods (As if that wasnât a common story in the ancient world!).Â
8. To be mentioned shortly...
The first seven parallels are exceptionally broad, pointless and or shaky.Â
Keep in mind, Alexander the Great and Achilles have at least 30 parallels, and no one seriously argues that Alexander the Great is a mythical figure derived from Achilles!Â
Course, there is that unmentioned 8th parallel: the fact that both Mary and Hera were known to have produced offspring without having sex. Â
However, as we will soon see, this doesnât mean that Hera is a true virgin mother, or that her offspring sired without sex are, in the biblical sense, virgin bornâŚÂ
2. NO FATHER? NO PROBLEM!
Before Zeus married Hera, he married the titan Metis. Indeed, some time after the nuptials, he got her pregnant with Athena. However, a prophecy foretold that, if she had a son, he would end up dethroning Zeus. Now, the Greek gods had a history of sons overthrowing their fathers: Cronus overthrew Ouranos, and Cronus was overthrown by Zeus. Thus, if she had a son, history would repeat itself. Zeus didnât, of course, want that to happen, so he swallowed her whole. Sure enough, he did, and Metis ended up being absorbed by Zeus, who gained her considerable intelligence.
However, he also gained labor pains, and in the wrong part of the body.
You see, Zeus started having a severe headache, one that kept getting worse and worse. Eventually, Hephaestus, Prometheus, Hermes or Palamaon (depending on what source you read), cut a hole in his forehead, and out sprang Athena, Goddess of War and wisdom.Â
Though fully prepped for battle, she didnât ram her spear into her father or bang Hephaestus/Prometheus/Hermes/Palamaon on his head with her shield. Indeed, Zeus welcomed her into the divine family. What makes this myth even more interesting is the fact that, in the Homeric poems, Metis, her mother, most likely wasnât intended to be seen as a legit goddess. Indeed, it seems as if she might have been thought of in those works as some kind of aspect of Zeus. Thus, in the Homeric poems, it seems likely that Zeus both conceived and gave birth to Athena on his own.Â
A sexless...and therefore virgin birth?
Well...aspect or goddess, Zeus did have sex with Metis, so there was a sexual conception involved. Keep in mind, Zeus had sex on several occasions before he conceived Athena (including having sex with Hera). Â
Thus, no virgin conception or birth.
Oh, also keep in mind that, in Hesiodâs works (which predate the Homeric poems), she is stated to be a legit Titan goddess.Â
But letâs get back to Zeus giving birth to Athena.
In one version of the myth, Heras was a-okay with this, um, development.
In anotherâŚshe was MAD!!!!!!!
You see, Hera had married Zeus before this birth occurred, and Hera was ticked off that Zeus produced a childâŚon his own. Indeed, it hurt her feelings!
SoâŚhow to get him back?
Did she have an affair?
Did she steal his thunderbolt?
Did she release the Kraken? (Note: Krakens werenât monsters of Greek myth, but Norse Myth).
Did she make wisecracks about the baby weight that he might have put on (the myths are silent on whether Zeus got big during his pregnancy)?
None of the above.
NoâŚshe decided to get him backâŚby doing the same thingâŚthat he did.
She decidedâŚto have a baby on her own.
In one version of this myth, this act led to the birth of Hephaestus (this version jives with versions of Athenaâs birth where Hephaestus doesnât appear). In another version, she prays to Gaia, Ouranos and the titans to make her pregnant without the need to sleep with Zeus. Gaia answered her prayer, and she eventually gave birth to the monster Typhaon (aka Typhoeus aka Typhon). This colossal monster fought Zeus in a duel, and, though he lost, Zeus wouldnât have won if it hadnât been for the aid of Hermes. Â
Now, in later history, something strange occurs with this myth. The Romans not only identified the Greek gods with their own, they also borrowed numerous Greek myths as well. Hephaestus himself was identified with the Roman Vulcan. Like him, there was one myth where Vulcan was conceived without sex, while another where he was the son of the king and queen of the gods (in this case, the Roman Jupiter and Juno). However, the myths of Hera conceiving offspring without Zeus seems to have bled over into the myth of Mars, the roman equivalent of Ares. While Ares was believed by ancient Greeks to be the son of Zeus and Hera, Mars was only the son of Jupiter and Juno in one version of his myth. Indeed, the more common myth was that Hera conceived him without having sex, by means of a supernatural flower that the goddess Flora revealed to Juno.
Why did Juno conceive a child without sleeping with Jupiter?
Simple: Jupiter had given birth to Minerva, the Roman Athena. Â
Now, if weâre going to define âVirgin birthâ as being a birth that wasnât brought about by sex, then yes, Hera/Juno would be a âvirgin motherâ. However, the biblical definition of Virgin mother would be someone who gave birth to a child without ever, in her entire life, having sex.
Hera doesnât fit that definition...to say the least.
Hera and Zeus had sex before they were even married, indeed even before any of her offspring were conceived. They had a dalliance before Zeus became the king of the gods (back during the reign of Cronus). Later, sometime after Zeus became king of the gods, he shapeshifted into a cuckoo. When Hera grabbed the bird and held it, Zeus took on his normal form. They did the hunka-chunka right afterwards. They had 3-4 children the old-fashioned way, depending on what source you read. There was never an instance where Zeus got her pregnant without sex. Â
Even if she hadnât have had sex before their marriage, they were already married when Zeus went âinto laborâ, so to speak. Heck, even the honeymoon alone lasted 300 years! Thatâs a whole lot of time for bedroom action! Plus, Zeus/Jupiter is well known for his sexual appetites, so he definitely wouldnât lollygag when it came to taking his new wife to the bedchamber.
Thus, we can conclude that Hera wasnât a virgin when she conceived Hephaestus or Typhon, and that her Roman equivalent Juno wasnât a virgin when she conceived Mars and or Vulcan.
However, some Jesus Mythicists (erroneously) believe that they have an ace up their sleeves.
You see, there was an ancient belief that, once a year, Hera bathed in a spring called Kanathos (aka Canathus), which somehow made her a virgin again.
Repeat: it made her a virginâŚagain.
How this restored her âmaidenhoodâ is unknown. Did it repair her hymen to where it was no longer broke? Sounds reasonableâŚuntil you realize that the they didnât have the hymen test for virginity in ancient Greece. However, in ancient Greece, it was thought that virgins had nipples that were both smaller and lighter than those of women who had had sex. They were also thought to point upwards, as opposed to those who had sex, whose nipples were expected to point downwards. Perhaps Hera was getting a magical equivalent of plastic surgery? Hard to tell, but either way, Jesus Mythicists would argue that Hera may have taken such a bath after conceiving one of her offspring, and thus would be a âVirgin Motherâ when she gave birth. Plus, whenever she took this bath, she would immediately be a âvirgin motherâ to all the gods and goddesses (and monster) that she already had.Â
However, this myth clashes with both definitions and logic.
By definition, a virgin is someone whoâs never had sex.
Hera obviously had sex before, siring several children by Zeus and having who knows how many sexual rendezvous that didnât result in offspring (Remember she bathed in the Kanathos every yearâŚin order restore her virginity. Obviously, sheâs therefore having sex at the very, very least once a year). It doesnât ultimately matter how powerful that annual bath really was; no amount of magic could change her history. This is on par with how Isis, an Egyptian goddess who was having sex even before she was born, was thought to now and again become incarnated into a virgin cow. Though the cow was thought to be virgin, it didnât change the fact that Isis, long before she was born a cow, was a goddess who had both sex and offspring, the former causing the latter (I should add that, though the god Ptah was thought to make this Isis virgin cow pregnant while in the form of fire (in one version lighting), he nevertheless inseminated his sperm into the cow while in that form, i.e., sex. Thus, not a virgin conception there either). Likewise, no amount of Olympian divine power could change the mythical historical fact that Hera had a lot of sex. By definition, she is no virgin.
Oh, and keep in mind: Pausanias wrote in the 2nd century AD. He started writing his âDescription of Greeceâ (which has the story of Hera making herself a virgin again every year) about the mid second century, and finished it before 180 AD.
The Book of Revelation, the last book in the Bible to be written, was penned in the late 1rst century AD. Though some believe that the Gospel of John was written at about the same time, there is evidence that it was written earlier. The Synoptic Gospels were written decades before Revelation, and all the written Gospels were derived from a controlled oral tradition that goes back to Christ and his first followers in the 30s AD (itâs been estimated that controlled oral tradition doesnât start to change until anywhere from over 100 years to 200 years top. The time between the Gospel Oral traditionâs beginnings and the Gospels is only several decades). Â
Though the myth of Hera regaining her virginity every year predates Pausaniasâ âDescription of Greeceâ, we have no evidence that it predates Christianity. This is interesting to note, considering that its not impossible that, due to competition with an emergent Christianity-which has as one of its greatest heroes of faith the Virgin Mary, the mother of Christ-that pagan Greeks might respond by claiming that one of their goddesses, i.e., Hera, was made a virgin every year.
Along with this, the myth of Heraâs annual return to the ranks of virgins seems to be a myth of a Virgin Hera cult located in Nauplia, where Hera was thought to bathe in the Kanathos Spring. It was not a common part of Heraâs mythos.
Curiously, Pausanias says the following about that particular myth in Description of Greece, 2.38.3:
 âThis is one of the sayings told as a holy secret at the mysteries which they celebrate in honor of Hera.â
 Mysteries?
As inâŚMystery religion?
Mystery religions, were both big on secrecy (hence the term âmysteryâ) and big on viewing time in a cyclical way, due primarily to their gods being deeply connected to the annual vegetation cycle (life passing away in Fall, only to return or be reborn in Spring).
Wait wait, hold up!
Annual vegetation cycleâŚ.
Life returning and dying, returning then dyingâŚ
Life reborn, growing, dying and dissolving, only to be reborn again, cyclical, on and onâŚ
Hera rejuvenating her virginity annuallyâŚ
Her virginity dying every year, only to return, i.e., be reborn every year with her bathing in the Kanathos every yearâŚ
Connecting the dots?
But why is it important to note that this Virgin Hera cult was a Mystery Religion?
Almost all the mystery religions popped up after the first century AD (some in the 4rth century AD). Though many push the idea that Christianity borrowed from such, not only do they have it backwards, but Mystery Religions likewise borrowed from Judaism as well. Such cults borrowed from Christianity in particular in order to combat its evangelistic effectiveness. They wanted to win Christians, instead of having some of their own leave the cult behind and become Christ followers. One way they could do this was to borrow aspects of Christianity and add it to their mystery religion.
You know, like adopting aspects of the Virgin Mary, the Virgin mother of ChristâŚand making it aspects of your mother goddess?
 The Defense Rests. Â
    Sources:
 âHesiod: Theogony and Works And Daysâ Translated and with introductions by Catherine M. Schlegel and Henry Weinfield, 34, 50-51
âApollodorusâ Library and Hyginusâ Fabulae: Two Handbooks of Greek Mythologyâ, translated with introductions by R. Scott Smith and Stephen M. Trzaskoma, 3, 96
Plutarchâs âIsis and Osirisâ 12
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0239%3Asection%3D12
âTitans & Olympians: Greek & Roman Mythâ, By Tony Allan, Sarah Maitland and Dr. Michael Trapp (consultant), 25-35 , 46, 70, 86, 90, 97-98
âThe Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythologyâ by Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm, 49
âClash of the Godsâ Documentary Series: Zeus Episode
âThe Penguin Dictionary of Classical Mythologyâ by Pierre Grimal, 181-82, 244
âArcheological Study Bible (NIV)â, 1556, 1620, 1663, 2043
âEvidence That Demands A Verdict: Life Changing Truth For A Skeptical World (Completely Updated And Expanded), by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, PhD, 303-06, 309-10Â
âIn the Footsteps of Jesusâ (A National Geographic Book) by Jean-Pierre Isbouts, 86-87, 90 âMiracles of Mary: Apparitions, Legends, and Miraculous Works of the Blessed Virgin Maryâ by Michael S. Durham.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Curious_History_of_Sex/YF6vDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=hymenal+blood+proof+virginity&pg=PT80&printsec=frontcover
https://psmag.com/social-justice/stupid-tests-for-stupid-people
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0104:entry=athena-bio-1
https://www.theoi.com/Text/OvidFasti5.html Â
https://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias2C.html
https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/HeraMyths.html
https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Athena.html
https://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias2C.html Â
https://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanisMetis.html
https://www.theoi.com/Gigante/Typhoeus.html
https://www.theoi.com/Gigante/Typhoeus2.html
https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/HephaistosMyths.html
https://www.theoi.com/articles/what-was-zeus-and-heras-relationship-like/#:~:text=Once%20the%20festivities%20came%20to,Hebe%2C%20the%20goddess%20of%20youth.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Mythology_Book/9zhZDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Hera%2BKanathos%2BVirginity&pg=PT76&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Handbook_of_Classical_Mythology/1Z-LIKN0Ap0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Hera%2BKanathos%2BVirginity&pg=PA188&printsec=frontcover
https://greekgodsandgoddesses.net/the-wives-of-zeus/
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kinesis/2JhFDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Palamaon%2BZeus%2Bathena%2Bbirth&pg=PA271&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Flora_Unveiled/_Wl4DQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Mars+Hera+and+a+magic+flower&pg=PA235&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Complete_Idiot_s_Guide_to_Classical/Ly8nbJj5DY0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=zeus%2BRavished%2BHera%2Bcuckoo&pg=PA70&printsec=frontcover
https://www.worldhistory.org/Pausanias_(Geographer)/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCp-ayAp7fE&t=1s
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Oxford_Encyclopedia_of_Ancient_Greec/lNV6-HsUppsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=earliest+mention+of+Hera+as+a+virgin%3F&pg=RA2-PA393&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Ready_Defense/Lgg7EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Christianity%2Bpredates%2Bmystery%2Breligions&pg=PT170&printsec=frontcover
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/627443646901436416/was-mary-the-mother-of-jesus-based-on-the
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/627450822918291456/was-mary-the-mother-of-jesus-based-on-theÂ
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/628287347439665153/alexander-the-great-and-achilles-examining-theÂ
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/684262774171435008/nuclear-bombs-and-apples-parallelomania-for-funÂ
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/640147819426201600/jesus-and-sinterklaas-the-dutch-saint-nicholas
Was Hermes Born Of A Virgin? UmâŚNO, And Here Is WhyâŚ
Hermes is one of the more peculiar Greek gods. After all, he is the god of, amongst other things, astronomy, hospitality, flocks and...theft.Â
Repeat: Theft! A god of thieves!Â
Robin Hood, eat your heart out!
Indeed, due to his status as a messenger of the gods, and having both winged sandals and a winged helmet, he seems like a Greek mythological equivalent of a Biblical angel (âMalâakâ and âAngelosâ, the Hebrew and Greek words for Angel respectively, both mean, among other things, âmessengerâ. Angelic beings were known to give messages (for example, Genesis 19:1-22, Zechariah 1:12-21, Luke 1:11-19, 26-38, 2:8-11, etc), and at times are depicted in winged form (Isaiah 6:1-2, Ezekiel 1:5-14 (compare with Ezekiel 10:1-15).
But was he virgin born?
Some (cough cough Jesus Mychicists and those theyâve deceived, cough cough) have tried to say that Hermesâ mother, the Pleiades Goddess Maia, was a virgin, conceiving him without having to have sex. Indeed, the idea goes that Zeus impregnated her without sex. This leads to the argument that the biblical story of Christâs virgin birth was inspired by the myth of the âvirgin birthâ of Hermes.
Are they right?
Answer: Do Blue Whales perform ballet?
1. AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, MYTHOLOGY STYLE!
 Though many delude themselves into thinking that Hermes was virgin born, in reality, not only is Maia never said to be a virgin in the primary sources, and not only is she a Nymph (which as I explained in my Attis article were well known for their promiscuous nature), but also that the ancient sources that mention Hermesâ conception NEVER state that it was done without sex. Indeed, the ancients said otherwise. Hesiod, who wrote during the 8th-7th centuries BC, states in his epic âTheogonyâ (938 ff) that:
âAtlasâs daughter Maia bore famed Hermes now to Zeus, the messenger of the immortals, having climbed his sacred bed.â (emphasis mine).
Homeric Hymn 4 to Hermes, which was written anywhere from the 7th to 4th centuries BC, states the following in 1ff:
 âHermes, the son of Zeus and Maia . . . whom Maia bare, the rich-tressed (euplokamos) Nymphe, when she was joined in love with Zeus,--a shy goddess, for she avoided the company of the blessed gods, and lived within a deep, shady cave. There the Son of Kronos (Cronus) used to lie with the rich-tressed Nymphe, unseen by deathless gods and mortal men, at dead of night that sleep might hold white-armed Hera fast. And when the purpose of great Zeus was fulfilled, and the tenth moon with her was fixed in heaven, she was delivered and a notable thing was come to pass. For then she bare a son, of many shifts . . .â (emphasis mine).
Homeric Hymn 17 to Hermes (specifically 3ff), which was written at the same time, states the following:
 âHe [Hermes] was born of Maia, the daughter of Atlas, when she had mated with Zeus, a shy goddess she. Ever she avoided the throng of the blessed gods and lived in a shadowy cave, and there the Son of Kronos used to lie with the rich-tressed (euplokamos) Nymphe at dead of night, while white-armed Hera lay bound in sweet sleep: and neither deathless god nor mortal man knew it.â (Emphasis mine).
Alcaeus, an ancient Greek poet who lived from the 7th to 6th centuries BC stated that:
 âGreetings [Hermes] ruler of Kyllene (Cyllene)--for it is of you that I wish to sing: you who Maia bore on the very mountain-tops, having lain with Zeus Kronides (Cronides), king of all." (Emphasis mine).
The ancient mythographer Pseudo-Apollodorus (2nd century AD) states in his âLibraryâ (specifically 3.111-112) that:
 âZeus slept with the remaining Atlantids. Maia, the eldest, after sleeping with Zeus, bore Hermes in a cave in Cyllene.â  (Emphasis mine).
 Likewise, Ovid, the ancient Roman poet who lived from the 1rst century BC to the 1rst century AD, stated in his âFastiâ (specifically 4.169) that:
 âThe Pleiades will start to lighten their fatherâs shoulders, they who are said to be seven, but usually are six: Because itâs true that six lay in the loving clasp of gods (Since they say that Asterope slept with Mars: Alcyone, and you, lovely Celaeno, with Neptune: Maia, Electra, and Taygete with Jupiter)â (Once again, emphasis mine).
 Man, Zeus/Jupiter got a lot of action.
Also, Ovid later states in Fasti 5.79 (some sources state past 5.80) that:
 âThe story is that their daughter Pleione was united to sky-bearing Atlas, and bore him the Pleiades. Among them, Maiaâs said to have surpassed her sisters in beauty, and to have slept with mighty Jove. She bore Mercury, who cuts the air on winged feet, on the cypress-clothed ridge of Mount Cyllene (Emphasis mine yet again).
Keep in mind, the Roman god Jupiter was identified with the Greek god Zeus, the Roman God Mercury was identified with the Greek Hermes, and though their myths are not 100% identical, many Greek myths of Zeus and Hermes were added to that of Jupiter and Mercury respectively. The myth of Zeusâ affair with Maia was one such borrowed myth. Also keep in mind, this myth was so well known that ancient Greco-Romans would have known what Jupiter/Zeusâ fling with Maia resulted in: the conception of Hermes.
 True, there are ancient sources that mention Maia being Hermesâ mother without mentioning Zeus, but there are also ancient texts that mention that Zeus is his father without mentioning Maia. Nobody would conclude from the latter that there was a tradition where Zeus got himself pregnant and gave birth to Hermes, or ejaculated on soil and watched as his sperm turned into a god. Indeed, while some ancient texts state that Maia was the daughter of both the Titan Atlas and the Okeanid-nymph Pleione, others only state that Atlas was her father, without mentioning her mother. This isnât evidence that, in some versions of her myth, Atlas impregnated himself and gave birth to Maia or brought her into being in some other way without the need of a goddess. I challenge any who read this to find any ancient text that emphatically states that Zeus gave birth to Hermes, or that Atlas gave birth to Maia.
Name one.
Indeed, it wasnât uncommon in ancient literature for a personâs father to be named without his mother being named as well. The Bible alone is loaded with such, in some cases involving men whose mothers are known or even known by name elsewhere in the Bible, in other cases not mentioned anywhere at all (Keep in mind, the Bible is not a single book, but a collection of 66 books written by various authors over a span of roughly 1500 years. See Genesis 5:6-32, 10:1-32, 11:10-26, 1 Samuel 17:12, 2 Chronicles 1:1, Provers 1:1, Luke 3:23-38, etc). Heck, we even do this at times today, a person saying that so and so is their mother or father without naming their other parent.
 Now, some Jesus Mythicists might claim that, there is an ancient Orphic hymn that states that Maia is Hermesâs sole parent.
Well, letâs take a look at that that hymn, shall we?
 âTo Hermes, Fumigation from Frankincense. Hermes, draw near, and to my prayer incline, messenger of Zeus, and Maia's son divineâŚâ -Orphic hymn to Hermes 28 (some sources state Orphic Hymn to Hermes 27).
   The passage here doesnât actually teach that Maia is a virgin mother of Hermes. Indeed, one can easily read between the lines to see that both Zeus and Maia are indicated as Hermesâ parents, given the well-known myth of them coming together and conceiving Hermes. Indeed, even if the passage was indicating that Zeus wasnât his father, that isnât evidence that Maia is truly a virgin, let alone conceived Hermes without sex. One could simply imagine that Hermesâ real father isnât stated. Indeed, Maia isnât stated to be a virgin, nor does it state that she conceived on her own miraculously. Besides, the Orphic cult had a peculiar belief when it came to Hermesâ conception, as seen in Orphic Hymn 57 to âChthonian Hermesâ (despite the different name, its still referring to the same god):
 ââŚO Bakkheios (Bacchian) Hermes, progeny divine of Dionysos, parent of the vine, and of celestial Aphrodite, Paphian queen, dark-eyelashed Goddess, of a lovely mienâŚâ
 This text is indicating that Dionysus and Aphrodite are Hermesâ real parents. This is not unexpected, considering that the myths of the Orphic cult often have differences with that of regular Greek Mythology (Dionysus is a big example of that). However, considering whatâs mention in hymn 28, and that the same cult who wrote it wrote hymn 57, we could surmise that, according to the Orphic cult, Hermes had three parents: Dionysus, Aphrodite and Maia.
In other words, Dionysus got seriously lucky.
Indeed, neither passage indicates that Hermes was virgin born or virgin conceived, so the objection is thrown out the window.
 Thus, we can safely conclude, Hermes was not virgin born.
  Sources:
âHesiod: Theogony and Works And Daysâ Translated and with introduction by Catherine M. Schlegel and Henry Weinfield, 52
âApollodorusâ Library and Hyginusâ Fabulae: Two Handbooks of Greek Mythologyâ Translated with introductions by R. Scott Smith and Stephen M. Trzaskoma, xxix, 58
âThe Penguin Dictionary of Classical Mythologyâ by Pierre Grimal, 197, 256
âTitans & Olympians: Greek & Roman Mythâ by Tony Allan, Sarah Maitland and Dr. Michael Trapp (consultant), 15, 99, 103, 100
âThe Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythologyâ by Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm, 51, 63
âCharting the Bible Chronologically: A Visual Guide to Godâs Unfolding Planâ by Ed Hinson and Thomas Ice, 14-17
âAMGâs Encyclopedia of Bible Factsâ by Mark Water, 698-806, 922-988 Â
âZondervanâs Exhaustive Concordance: Second Editionâ by Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III, 62, 1439, 1523
https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Hermes.html
https://www.theoi.com/Nymphe/NympheMaia.html
https://www.theoi.com/Nymphe/NymphePleione.html
https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/OvidFastiBkFive.php
https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/OvidFastiBkFour.php#anchor_Toc69367846
https://www.hellenion.org/hermes/orphic-hymn-to-hermes/
https://www.theoi.com/Text/OvidFasti1.html
https://www.theoi.com/Text/OrphicHymns1.html
https://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanAtlas.html
https://mythologysource.com/zeus-and-jupiter/
https://www.worldhistory.org/ovid/
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alcaeus
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/627629422863876096/was-jesus-a-mythical-figure-based-on-the-phrygianÂ
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/627535914326966272/was-jesus-a-mythical-figure-based-on-the-greek-god
Do Animals Have An Afterlife? Um...YES, And King Solomon Will Show You Why...
Most, if not all people, have at least one pet peeve, something that irritates them more than fingernails clawing a chalkboard. It could be certain foods, certain genres of music, rude drivers, TV, politicians, etc. I have several pet peeves:
 1. âItâs a Wonderful lifeâ (I HATE that film!).
2. Being interrupted while Iâm working on projects.
3. Hard, unchewable thingies that I accidentally find while chewing on green beans.
4. Websites that wonât let me read their content or use without me either agreeing to let them put cookies on my computer and/or becoming a member of said site (National geographic and some online photos editors come to mind).
5. The fact that the 80s ended (best decade ever! How dare it go away!).
6. The fact that the Monday Night Wars ended (I miss the ratings war between WWE and WCW. True, the former had some risquĂŠ stuff at the time, but they also had some of the best storylines as well. They also had Chyna!).
7. Jesus Mythicism (the unfounded belief that Jesus never existed (or that several Jesuses existed) and that the Gospels stories are derived from pagan myth).
8. Animal extinction.
9. The âAnimals donât have souls/donât go to heavenâ tradition in Christianity.
 That latter one has both irritated me and made me scratch my head since a kid, considering that Iâm not only an animal lover, but the bible actually never says that. This subject continued to draw my attention in my teens, and later when I went to college, majoring in religion. I have studied it since then as well. During this time, I made sure to not let any bias taint my studies. After all, we have to accept what the Bible says, no matter the results. God comes first before critters, and we should abide by what his word teaches, no matter what.
AndâŚwhat have I found, during all of these years?
There are ZERO biblical passages that teach that animals donât have a spiritual essence, nor any that teach that they donât have an afterlife.Â
Repeat: ZERO!
Indeed, there are passages that teach the opposite, and yetâŚcountless of my fellow Christians continue to believe that animals donât have souls. Indeed, there are several reasons why they hold to this fallacious doctrine:
 1. If animals had a soul and an afterlife, they would need Jesus to die for them as well. He didnât, so therefore they donât have souls!
 2. If animals have souls, that would mean that heaven must be GINORMOUS for all the souls of every animal and person that ever lived to be there! The New Earth would have to be GINORMOUS as well! Thus, it makes more sense that they wonât be there!
 3. The bible doesnât say that animals have souls, therefore they donât have souls!
 4. The Bible says that animals donât have souls or an afterlife!
 5. Only humans have souls, because only we are made in the image of God!
6. The Bible never shows animals being in Heaven! Therefore, they are not in Heaven!
 These are the objections that keep this peculiar, unbiblical tradition alive, and yetâŚthey are all without foundation.
Letâs go through them each, one by oneâŚ
  1. âIf animals had a soul and an afterlife, they would need Jesus to die for them as well. He didnât, so therefore they donât have souls!â
 Why would living creaturesâŚthat do not sinâŚneed Jesus to die for their sins?
Indeed, it was humans, not animals, that ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (and only humans were forbidden to eat of it too, see Genesis 2:17-3:6). True, animals are known to do things that humans are forbidden to do, such as stealing (Animals will at times steal food from others. Likewise, Floyd, my brotherâs ferret, stole multiple things from my brother (including his checkbook) and hid them behind his washing machine.), having sex without being married (which, if humans do the same, itâs called fornication) and even rape (male Orangutans are known to rape both female orangutans and even human women. You read that right; they have been known to rape human women.), but it is not a sin for animals to do these things, for three important reasons.
    1. The moral commands of God apply to humans, not animals.
True, God does demand that animals who slay humans be killed (Genesis 9:5, Exodus 22:28-32), but those passages not only donât refer to such animals as murderers, and not only do they not refer to animals killing humans as murder, but they arenât even indicating that animals are bound by human moral law; they are indicating that animals who have killed humans need to be put down, due to the threat that they pose. If an animal kills a person, it might kill another, and unlike animals, humans are made in Godâs image. Though murderers are executed for similar reasons, humans were allowed to kill animals (Genesis 9:1-3) while human life could only be taken in self-defense, war or executions (Genesis 9:4-5, 14:13-20, Exodus 22:2-3, Nehemiah 4:15-18), and those humans guilty of manslaughter were sent to cities of refuge, not executed (Numbers 35:15-34). Though animal cruelty is forbidden (Proverbs 12:10), taking an animalâs life is obviously not the same as taking human life. The reason why: humans, not animals, are made in Godâs image. Humans are more important. Animals who killed humans would not be seen as sinners or criminals; they were seen as simply threats to human life. Heck, even in our modern culture, were authorities kill wild animals or dogs that have taken human life, none will call such animals âcriminalsâ or say that they broke the law; they are simply disposing of animals that could pose a threat to their fellow man. This is why such animals are not put on trial, with prosecutors pointing at them and shouting incriminating questions while defense lawyers object. Thatâs why no one that lives in nations that house Orangutans state that any who rape either humans or another orangutan should be locked up or castrated.
Now, some will try to bring up the fact that it was a âserpentâ who deceived Eve into eating the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:1-6), and when God cursed the Serpent, he said âcursed are you above all livestock, and above all beasts of the fieldâ (Gen 3:14). However, the âSerpentâ in the passage, as explained in one of my previous articles (see sources section below), was not actually a snake; it was the Devil.
 It wasnât even a snake possessed by Satan; it was Satan in Serpentine (yet still spiritual) form. Along with this, the passage doesnât imply that animals were suddenly punished for a sin that either they did not commit or was not recorded in scripture. Indeed, the âcurseâ could include the side effects of Adam and Eveâs fall. After all, how many animals have humans wiped out? How many are on the brink of extinction due to the sins of man?
Now, some would say âBut if thatâs the case, then why did animals suffer during the Flood, or during the Ten Plagues or Egypt? Why will they suffer or during the plagues described in the Book of Revelation?â. Well, it is true that animals were targeted at times in said judgments, but this was either due to being owned by humans under Godâs judgment (such as the Egyptians who owned livestock, see Exodus 9:1-7) or due to dying as side effects of Godâs powerful judgments on Earth (such as during the Flood, see Genesis 6:9-8:22). We have to remember that oneâs own sins donât just harm oneself. Indeed, sin is like dynamite: it can harm more than the one setting it off.Â
How many families have had to go through rough times because one of their own either shot a president, or was a serial killer, mass murderer, adulterer, bank robber, serial rapist, child molester, etc? How many kids had to look at their mothers of fathers through plate glass, because of a crime that their mother or father did? God isnât punishing such children, but their parentâs sins are making them suffer nevertheless. In a different vein (as we will soon see), the children of Sodom and Gomorrah, despite still being at the age of innocence (the indication that none were righteous in the Cities of the Plain (Gen 18:17-33) doesnât= that the age of accountability didnât exist at that time. Though the children of those cities no doubt learned abhorrent sins from their elders, they were still not at the age of accountability), nevertheless perished alongside guilty adults when the cities of the plain were obliterated (Genesis 19). Indeed, in that latter case, God took their lives in reprisal for the sins of the guilty in Sodom, just as he did those children who were outside the Ark when the rains came. In neither case were these kids deserving of death, yet they nevertheless perished as part of the punishment that God wrought on the older, wicked citizens of the Cities of the Plain. Once again, even the innocent can suffer from the sins of the guilty. Thus, suffering or even dying during a judgment of God doesnât = guilt.
   2. Animals are innocent in nature. Children do bad things (as any parent, especially one addicted to Jack Daniels, can attest), and yet Jesus said that to such belonged the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 19:14, Luke 18:13). Kids, including infants (born and unborn) have not reached the age of accountability, and thus if they die, they go to Heaven instead of Hell. They havenât matured enough to be held accountable for them. If they are not held accountable for their sins, due to the age of innocenceâŚthen how can animals be held accountable for their âsinsâ when they are less mature mentally than most human children?
   3. Animals are not made in Godâs image, and thus do not taint it when they do things that, if humans did them, would be sin (more on the Image of God later).
Indeed, if you seriously think about it, if you really read between the cultural lines, one reason why animals were chosen by God for sacrifice was due to lack of sin. It isnât just because human sacrifice would be murder, but also because, unlike humans, animals donât sin. They are pure in Godâs eyes. Though there were other requirements for sacrifice as well, such as species (ritually clean vs ritually unclean animals (the latter not unclean due to sin), and animals without blemish, nevertheless, at the end of the day, all animals share a sinless nature. Thus, each time an animal was being sacrificed, the blood of a pure, sinless creature was being spilled.
SinlessâŚjust like Christ, the âLamb of Godâ (John 1:29, 2 Corinthians 5:20-21).
Along with this, we have to remember that Jesus didnât die for angels either, and yet not only are there good angels with God in Heaven (Matt 18:10), but they will be there in the New Earth (Revelation 21:9-12). Although angels long to look into the matter of salvation (1 Peter 1:12), this doesnât mean that Jesus will die second time for them as well. Indeed, the Bible indicates that Christâs death atones for the sins of humanity, not angels (John 3:16, Romans 4:25, 5:6-8 8:32, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 John 3:16). Thus, the fact that angels long to look into these matters doesnât equal that Christâs gift of salvation applies to them, anymore than if an American citizen longed to study the law codes of China would equal that those very laws apply to him.
Since angels are in Heaven, and will be in the New Earth without having to accept Christ as Lord and Savior, and since children will be in both Heaven and the New Earth even if they are not ChristiansâŚthen why do animals need to be saved in order to enter either place?
 2. âIf animals have souls, that would mean that heaven must be GINORMOUS for all the souls of every animal and person that ever lived to be there! The New Earth would have to be GINORMOUS as well! Thus, it makes more sense that they wonât be there!â
 Both a non-sequitur and a serious lack of imagination. God is all powerful and all knowingâŚbut cannot make Heaven big enough to accommodate the countless spirits of both dead animals and humans? When has God become weak, or too dumb to figure anything out? Heâs likewise not powerful enough and smart enough to make a New Earth big enough to accommodate them all, one that could be truly colossal in size yet not suffering from the issues of excess gravity? Godâs power and knowledge are, once again, unlimited.
Letâs go over some bible verses about Godâs omnipotence, shall we?
âIs anything too hard for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.â Genesis 18:14
âWhatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.â Psalm 135:6
âThen Job answered the Lord and said âI know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.â Job 42:1-2
âFor the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?â Isaiah 14:27
âEven from eternity I am He, and there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?â Isaiah 43:13
âBehold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?â Jeremiah 32:27
âAll the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, âWhat have you done?â Daniel 4:35
âJesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26
âFor nothing will be impossible with God.â Luke 1:37
âBut he said âWhat is Impossible for men is possible with God.â Luke 18:27
âAnd what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great mightâ Ephesians 1:19
I could also bring up the countless bible verses that call God âalmightyâ or state that he is âalmightyâ, but you get the point.
Now, letâs look at some bible verses about Godâs omniscience, shall we?
âO Lord, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, You know it all.â Psalm 139:4
âHe determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.â Psalm 147:4-5
âHave you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.â Isaiah 40:28
âAnd there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.â Hebrews 4:13
âfor whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.â 1 John 3:20
 Once again, you get the point.
So, since God is all powerful, and all knowingâŚshouldnât he be able to create a Heaven thatâs big enough to accommodate all the spirits of dead animals and humans, along with all of his angels? Can he not make a New Earth that can do the same thing?
 3. âThe bible doesnât say that animals have souls, therefore they donât have souls.â
 Another non-sequitur. The âItâs not in the Bible, therefore it doesnât existâ Argument is idiotic. For example, the Bible doesnât mention volcanoes on other worlds, yet the largest volcano known to man, Olympus Mons (which rises an astonishing 25 miles high)âŚis on Mars.Â
Io, one of Jupiterâs moons, is saturated with them.
 Oh, BTW: the bible doesnât mention any other moon other than our own, and yet Io not only existsâŚbut we have 158 confirmed moons in our solar system! 158! Not one of these are mentioned in the Bible! SoâŚjust because something is not mentioned in the BibleâŚdoesnât = it doesnât exist.
Also, even if the bible didnât state that animals have a supernatural essence within them (which Iâll soon show it actually does), there is no passage that says that they donât (see the next objection). So, if the Bible truly didnât indicate that animals do or do not have a spirit or an afterlife, then the subject in question would automatically fall under the judgment of Deuteronomy 29:29, which states:
 âThe secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.â
 Therefore, if the bible truly didnât indicate either way on whether animals have a supernatural essence or not, then the question would be one that God has not chosen to answer. The answer belongs to him, and thus we cannot be dogmatic either way about it. It belongs to him, not us.
Nevertheless, the Bible actually DOES teach that, not only do animals have a spirit, but they also have an afterlife as well.
Enter King Solomon.
Like his father before him, Solomon wrote Scripture, including Psalm 72, Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. The later has a perplexing passage that deals with the subject in hand:
 âI said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?â Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 (emphasis mine).
Now, a careful reading of this passage is indicating that, in terms of death, man has no advantage over animals. Both die, but return to dust. Though verse 21, which mentions the spirit of man and beast, has been (mistakenly) thought by some to imply skepticism of the afterlife, this is far from the case. Indeed, in verse 17 of the same chapter it states that âI said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work.â, which obviously points to a future end times judgment involving both the dead and the living. After all, as Job himself indicated in Job 21, some wicked men died peacefully after a good life, without suffering the judgment of God. Solomon, a king who was noted for incredible wisdom, would have known that fact of life (and might have read that passage in Job as well). Plus, the passage isnât expressing doubt about the afterlife, but where people and animals go in the afterlife. Its questioning an idea that human spirits go up and animal spirits go down. This is quite interesting, due to the fact that the ancient Israelites believed that everyone, good and bad, went to Sheol, the Hebrew Underworld. This realm was though to be in the Earth, though it wasnât the same as Hell. Indeed, though it was thought to be dark and gloomy, it wasnât thought of as a place of punishment or torment.Â
With the spread of Hellenization in the ancient world, the Jews eventually started calling Sheol âHadesâ, the name of the Greek Underworld (which shares some interesting similarities with the Hebrew version). âHadesâ was also a term used for a region of the Underworld that, In New Testament times, was thought of as a bit hellish (Luke 16:19-24). Though this wasnât the actual Hell, aka the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:14), but those deemed âwickedâ (a relative term when considering the Gospel) nevertheless went there. However, there was also the belief that those who were âgoodâ went to Abrahamâs Side, aka Abrahamâs Bosom, where they would enjoy a good afterlife (Luke 16:19-25). In between these realms was thought to be a great chasm that no human soul could cross (Luke 16:26). Now, despite some arguing that Hades, Abrahamâs Bosom and the Chasm are not the same places, considering the fact that the Hebrews in Old Testament times believed that everyone went to Sheol when they died, that Hades is its Greek equivalent, and that Hades means âThe Unseen Worldâ, i.e. the Netherworld, we have to conclude that all three of these realms were all in the same place. Thus, everyone was thought to go downwards into the Earth after death (BTW: âearthâ in Ecclesiastes 3:21 can be translated âUnderworldâ. Though âearthâ is seemingly preferred translation, both the downward direction noted and the fact that the animal spirit is being viewed as going into the Earth are still indicative of Sheol).
Yet nevertheless, the author of Ecclesiastes mentions âWho knows if the spirit of man rises upwardsâŚâ, which wasnât a part of Israelite afterlife beliefs at the time.
Why, therefore, did he write this?
Robert Alter, a professor of Hebrew at Berkley University, states that the author of Ecclesiastes may have been alluding to a new afterlife doctrine, one that posited that humans didnât go into Sheol, but instead rose upwards. However, this idea arose in the Late Biblical Period, which started in the 6th century BC, while Solomon lived centuries before that (11th-10th centuries BC). However, Alter, like many biblical scholars, believe that Solomon, despite Ecclesiastes 1:1, 16 and all of chapter 2, wasnât in reality the author of Ecclesiastes. For one, âSon of Davidâ, mentioned in Ecclesiastes 1:1, could mean anyone descended from David. Along with this, the statement in 1:16 where the author claims that he was wiser than all who ruled Jerusalem before him could be hyperbolic, the language in the text isnât a good fit for 11th-10th century Hebrew and there is a possibility that âEcclesiastesâ, the given name of the author of the book (Ecclesiastes 1:1) might be a literary persona. Indeed, the author might have been a Hebrew philosopher with extreme views who used a pseudonym while writing his book. Thatâs notâŚimpossible. Indeed, even some conservative sites like Zondervan express some skepticism of the claim that Solomon indeed did write Ecclesiastes. Thus, its quite possible that it was written during the Late Biblical Period. However, if it was written by Solomon, the passage would still be indicative of a similar idea of spirits rising upward after death occurring in his day. Thus, history repeating itself. Either way, the author of Ecclesiastes isnât buying it. In his view, all go to Sheol, which fits the rest of said passage like a glove. Death is the ultimate equalizer, and even our afterlife destination is no different.
However, the âanimals donât have soulsâ crowd has an âaceâ up their sleeve.
If you look at âThe New Strongâs Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Red Letter Editionâ, it indicates, in its article on Ruach (the Hebrew word translated as âspiritâ in both Ecclesiastes 3:21 and other passages) that it only refers to a spiritâŚwhen applied to a rational being. Thus, animals arenât ârationalâ, humans are (????) and therefore, humans are the only ones who have spirits.
HoweverâŚif this was truly the case, then Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 wouldnât make any sense. Ruach can also be translated as âbreathâ, âwindâ, âMindâ, âtempestâ âairâ âvainâ, âcoolâ, âspiritualâ âangerâ, and âcourageâ, âblastâ, âsideâ, âWindyâ, âWhirlwindâ. It can even refer to a part of the great blue yonder! Repeat: it can refer to a section of the sky above!
Now, try translating Ruach in Ecclesiastes 3:21 when in reference to an animal, while keeping âspiritâ when in reference to manâŚand then look the entire passage, Ecclesiastes 3:18-22âŚand see how much sense it makes.
It doesnât.
Heck, donât even translate Ruach as âspiritâ in relation to man or beast in that entire passage, come up with multiple other translations of bothâŚand see how the passage makes even less sense in terms of both context and clarity. When you see the headaches that such translations can cause, you can begin to understand why most bible translations use âspiritâ for ruach both times in Ecclesiastes 3:21.
In other words, âruachâ can apply to something other than a rational beingâŚwhen the context demands it. Indeed, along with this, language isnât set in stone. Heck, when I led a group of children during a vacation bible school one time, I told the kids âOkay, lemurs, walk this way!â âCome on, monkeys!â and âAlright, you lower forms of primate, march!â. Now, neither monkeys nor lemurs are defined as âchildrenâ, and âlower forms of primateâ obviously doesnât mean âhumanâ, and yetâŚwhen the kids heard what I said, they got the message and obeyed.
I know. Iâm bad. But I love it. Â
Along with this, we need to consider thatâŚperhaps Strongâs concordance is wrong. Indeed, Zondervanâs NIV Exhaustive Concordance (2nd edition) doesnât even have the clause âbut only of a rational beingâ in its description of ruach.
Also, as I mentioned in a previous article (see sources section below) there are irrational people in this world (big surprise there). Repeat: there are people who donât think rationally, i.e. crazy people. There are people in comas who cannot obviously access the rational part of their brain, and thus are not technically rational. The unborn arenât rational obviously. Indeed, the rational part of the human brain doesnât fully develop until the age of 25 (makes one wonder if the legal age for drinking should be raised a few years).
Thus, considering what Strongâs concordance statesâŚare crazy people, people in comas, and everyone under 25âŚspiritless? Do they have no afterlife?
Name one bible scholar who has ever stated that only certain people had spirits, and not others.
Name one.
Curiously, this âsouls are for humans, stupidâ stupidity finds its way into other parts of Strongâs and even Zondervanâs exhaustive concordances. Zondervanâs NIV Exhaustive Concordance states that âPsycheâ, the Koine Greek word for soul, refers to, among other things, âthe immaterial (and eternal) part of inner personâ. In its section on Pneuma, the Koine Greek word for spirit, it states that Pneuma means, among other things, âthe immaterial part of the inner person that can respond to Godâ. In Strongâs Concordance, it states that Pneuma can refer to, among other things, âa spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soulâ. At least with its section on Psyche, one of its definitions indicates that it can refer to the âessenceâ thatâs lives on after physical death.
Notice something interesting?
We are seeing concordances trying to put a human spin on these Greek words when it relates to the supernatural spirit or soul. Now, letâs remember, even IF the Hebrews never believed that animals have souls (which of course some did believe that they do, but letâs run with this hypothetical), Koine Greek is not a language invented by the Hebrews; it was invented in ancient Greece (hence the name âGreekâ). Given this, why would the Greeks craft their words for spirit and soul to refer to only the supernatural aspect of humansâŚwhen they by and large believed that animals had souls?
Homerâs Odyssey depicts the ghost of Orion, the giant hunter, herding animal spirits (i.e. the spirits of animals he had slain) in the Fields of Asphodel, a part of the realm of Hades (Book 11:650-659). Some Philosophers, such as Pythagoras and Plato, believed that animals reincarnated and had rational souls. Aristotle believed that, while humans and animals shared sensitive souls, only humans had rational souls. He also believed that animals souls died at physical death (he thought it was possible that part of the human soul might survive). Indeed, the only ancient Greeks that Iâm aware of that didnât believe that animals had souls were the âMechanistsâ philosophers, but they also didnât believe that humans had souls either! Obviously, the Greeks had a wide range of beliefs when it came to animals having both souls and an afterlife! It would be absurd therefore to think that they would tailor their words for soul and spirit to refer to spiritual essences only when used for humans. Indeed, we have texts that indicate that they used âpsycheâ for the immortal soul in reference to animals! Course, to be fair, the text might have been written in a different form of Greek. Not knowing the ancient versions of Greek myself, I canât say for sure. Nevertheless, not only is it the same Greek word, but its extremely doubtful that the ancient Greeks would alter the words of their language to better fit a Judeo-Christian tradition that, being pagans, they didnât adhere to! One might argue that Aristotle had such an impact on Greek society that Psyche and Pneuma eventually only referred to rational souls, but not only did some ancient Greeks believe that animals had such souls too, where is the evidence that Aristotle had such an impact on Koine Greek?
Now, some may try to go a different route, stating that the author of Ecclesiastes was simply giving a hypothetical, not intending to teach that animals have both spirits and an afterlife. However, the only hypothetical mentioned in the passage is the idea that animals and humans have a different afterlife. Its not treating animal afterlife as a purely hypothetical idea; it is treating the idea that its different from human afterlife, in terms of destination, as purely hypothetical. This fits the overall passage quite well in terms of message. Â Â
Another tactic the âanimals donât have soulsâ idea might try to use is the fact that the belief that animals donât have neither a spiritual essence or afterlife is an ancient Judeo-Christian one, and thus the passage should be read in that light. For example, a Midrashic homily on Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 tries to reinterpret the passage to mean that both animals and wicked humans will die and not be found in the âworld to comeâ. However, there are problems with that idea, among others the fact that the ancient Hebrews were not uniform in this belief. Indeed, 2nd Enoch teaches that animals not only have souls and an afterlife, and not only will they NOT be judged for sin, but that animal souls will accuse certain human souls of not feeding them properly in life (2 Enoch 58:3-6).
 Along with this, the Midrashic interpretation of Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 is either teaching Annihilationism (the belief that humans souls are destroyed in Hell, instead of staying there forever), or its comparing the idea that animals have no place in the afterlife to the idea that evil humans will have no place in Heaven. If the former, that goes against Biblical teachings about Hell (Daniel 12:2, Revelation 14:11). If the latter, that obviously contradicts the passage when the full context is noted. Heck, one could come up with a far better allegorical interpretation that takes into account the whole passage: one could surmise that âmanâ can be figuratively be seen as ârichâ âfree manâ or ârulerâ, and âbeastâ being figurative for âthe poorâ âslaveâ or âpeasantâ, and thus derive the idea that, no matter how great you are in this world, everyone, both rich and poor, free and slave, royals and peasantsâŚgo to Sheol. A nice allegorical interpretation of the passageâŚand yet even this doesnât mean that the literal meaning of the text should be ignored or discarded. One can see both literal and allegorical meanings to a text, as long as the two donât contradict each other, a mistake that the Midrashic rendering did above. Plus, just because an idea is ancient doesnât = that its right. Though this can be a factor in some instances (such as the oldest interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, which indicates that angels slept with mortal women, siring giant offspring), if the old interpretation is at odds with the actual text (and or its historical and cultural background, as well as other evidence related to it), then the interpretationâs age means nothing. For example, in Old Testament times, the Israelites thought that the earth was not only flat and rested on a single global ocean, but that the sky or âfirmamentâ was a solid dome that now and again let water from a cosmic ocean through, bringing rain. Those who believed this found biblical âproofâ in passages such as Genesis 1:6-7, 17, 7:11-12, Job 26:10, Psalm 148:4-6, Proverbs 8:27 Isaiah 40:22, and Jeremiah 10:13.Â
This was also reinforced by the fact that the human authors of Old Testament texts thought the same thing, being from the same culture. Indeed, this ancient Jewish interpretation bled over into the early Church, and both Jews and Christians continued to adhere to it in post New Testament times. We donât teach such interpretations of scripture anymore, both due to the fact that, we now know that the sky isnât solid and that the earth doesnât float on a cosmic sea, but that God doesnât lie (Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 6:18). Indeed, heâs omniscient, and knew full well when he inspired human authors to write scripture what the earth and sky are really like. He nevertheless let them use such language in their writings, not because he thought they were right, but in order to be able to talk to ancient people in a way that they could understand, in a way that could get his points across. Using their views of cosmology back then was a great tool in this regard. Its modern equivalent would be a missionary telling a geocentric tribe in South America that âHeâll meet with them at sunrise.â, even though the missionary knows that the sun doesnât literally rise in the morning. This modern interpretation of those passages is predated by far by the oldest interpretation, which had the earth literally flat, floating on a cosmic ocean and being below a solid sky domeâŚand yet itâs obviously superior to the older interpretation. Along with this, Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 predates the old tradition that animals donât have an afterlife, and it obviously contradicts it as well, so if weâre going with the older-is-better argument, then we need to go with the scripture itself! Plus, Jesus himself warned about discarding scripture for the traditions of men (Mark 7:8).
More on the Gospel of Mark later. Â
Given all of this, we can safely conclude that Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 proves that animals both have spirits and an afterlife.
But what about the soul?
Though both supernatural essences that survive death, souls and spirits are not the same things. Indeed, the bible contrasts them on several occasions (Isaiah 26:9, Hebrews 4:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:23). Given this, we need to ask the question: do animals have a soul as well?
Curiously, both the Hebrew and Greek words for soul (Nephesh and Psyche respectively) are often used in the Bible in relation to animals (Genesis 1:20, 24, Ezekiel 47:9, Rev 8:9, 16:3, etc). Indeed, the word is found in the expression âBreath of Lifeâ in Genesis 1:30, where it is used in reference to animals (though the term in English looks identical to the ones found in Genesis 2:7, 7:15 and 7:22, the latter two (which are also in reference to animals) use âruachâ, the Hebrew word for spirit, instead of Nephes. In Genesis 2:7 (reference to Adam), âNesamaâ, which can mean, among other things, breath and spirit, is used). Though in Genesis 2:7 its simply referring to God giving Adam a new purpose for living, these other âBreaths of lifeâ might be pointing to something more. Though we donât see these words usually translated as soul in these passages, the fact that Nephesh/Nepes, the Hebrew word for soul, can mean, among other things, life force or soul (the same definition of Ka the Egyptian word for soul. The ancient Egyptians also believed that the soul was separate from the spirit (Ba), it stands to reason, based on the linguistic and biblical evidence, that they do indeed have one. Â
Along with this, there are several passages in scripture where phantom horses, possibly the spirits of dead horses, might be in view.
Consider 2 kings 2:11-12:
âAnd as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it and he cried, âMy father, my father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!â And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them in two pieces.â
Now, considering that Jesus indicated that none had been in Heaven other than himself (John 3:13), and that there were three heavens (2 Corinthians 12:2), we can conclude that Elijah was not taken up into the Third Heaven, i.e. Heaven proper. However, considering that the second Heaven was the sky, and the third was the lower atmosphere, the realm of air, we can conclude that Elijah at least went to the first âheavenâ. Nevertheless, âhorses of fireâ pulled him upwards.
These creatures make another appearance in 2 Kings 6:17:
âThen Elisha prayed and said, âO LORD, please open his eyes that he may see.â So the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.â
WhoâŚor whatâŚwere these horses?
Those who believe that animals donât have spirits might try to argue that, since the chariots are fiery as well, and that it would be absurd to think that chariots have souls, therefore we should not conclude that these fiery horses are not the spirits of dead horses. However, its not hard to imagine that, despite both chariots and horses being fiery, that the former were made out of supernatural materials, while the latter are simply spirits of dead horses, ones taken out of Sheol by angels to serve in Heavenâs forces. Indeed, the âfireâ of both is probably meant to convey their supernatural nature.
Another thing that people who believe that animals donât have a spirit might bring up is the possibility that these fiery âhorsesâ might be some other kind of angels (albeit in the broadest sense of the term. If these âhorsesâ are sentient, supernatural agents of God, theyâre not the kind that deliver messages like angels proper). After all, angels are supernatural beings, and Godâs angels are likened to fire (Psalm 104:4, compare with Hebrews 1:7). Indeed, four angels (called four âliving creaturesâ) in Ezekiel chapter 1 are depicted as having an appearance like âburning coals of fireâ and âtorches moving two and froâ, adding that âfire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightningâ (Ezekiel 1:13). These beings are later identified as Cherubim (Ezekiel 10:20), which are well known for their semi-bestial form.Â
 Each of these four creatures/Cherubim are followed by wheels within wheels, almost as if they were steeds pulling a four wheeled chariot (Ezekiel 1:5-21), perhaps a throne chariot ridden by God himself (Ezekiel 1:26). Indeed, God is depicted as riding a Cherubim in Psalm 18:10, and in Canaanite mythology, they perform a similar task in Canaanite mythology (the Hebrew root word for Cherubim can mean âsteedâ or âmountâ when the consonants are inverted). Keep in mind, a whirlwind appears in the story of Elijah riding into heaven, and a whirlwind could be indicative that God is present (Job 38:1). Also keep in mind, 2 Kings 2:1 indicates that God himself would take Elijah up into Heaven:
 âNow when the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal.â
 Along with this, other angels were likewise thought to take on full animal form. For example, Ancient Israelite art depicts Seraphim as cobras, and in some cases as winged snakes. Along with this, theyâll also point out the fact that the passages never call these horses âangelsâ means nothing; two angels appeared to the disciples after Jesus ascended into Heaven, and yet, despite their angelic nature being obvious, they are only referred to as âmenâ (Acts 1:10-11).
I admit, itâs quite possible that these horses are indeed Cherubim, but, if they areâŚthen who are the horsemen driving the chariot (2 Kings 2:12)? If it was just Elijah riding them, Elisha would have just said âhorsemanâ, but he said âhorsemenâ instead. However, if the horsemen are members of the Trinity, or if the âhorsemenâ are Elijah and YahwehâŚthen one could make a far stronger argument that these steeds are indeed angelic beings, on par with the fiery, animalistic Cherubim steeds in Ezekiel 1. However, it is interesting to note that, not only are these horses not called âliving creaturesâ or âCherubimâ, but they appear twice in the BibleâŚwithout being called such. Same manifestation, and never called these titles. Also, while the Hebrew root word of Cherubim can mean âmountâ or âsteedâ when the consonants are inverted, without such an inversion it means âhybridâ. One of the hallmarks of Cherubim is the fact that they are depicted in hybrid form (Ezekielâs Cherubim each have wings and four heads (man, lion, bull, eagle) and the soles of their feet are likened to calf hooves, as seen in Ezekiel 1). These horses, however, are not depicted in hybrid form (unless you want to make the argument that they are half horse, half fire, but thatâs not the kind of hybridization that Cherubim were noted for in appearance).
 Thus, it can be argued that, though having some similarities with Cherubim, they are not actually Cherubim. This is true even if God is the one driving the chariot. (I could add that, if the whirlwind in Ezekiel 2 is meant to convey Godâs is present and thus riding the chariot, then its not only strange that heâs simply called a âhorsemanâ, but there are no whirlwinds present in 2 Kings 6:17. Indeed, that later passage has an army of such fiery horses and chariots. One could perhaps imagine God riding them all (being omnipresent), but its also possible that these latter chariots are being drawn by angels (verse 16 indicates that a mighty supernatural army is present, not simply God alone). Along with this, we could imagine God simply taking Ezekiel into Heaven by his own divine power, instead of driving the chariot upwards (the chariot did go up âby a whirlwindâ (2 Kings 2:11), and whirlwinds werenât only indicative of Godâs presence; they were also indicative of his acts (The Hebrew word translated as whirlwind here, âSeâaraâ, is used several times in Jonah chapter 1 to indicate this). Perhaps God isnât driving the chariot, but simply lifting it up. Thus, this opens the door for angels to be driving the chariot, just like what is most likely happening in 2 Kings 6:17. If so, and if the fiery horses are indeed Cherubim angels, then this leads us to the conclusion that angelsâŚare driving angels.
Makes more sense if they are driving horses, albeit of the spirit kind.
Some will also bring also bring up the possibility that these âhorsesâ might be some kind of supernatural equivalent to an animal, creatures that are to angels what horses are to us. Indeed, perhaps the âchariotâ and âhorsesâ are actually meant to convey a deeper level of meaning (yet the âhorsesâ still being literal supernatural agents). However, since animals are shown to have both a spirit and an afterlife (as seen above), the possibility that these horses of fire might be the spirits of dead horses is quite an intriguing one that cannot be entirely dismissed.
Plus, these passages bear a striking similarity toâŚum, well, Iâm getting ahead of myself. Iâll save that little tidbit for laterâŚ
  4. âThe Bible says that animals neither have souls or an afterlife!â
 People who make this argument point to Psalm 49, a Psalm of the Sons of Korah. Letâs go over that passage closely, shall we?
 âHear this, all peoples!
  Give ear, all inhabitants of the world,
2 both low and high,
  rich and poor together!
3 My mouth shall speak wisdom;
  the meditation of my heart shall be understanding.
4 I will incline my ear to a proverb;
  I will solve my riddle to the music of the lyre.
 5 Why should I fear in times of trouble,
  when the iniquity of those who cheat me surrounds me,
6 those who trust in their wealth
  and boast of the abundance of their riches?
7 Truly no man can ransom another,
  or give to God the price of his life,
8 for the ransom of their life is costly
  and can never suffice,
9 that he should live on forever
  and never see the pit.
 10 For he sees that even the wise die;
  the fool and the stupid alike must perish
  and leave their wealth to others.
11 Their graves are their homes forever,
  their dwelling places to all generations,
  though they called lands by their own names.
12 Man in his pomp will not remain;
  he is like the beasts that perish.
 13 This is the path of those who have foolish confidence;
  yet after them people approve of their boasts. Selah
14 Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol;
  death shall be their shepherd,
and the upright shall rule over them in the morning.
 Their form shall be consumed in Sheol, with no place to dwell.
15 But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol,
  for he will receive me. Selah
 16 Be not afraid when a man becomes rich,
  when the glory of his house increases.
17 For when he dies he will carry nothing away;
  his glory will not go down after him.
18 For though, while he lives, he counts himself blessed
  âand though you get praise when you do well for yourselfâ
19 his soul will go to the generation of his fathers,
  who will never again see light.
20 Man in his pomp yet without understanding is like the beasts that perish.â (emphasis mine).
 People who use this chapter as prooftext that animals donât have souls or an afterlife rests their argument in part on verses 12 and 20, where it states âthe beasts that perishâ. Along with this, others using older translations (like the KJV, which uses âgraveâ instead of âSheolâ) will try to argue that verses 14-15 indicate that animals donât have an afterlife. They will also argue (using more up to date translations) that, if the passage did refer to both animals and evil men going to Sheol, and since David claimed that his soul would be ransomed from the power of SheolâŚthen that would indicate that animals would either never leave Sheol, or suffer the same eternal judgment that the wicked men would eventually attain. God is holy, wouldnât do that to innocent animals and, thus, the passage is actually indicating that sheep perish only physically without a soul, while humans âperishâ eternally, which is the crux of the comparison between these evil rich men and the âbeasts that perishâ.
UmâŚnot so fast.
For one, âperishâ doesnât = soul destruction. âDamaâ, the Hebrew word translated as âperishâ in these passages, doesnât mean âdestruction of the soulâ. It means âto destroyâ, âbe destroyedâ âBe wiped outâ âbe ruinedâ or âto perishâ. Along with this, both fools and stupid people are said to eventually perish as well in verse 10. To be fair, the Hebrew word translated as Perish in verse 10 is not Dama, but âabadâ. However, abad means âto destroy the heartâ (which means losing bravery), âdemolishâ, âdestroyâ and âannihilateâ, and can in some cases denote âdisappearanceâ, âcease to existâ or âbring to non-existenceâ.
If âbeasts that perishâ was supposed to refer to animals not having an afterlife, or that their souls dissolved at deathâŚthen why didnât the Sons of Korah use âabadâ when they wrote âbeasts that perishâ?
Even with that, no one would argue that foolish and stupid people would have their souls dissolve at death, or have no souls and thus no afterlife at death, because abad was used for âperishâ in verse 10. Indeed, aside from issues of non-existence, both dama and abad have basically the same meaning. But this begs the question; what kind of âperishâ is involved here, and what are the âBeasts that perishâ?
Repeat: beasts that perish.
As opposed to the beasts that donât?
Notice, it doesnât state âthey are like beasts, who perish.â, but âthey are like the beasts that perish.â
What are the beasts that perish?
Itâs a known fact that, when an animal dies in the wild, its body can be demolished by both scavengers and decomposition in a short period of time. Contrast that with humans, who bury their dead and thus their remains not only last longer, but people know where the body is located, in its grave. Now, one could argue that the idea that animals donât have an afterlife and humans do might have been inspired by such realities, with people eventually imagining that animal souls perish at death while human souls lingered in an underground netherworld. Nevertheless, not only is that not what the passage is indicating (as we will soon see), but other ancient near eastern cultures were known to bury animals. Indeed, the burial of dogs alone is noted in the archeological record of Israel, spanning from prehistoric times to the biblical era. Likewise, ancient Egyptians mummified animals, such as pet cats and sacrificial bulls.Â
They even buried donkeys (Keep in mind, the Israelites were slaves in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12:40), and Egypt shared a border with both the united nation of Israel and, later, the southern Kingdom of Judah). Plus, just like today, not all humans in the ancient world were actually buried. Indeed, some were left out to rot, while others were mauled and eaten by wild animals. The bible mentions people being unburied on a few occasions (Jeremiah 7:33, 9:22, 16:4,6, 25:33, 34:20, Deuteronomy 28:26). Thus, itâs harder to imagine such an idea popping into existence in that region, given all the indications of a long tradition of animal burial. Perhaps one could argue that the Israelites, inspired by the fact that some animals were buried and others were not, believed that some animals lived on an afterlife while others perished at death, yet that not only goes against the heart of Ecclesiastes 3:18-22, but weâd have to ask why the fact that some people didnât become buried didnât inspire the Jews to believe that only some humans had an afterlife. They might also try to argue that the ancient Israelites were unique in not burying animals, and thus the idea that animals donât have an afterlife like humans could have arisen from this aspect of their culture, but itâs up to such to prove that the Hebrews/Israelites never, from the time of Moses to the times of the Babylonian captivity (which Psalm 49 was most likely written) buried an animal. Even if they didnât, it would be far from certain that such an idea derived from the practice of only burying dead humans. Now, to be fair, Iâm not aware of any animals being buried in either the Old or New Testaments (they obviously didnât buried donkeys, as see in Jeremiah 22:19), but that doesnât = that the Israelites never did so.
However, the concept of the âbeast that perishâ refers to more than just animal bodies disintegrating.
You seeâŚthere is one species of animal actually noted in Psalm 49, and when you compare its lifestyle, and what eventually happened to most of its kind in ancient times (as well as the modern world) and compare it with verse 10 (on fools and stupid people) and passages on rich, evil men in Psalm 49, you start to get a clear picture of what is being discussed here.
Enter, the sheep.
Letâs look at Psalm 49:14-15 again;
 â14 Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol;
  death shall be their shepherd,
and the upright shall rule over them in the morning.
  Their form shall be consumed in Sheol, with no place to dwell.
15 But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol,
  for he will receive me. Selahâ
 NowâŚhow are rich, wicked men compared to sheep?
Well, sheep, which are not thought of as the Einsteins of the animal kingdom, live good, comfortable lives with farmers and shepherds. Theyâre cared for, well fed, protected and groomedâŚuntil the day theyâre killed, their flesh divided among humans that eat it. In a like manner, the rich enemies targeted in Psalm 49, who are not spiritually wise, are pampered, well cared for, probably protected by bodyguards and comfortable, living their life to the fullestâŚbut one day they would die, their riches divided amongst still living humans (note that verse 10 indicates that even fools and stupid people would likewise have their money divided after death). In this sense, they are like sheep, the beasts that perish. However, the imagery is twofold: itâs not just comparing the earthly fates of both sheep and wicked rich men; Itâs also comparing the earthly fate of sheep with the afterlife fate of the wicked. Just as a shepherd would lead sheep to their deaths, death would lead the rich evil men in the passage to Sheol. Just as a sheep basically has no hope of salvation from the sacrificial blade or shepherdâs blade, the evil rich men, unlike David, have no hope of salvation from the âpitâ. Thus, in a second sense, they are like the âbeast that perishâ.
Now, some will correctly note that the passage isnât teaching that sheep go to Sheol (though Ecclesiastes 3:21 teaches that they do), but that the evil men are, like sheep, led to Sheol. Considering that the afterlife fates of both the wicked rich men and the Sons of Korah are mentioned, and that the sheep herding imagery is simply used to symbolically represent the former, and that animal afterlife is not mentioned in the passage...therefore, some argue, animals donât have one. However, the authors of the Psalm could be simply not bringing up animal afterlife for an important reason: animals are not judged for sin, thus would not be expected to suffer Godâs wrath in the afterlife (a fact thatâs echoed in 2 Enoch, as seen above). So, instead of comparing both death and afterlife between sheep and evil men, its simply comparing the earthly fate of sheep with the afterlife fate of the wicked rich men (which btw debunks the objection that the passage would imply animals suffer eternally in the afterlife if it was teaching that they have one).
Also, its always best to use a modern translation, like the ESV, NIV and New American Standard when addressing these issues. Indeed, even the NIV, a dynamic equivalent translation instead of a literal translation, one that never properly transliterates SheolâŚnevertheless makes a reference to the realm of the dead in its translation of Psalm 49. Using an older translation that means âgraveâ instead of transliterating Sheol is poor methodology. Â
Now, to go for the kill: letâs compare Psalm 49âŚwith Luke 13:1-3âŚ
âThere were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, âDo you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.â (Emphasis mine).
(BTW: before you as, âperishâ here is a translation of the Greek word âApollymiâ, which means, among other things, âPerishâ, as well as to destroy, kill or die. Basically the same meaning as the Hebrew words dama and abad (though without the âcease to existâ aspect of abad).
Notice what this passage is doing?
Itâs comparing the earthly deaths of men who were killed by Pilate, and those killed when the Tower of Siloam fellâŚto those who go to Hell in the afterlife. Physical death, physical âperishingâ is being compared to the second death, residing in Hell forever, what one might call spiritual âperishingâ. Along with this, Jesus is indicating that they can avoid the latter if they repent, just as the Sons of Korah would have their souls ransomed from Sheol, while those rich, wicked men would not. Â
Does this mean that neither the people who were killed by PilateâŚnor those killed when the Tower of Siloam fellâŚhad souls? Does it mean that they had no spirits, no afterlife?
Then why are we making the same kind of argument for sheep in Psalm 49?
Now, some will try to salvage this situation by arguing that, the people who died due to Pilate and the Tower of Siloam did so before Jesusâ death and resurrection, and thus, like all sinners without Christ, would be damned. Thus, the passage would be indicating eternal damnation for them as well as for others who likewise donât repent of their sins. However, as noted above, those who were relatively speaking ârighteousâ went to Abrahamâs Side or Bosom in the afterlife. Along with this, the Old Testament taught that one day the righteous would be not only freed from Sheol, but have everlasting life in glory (Psalm 16:10, 23:6, 49:15, 73:24, Daniel 12:2, Hebrews 11:10,13-16, 12:23). Keep in mind, Jesus indicated that no human had been to Heaven before him (John 3:13). How did things change? What event made it possible for such Old Testament believers to have the grace to go to Heaven?
Christâs crucifixion and resurrection.
Along with this, Jesus indicated that the victims of both Pilate and the Tower of Siloam were not the worst of sinners. Indeed, some might even have been children, who are under the age of accountability. Thus, itâs quite possible that some of these victims went to Abrahamâs Side when they died, and therefore would be destined to enter Heaven.
Thus, the âanimals donât have an afterlifeâ tribe are back to square one. Â
Some might try to argue that we cannot compare Psalm 49 with Luke 13:1-3, because the former as using sheep as an example, while the latter are using humans, and thus you canât compare the two.
What a nice Special Pleading fallacy.
The objection might make some semblance of sense if the Bible taught that animals donât have a spirit or afterlife, or if it was at least mum on the idea, but as seen in Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 and other passages, it indicates that animals have both.
Given all of this, we can also safely conclude that Psalm 49 doesnât teach that animals donât have an afterlife. Â
5. âOnly humans have souls, because only we are made in the image of God.â
 This understanding of the âImage of Godâ is downright eisegesis. Specifically, its reading an anachronistic understanding of Genesis 1:26-27.
Letâs look at that passage more closely, shall we?
âThen God said, âLet us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.â So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.â
If you went back in time and told the ancient Israelites who first read the Torah that the âImage of Godâ means that we have a soul, theyâd cock their heads at you and say the ancient Hebrew equivalent of âHuh?â. No ancient Hebrew in that day and age would have interpreted that passage to mean that humans have a soul. Though humans do have one, thatâs not what the passage is teaching.
In order to understand what it is indicating; you need to not think like a 21rst century Christian with a King James Bible in one hand and an iPad in the other.
You need to think like an ancient Israelite.
Kings in the ancient near eastern often had two important jobs; king and high priest. Melchizedek is one prime example of this (Genesis 14:17-20). Due to being both high priest and high ruler, ancient near eastern kings were often said to be an image of a certain deity. This didnât mean that only they alone had both a soul and an afterlife; it meant that they represented a deity, and thus had a divine right to rule.
The first Israelites who read Genesis 1:26-27 would have this fact in mind, especially considering verse 26 and what follows in verse 28. Letâs look at all of these verses together, to get a gist of the context, shall we?
 âThen God said, âLet us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.â So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, âBe fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.â (Emphasis mine).
Thus, this objection fails.
 6. âThe Bible never shows animals being in Heaven! Therefore, they are not in Heaven!â
 Cough cough Revelation cough cough 19 cough cough 11 cough cough through cough cough 21 COUGH!
âThen I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, âCome, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.â And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.â
Now, some will try to make similar arguments against the idea that these flying white horses of Heaven are spirits of disembodied horses that they make against the interpretation of Elijahâs and Elishaâs fiery horses being disembodied horses: they could be cherubim angels, whether they are called such or not (letâs not forget, God rides a Cherubim in Psalm 18:10). Indeed, if you look closely at Zechariah 14:1-5 and Jude 14-15, it seems to indicate that angels will indeed follow Christ into battle. Also, the Book of Revelation, unlike 2 Kings, is an Apocalyptic, a book of prophecy put into symbols. Thus, we should be careful about taking most of it literally. Indeed, a white horse appeared as the first horsemanâs steed in Revelation 6:1, and no one expects the fulfillment of this prophecy to be literally fulfilled. Letâs also not forget that Jesus is depicted as both having fiery eyes, a sword in his mouth and white hair in Revelation 19:12 and 15. Nobody expects Jesus to come back with literal fiery eyes and a literal sword in his mouth! Its symbolism, showing a deeper meaning. Letâs not forget, both the 7 headed beast and miracle working beast (aka false Prophet) of Revelation 13 appear in Revelation 19:19-20, both of whom are not meant to be taken as literal monsters. I could also mention the fact that Revelation 19:18 mentions that the horses of the Beastâs armies will be both slain and eaten, and yetâŚhorses would not be expected to have any place on a modern battlefield (more on that later). I could also mention that the white horses here would have brought to the minds of the first readers of Revelation the Parthians, feared enemies of Rome who used white horses.
However, some things need to be kept in mind.
Though one could potentially argue that the horses of Elijah and Elisha are some kind of angel (not proven, but possible), or some different kind of purely supernatural animal (once again, possible, but not proven), itâs a bit harder to see these flying white horses as angels. Indeed, most commentaries Iâve read on the subject donât treat them as such. Indeed, despite being mounted by Christ, who is God (and lest we forget, his army), they certainly donât fit the hybrid depictions of Cherubim. They donât even sport wings. Along with this, its not only hard to see these horses as angels, but one need no necessarily interpret everything in this passage as purely symbolic. After all, Jesus will literally return (Acts 1:10-11), and it was prophesied (regular prophecy, not apocalyptic) that Jesus would return with an army (Zechariah 14:1-5, Jude 14-15). True, angels will be present, but so will Christians (Revelation 17:14, compare âFaithful and chosenâ phrase with Romans 1:1,6,7,8:28, 1 Corinthians 1:1-2,24, Jude 1). By this time, such Christians would be those who were called up in the Rapture, both dead and living who are given new, immortal bodies (1 Corinthians 15:35-55). However, if the Rapture doesnât occur at the same time as the Second Coming of Christ, but occurs right before the Great Tribulation, then some of these Christians might very well be the spirits of Christian martyrs who died during the Great Tribulation, not having resurrected yet (that wonât occur until after the Battle of Armageddon, see Revelation 20:4-6). Either way, Christians will likewise mount these heavenly steeds into war. True, one might imagine these horses being angels whom the saints ride into battleâŚbut such an interpretation is not necessary. After all, the Jews were acquainted with the idea of angels riding and fighting on horseback, as seen in the Apocryphal books 2 Maccabees (3:25, 10:29-30, 11:6-12) and 4 Maccabees (4:10). Given this, early Christians might very well have interpreted the flying white horses of revelation 19 as indeedâŚhorses. Plus, while angels donât necessarily have to be called âangelsâ in cases where their identity was obvious (Zechariah 5:9, Acts 1:10-11), such an angelic identity for the horses of Revelation 19 is not obvious at all. Indeed, thereâs really no good reason to suppose that they are indeed angels. I could also bring up the fact that countless white horses have died throughout history (and possibly prehistory. Horses have been around for at least nearly 50 million years), which would give Jesusâ army countless steeds to ride. Though such animals could be supernatural steeds that were never flesh, perhaps specifically created by God for the Battle of ArmageddonâŚwith so many dead white horses in the afterlife, such creations for the upcoming battle arenât actually necessary. Also, its not impossible that some early Christians interpreted these horses as the spirits of dead white Parthian steeds. Plus, the idea that horses wonât be used in the future Battle of Armageddon by earthly forces is in error, for the US military, believe it or not, used horses in combat during the Afghanistan War. Thus, we could actually see the antichristâs army also using horses at the Battle of Armageddon.
Though we cannot be 100% certain that the supernatural horses of Elijah, Elisha and Revelation 19 are truly disembodied spirits of dead horses, considering the biblical evidence that proves that animals have spirits, souls and an afterlife, the way that Revelation 19:11-21 is structured and the evidence that ancient Jews were acquainted with the idea of angels fighting on horsebackâŚitâs a strong possibility nonetheless. Â
  Folks, the idea that animals have neither a soul nor an afterlife is not taught in the Bible. It is, however, taught by tradition, one that had wormed its way into our concordances, commentaries, seminaries and sermons. Jesus warned us about putting the traditions of men before the Bible in Mark 7:1-13:
 âNow when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, âWhy do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?â And he said to them, âWell did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
 ââThis people honors me with their lips,
  but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
  teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.â
 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.â
 And he said to them, âYou have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, âHonor your father and your motherâ; and, âWhoever reviles father or mother must surely die.â But you say, âIf a man tells his father or his mother, âWhatever you would have gained from me is Corbanââ (that is, given to God) then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.â (Emphasis mine).
 Folks, ditch the tradition.
Accept the word instead.
    Sources:
âThe Hebrew Bible: A Translation With Commentary, Volume 1: The Five Books of Mosesâ by Robert Alter, 18
âThe Hebrew Bible, A Translation With Commentary, Volume 2: The Prophetsâ by Robert Alter, 1054-55
âThe Hebrew Bible, A Translation With Commentary, Volume 3: The Writingsâ By Robert Alter, 773-4, 687
âNelsonâs New Illustrated Bible Dictionary: Completely Revised and Updated Versionâ by Ronald F. Youngblood (General editor), F. F. Bruce and R.K. Harrison (Consulting Editors), 1164.
âThe IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament: Second Editionâ by Craig S. Keener, 386, 690-91, 768-69.
âZondervan Exhaustive Concordance: Second Editionâ By Edward Goodrick and John R. Kolehnberger III, 875, 1076, 1083-84, 1247, 1359, 1390, 1454, 1459 1488, 1531, 1584, 1604.
âThe New Strongâs Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Red Letter Editionâ by James Strong LL.D. S.T.D and John R. Kohlenberger III, Main Concordance: 660, 844, 852-54, 952, Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary: 1, 63, 189, 199, 258-60, Greek dictionary of the New Testament: 37, 205, 275
âThe Illustrated Guide To Biblical Historyâ by Kendell H. Easley, 63
âMisinterpreting Genesisâ by Ben Stanhope, 51-62, 83-130
âThe Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythologyâ by Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm, 271
âThe Way to Eternity: Egyptian Mythâ by Fergus Fleming, Allan Lothian and Dr. Joann Fletcher (Consultant), 96
âTitans and Olympians: Greek Mythologyâ by Tony Allan, Sarah Maitland and Dr. Michael Trapp (Consultant), 108-11
âHomer: The Odysseyâ, translated by Robert Fagles, 268
âThe World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creaturesâ by Dougal Dixon, 406-7, 450-51, 495
âPrehistoric Lifeâ, 382-83 (compare with 360-61), 404, 412, 430, 438
âThe Complete Guide to Prehistoric Lifeâ by Tim Haines and Paul Chambers, 156-57
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Routledge_Handbook_of_Religion_and_A/byZxDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=animals%2Bsouls%2Baristotle%2BPythagoras&pg=PT465&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Success_Depends_on_the_Animals/vGyVDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=animals%2Bsouls%2Baristotle%2BPythagoras&pg=PP22&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Animal_Ethics_Reader/qiQlDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=animals%2Bsouls%2Baristotle%2BPythagoras&pg=PA2&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Divine_Life_of_Animals/CmeqLOTdyKIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=aristotle%2Banimal%2Bsouls%2Bdon%27t%2Bsurvive%2Bdeath&pg=PA117&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kindred_Brutes_Animals_in_Romantic_Perio/I7NBDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Pythagoras%2Banimals%2Bsensitive%2Bsouls&pg=PT26&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Consensus_Realities/7-JXEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Pythagoras%2Banimals%2Bsensitive%2Bsouls&pg=PA79&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Porphyry_On_Abstinence_from_Killing_Anim/B5ojAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Pythagoras%2Banimals%2Brational%2Bsouls&pg=PA162&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Animals_Gods_and_Humans/bp99AgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Pythagoras%2Banimals%2Brational%2Bsouls&pg=PA134&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Plotinus_on_the_Soul/Nx2_CQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Pythagoras%2Banimals%2Brational%2Bsouls&pg=PA193&printsec=frontcover
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Environmental_Problems_of_the_Greeks_and/nSWVAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Pythagoras%2Banimals%2Brational%2Bsouls&pg=PP107&printsec=frontcover
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/jupiter-moons/io/in-depth/#:~:text=A%20bit%20larger%20than%20Earth's,in%20distance%20from%20the%20planet.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/in-depth/
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/overview/#:~:text=Earth%20has%20one%20moon%2C%20and,asteroids%2C%20also%20have%20small%20moons.
https://www.worldhistory.org/solomon/
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-ecclesiastes-and-what-does-it-mean
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/afterlife-for-animals/
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-the-archaeology-of-dogs-1.5627348
https://www.israel21c.org/the-curious-incident-of-ancient-dogs-buried-in-mysterious-graves/
https://www.livescience.com/27767-sacrificed-donkey-grave-found.html
https://australian.museum/learn/cultures/international-collection/ancient-egyptian/animal-mummies-in-ancient-egypt/
https://carnegiemnh.org/why-were-cats-mummified-in-ancient-egypt/#:~:text=In%20ancient%20Egypt%2C%20cats%20were,cat%20sculptures%20have%20been%20found.
http://www.macroevolution.net/orangutan-human-hybrids.html
https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/26639/olympus-mons/
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Old_Testament_Pseudepigrapha/Z8cyt_SM7voC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=human+souls+he+will+judge+for+the+sake+of+animals&pg=PA184&printsec=frontcover
https://www.businessinsider.com/lets-not-forget-the-reasons-why-the-military-still-has-horses-and-bayonets-2012-10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9twFI210maw
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/615429668528668672/was-there-animal-death-before-the-fall-were
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/644038696642985984/was-satan-the-serpent-in-the-garden-um-yes-and
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/paral18.cfm

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
War In Heaven
By Travis Jackson.
Tidal waves of wind, thunder unending, skies birthing lightning: a War in Heaven!
Battles of angels, immortal and un-killableâŚA War in Heaven!
Satan cunning and curious, leading his disciples, his angels against God almighty. Was it just pride, or other sins as well, that led to the War in Heaven?
A lethal flock, some within bearing pikes, others bearing explosives, the latter dropped. Clouds burn, rumble, and bleed! War in Heaven.
 Metatron, giant angel, Titan of Heaven, crushing demons beyond number underfoot, by himself scattering trillions, bellowing taunts! War in Heaven.
 Ravenous firestorms, hypercanes of energy, black holes fired rapidly,
gamma ray bursts of steel and feathers; War in Heaven.
 Gabrielâs forces exhausted, surrounded by burning wings, broken armor, a battlefield silenced. Demons lay before him, broken. He plants the flag; another great victory! War in Heaven.
 Ariel, Raphael, firing ball lightning from their arrows, burning and crippling hundreds, thousands, millions! Enemies beyond count! War in Heaven.
 Single combat of champions: Satan shrouded in darkness, Michael covered in fiery armor. The Gladiators collide, yet fire devours darkness. War of Heaven.
Every battle, campaign, skirmish, wing-letting fracas, ending with loyalist victory.
The final battle looms. God almighty watches. War in Heaven.
Satan falls to his knees, crying blood as his army falls, as screams multiply, as swords surround his neck. War in Heaven.Â
Rebels defeated, thrown down to Hell, yet they are not finishedâŚ
Satan plots to doom souls, plots against God again, plots another War in Heaven.
 Michael, Loyalist angels, brandishing God-breathed scythes, mounting ghosts of Arabians. They are Prepared, waiting for the hazing of Hell, waiting for another War in Heaven.
Does John 3:13, 1 Corinthians 15:46 and Zechariah 12:1 Teach that Abortion is Okay? Um, NO, and Here is Why.
A short while ago, Carey Smith, our pastor at Northshore Church, retired from the pulpit. Before he left, he allowed members of the church (including myself) to pilfer through some of his books, taking any that we wanted. Being a book lover myself, I eyed those books like a Viking thirsty for plunder.
Yes, it was time for a raid!
I snagged several books that day, among them a fascinating expose on Mormonism written in the 80s titled âThe God Makersâ the book version of the documentary of the same name. It...well shocked me. Although I knew some of the things about Mormonism that were in the book, a lot of what it contained about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints was a surprise. Intrigued, I was about to look up a heck of a lot more on Mormonism when I remembered that I had âMormons Answered, Verse by Verseâ by David A. Reed and John R. Farkasâ in my personal library. The book gives a brief history of Mormonism, then goes over their doctrine, scripture and then settles into answering Mormon beliefs with Biblical scripture. Reading the book again was interesting (havenât read it in a LONG time, and I regrettably have never finished it). Though I did note some errors in biblical interpretation (it concludes that the âgodsâ of Psalm 82 are human judges. in reality, they are Bene Elohim, high ranking âangelsâ (angels in the broadest sense of the term) who served God in the so-called divine council), I didnât see anything too serious at first.
Then I turned to page 57.
The verse that is presented is Jeremiah 1:5, which reads:
 âBefore I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.â
 Now, of course, this passage, among other things, indicates that the unborn are human. Humans are not pseudo-humanoids that attain personhood upon passing through the âmagicâ birth canalâ: they are human even in the womb. Indeed, as I noted in other articles on the subject of abortion and the Bible, this is FAR from the only passage that teaches this. Nevertheless, the reason why this passage is put into the book is because Mormons use it as âevidenceâ for their belief that human souls exist before conception and birth, that we all lived before we took on mortal flesh. Course, this passage isnât proof that human souls exist before conception; its just indicative that God is omniscient, including knowing the end from the beginning of human history. Long before we were made in the womb, God knew who we would be. Thus, before he formed us in the womb, he knew us. This is a great counter to the Mormon interpretation, and the book did bring this point up.
However, it brought up something else.
In reference to Jeremiah 1:5, it states:
 âDoes this prove that we all lived in the spirit before we were born in the flesh? No, because the Bible states clearly that the exact opposite is true. âThat was not first which was spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritualâ (1 Cor 15:46). Manâs spirit does not pre-exist independently of the body; rather, the Bible says that God âformeth the spirit of man within himâ (Zech 12:1).â
 Did you catch that?
Reading that passage, it seemed to be as if the authors accidentally (?) opened the door...to pro-choice biblical interpretation.
After all, if the unborn donât attain a spirit until they are born (more on this later), then they arenât fully human before they are born, therefore it wouldnât be murder to abort them, right?
This avenue of stupidity gets even longer.
Next, on page 76, the authors tackle the Mormon interpretation of John 17:5, where Jesus indicates that he existed long before he was conceived. The passage is as follows:
 âAnd now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.â
Mormons try to argue that this also proves that we existed before we took on flesh. However, the authors rightly point out that this passage is referring to Jesus, not to all mankind. At least with Jeremiah 1:5, both the part where the Prophet Jeremiah was made in the womb, and where God foreknew him before he was formed there, are universal. They apply to all, not just Jeremiah (as other passages on both the unborn and Godâs omniscience shows (the former will appear in this article, the latter will be in a link in the sources section), but in John 17:5, there is no way to apply the pre-existent aspect of Christ to all mankind. In this vein, the authors did good.Â
However, they should have stopped there.
They...didnât:
 âIn fact, Jesus declared that âno man hath ascended unto Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heavenâ (John 3:13). No other man had a prior existence before birth-only Jesus Christ.â
 Hmmm, so if donât exist before birthâŚthen its therefore okay to abort the unborn, right? After all, they donât exist as human beings until they pass through that magic birth canal, right? Theyâre just body parts that are disposable before they are born, right?
To be fair, the authors may simply have simply chosen the wrong words to make their arguments, not intending to give pro-choice âbiblical interpretationâ. After all, they werenât tackling abortion, but Mormon interpretation of scripture. However, they nevertheless gave the green light for pro-choice folks to use Zechariah 12:1, John 3:13 and 1 Corinthians 15:46 as proof texts for their agenda, for they did use those verses to argue that the body is made before the spirit, and that we didnât exist until birth.
They gave the pro-choice tribe ammunition.
However, as we will see, these prooftext bullets are blanks.
Letâs tackle these passages 1 by 1, shall we?
 1. John 3:13.
 Letâs look at this passage again, this time in the ESV:
 âNo one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.â
 Now, in context, Jesus is talking to the Pharisee Nicodemus. Jesus had told him that one must be born again to see the kingdom of God, then indicated that the second birth is one of the spirit. When Nicodemus says in verse 9 âHow can these things be?â, Jesus points out that Nicodemus, being a learned Pharisee, should understand the point that Jesus is making. He then brings up the fact that Nicodemus didnât accept the testimony of Jesus and his disciples, then points out that, if Nicodemus wouldnât believe the âearthly thingsâ that Jesus told him, how would be believe the heavenly things that Jesus could tell him? After that, Jesus states that no one had ascended unto Heaven except he who descended from Heaven, the Son of Man.
I.e. Jesus himself.
Now, of course, this passage debunks the Mormon doctrine that human souls existed with God in Heaven before they took on flesh. Only Jesus existed before conception. However, it doesnât indicate that human life or personhood begins right at birth. Indeed, as Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 44:24, 49:1-5, Job 10:11-2, Luke 1:12-15, 41-44 teaches, humans are made in the womb, already existing there before birth. We werenât spirit children before our time in the womb, but we all were fully distinct human beings while in the womb, and still are outside it.
Next?
 2. 1 Corinthians 15:46.
Now, letâs look at both this verse and what comes before it. In the context, Paul is answering two interesting questions: âHow are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?â (1 Corinthians 15:35). Paul replies in 1 Corinthians 15:36-49:
 âYou foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, âThe first man Adam became a living beingâ; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.â (emphasis mine).
As you can see, Paul is basically indicating that our future resurrection bodies will be far different from our current earthly ones. Just as seeds are planted in the ground and sprout large plants, so shall our bodies be buried in the ground, only to be transformed into new living bodies that are far, far greater than our former ones, bodies which will be immortal (1 Corinthians 15:50-58). All of us have natural, earthly bodies, but one day we will have transformed, spiritual bodies. Thatâs what Paul is trying to say. Heâs not indicating that bodies are made first and then our souls, only that we exist in natural bodies, and one day we will in spiritual ones.
Now, of course, the pro-choice crowd will try to argue that, since Paul is using imagery of Adamâs creation (1 Cor 15:45, 47-49), and his creation involved God breathing the breath of life into his dust-made body, which led to him becoming a living being (Genesis 2:7), therefore Paul is indicating that human life begins at first breath, not in the womb. However, as I explained in an article on Genesis 2:7 (see sources section below), among other things, Genesis 2:7 is not meant to be taken literally. Indeed, the passage uses conception imagery, not birth imagery. Think: Adamâs body is made out of the earth (which was often personified as female. There were several earth goddesses and divine feminine personifications of the Earth in ancient pagan religions). Then a heavenly, masculine God breathes into him the breath of life (wind comes from the sky). Thus, just as men and women join together in sex and conceive life, so likewise a union of heaven and earth occurs, which leads toâŚa new life, i.e. Adam. This isnât indicating that God had sex with the earth. Indeed, in numerous examples of stories of a union of heaven and earth in ancient religions, no sex is noted. it is, however, indicative that conception imagery is nevertheless in view in Genesis 2:7. Indeed, one can see Adamâs time in the garden figuratively as his time in his âMotherâs Wombâ (the Garden of Eden was on Earth), and his expulsion being figuratively his birth (premature birth to be exact). Course, once again, this passage isnât to be taken literally (the mention of dust implies mortality, breath of life and âliving beingâ means that God gave an already existing Adam a new reason/purpose for living), but even in the figurative sense, the union of heaven and earth creating new âlifeâ (in this case, a new purpose for Adam to live) is still apparent. I could also mention the fact that even at the moment of conception, zygotes take in oxygen from their surroundings, and that the ancients would have easily deduced that, just as a pregnant woman eats and drinks for her unborn offspring, she would also breathe for them as well. Given all of this, we can safely discard the idea that Paul was indicating that humans donât have souls until they are born.
Next?
 3. Zechariah 12:1
 Letâs look at this passage more closely:
 âThe oracle of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him:â
 At first, this seems to indicate that the body is made before the spirit, thus opening the door to the possibility that, at least at certain stages of pregnancy, abortion is okay. After all, its not a sin to do away with a dead body (which has no soul) by putting it into the ground or by cremation, so why would it not be okay to do away with a soulless fetus by flushing him/her down the toilet?
However, people who make these kinds of arguments about Zechariah 12:1 forget three important things:
1. Even if Zechariah 12:1 teaches that the body is made before the spirit (more on that later), the passage doesnât say when God makes a spirit within a human being. Is it a split second after the moment of conception? Sometime in the second or third trimester? Right at birth? Given this uncertainty, if you have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, wouldnât you be risking committing a murder? After all, you donât know exactly when God puts a soul in a unborn baby, right? Heck, considering that the passage doesnât state when spirits are created within man, you could push the date of that potentially into elderly years, if you want to go that far!
2. It only uses the word spirit, not spirit and soul.
Why is this important?
Because the spirit is not the same thing as the soul.
Like the ancient Egyptians, ancient Hebrews believed that there was more than one supernatural aspect to man. Indeed, while the Egyptians called the soul âKaâ and the spirit âBaâ, the Hebrews called the soul âNephesh/Nepesâ and the spirit âruach/Ruahâ. In Koine Greek, the Jews used the words âpsycheâ for soul and âpneumaâ for spirit. This is a shock for most in the modern western world, who are used to the idea of only body and soul. Indeed, even this western attitude at times shows up in bible concordances, where one will see one definition of Psyche as âspiritâ, even though the word means âsoulâ. Nevertheless, this division of soul and spirit is easily seen in Hebrews 4:12:
 âFor the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.â (emphasis mine).
 Now, its pretty obvious that joints and marrow are not the exact same things, as any dictionary or book on anatomy will show. True, both are related to bones, but the former is where bones meet and thus enable mobility, while the latter is the goo that located inside bones. Nevertheless, joint and marrow are not the same things. Likewise, based on the comparison above, spirits and souls, while both supernatural aspects of man that survive physical death, are not the exact same things. Some have tried to dismiss this passage by trying to argue that a form of parallelism is going on, a parallelism that allows for spirits and souls to actually be the exact same things. A similar argument has been made for Isaiah 26:9, which likewise has soul and spirit in the same passage. However, if thatâs the case, then they need to explain how joints and bone marrow are the exact same things as well!
 Now, to add insult to injury:
 âNow may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.â â 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (emphasis mine).
Given all of this, we can conclude that, even if Zechariah 12:1 is indicating that God makes bodies first and then spirits, it still doesnât = that God doesnât make human souls at the moment of conception.
3. We donât even have to take Zechariah 12:1 as indicating that bodies are made first before spirits; it could just be simply indicating that he made the spirits that reside in our bodies.
Now, some pro-choicers will try to counter that the unborn cannot have spirits because, according to The New Strongâs Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (red letter edition), ruach only means spiritâŚwhen applied to a rational being. The unborn arenât rational beings, and thus, they donât have ruachs or spirits, right? Thus, its okay to abort them, right?
Well, this is where the house of cards built by concordances, eisegesis and bad logic comes crashing down.
If we went by the above logic, then not only would we have to conclude that irrational people donât have a spirit (as well as those in a coma who canât access rational thinking skills), but that infants outside the womb, who are also not rational...likewise donât have spirits. Indeed, itâs been proven scientifically that the rational part of a human brain doesnât fully develop until the age of 25, so, by that logic, anyone under 25 doesnât have a spirit!
Is it okay to kill an infant? Heck, is it okay to kill anyone under 25? Is it okay to kill irrational people, or people in comas?Â
Keep in mind, no biblical scholar, including those who know biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, would ever state that the bible teaches that only some people have spirits and not others, and not all concordances indicate that ruach/ruah only refers to a spirit when applied to a rational being. Indeed, as noted above, Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13-16, Isaiah 44:24, 49:1-5, Job 10:11-2, Luke 1:12-15, 41-44 state that we are made in the womb. Not partially made, mind you, but made, as in fully made.
 Folks, we didnât exist as pure spirit beings in Heaven before our conception and birth, but we do exist as unborn children before our birth. We are human, from the moment of conception. We bear the image of God at the moment of conception. When God authors new life in the womb, we have no right to take it out of this world.
Sources:
 âMormons Answered Verse by Verseâ by David A. Reed and John R. Farkas, 15-35, 57-8, 76.
âThe Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythologyâ by Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm, 271
âThe Way to Eternity: Egyptian Mythâ by Fergus Fleming, Allan Lothian and Dr. Joann Fletcher (Consultant), 96
âThe New Strongâs Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Red Letter Editionâ by James Strong LL.D. S.T.D and John R. Kohlenberger III, Main Concordance: 844, 852-54, Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary: 189, 258-60, Greek dictionary of the New Testament: 205, 275
âZondervan Exhaustive Concordance: Second Editionâ By Edward Goodrick and John R. Kolehnberger III, 1076, 1083-84, 1454, 1488, 1584, 1604.
âSupernaturalâ by Michael Heiser, 17-26
âThe Unseen Realmâ by Michael Heiser, 23-37
https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Transcript-109-John-10-gods-or-Men.pdf
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051#:~:text=The%20rational%20part%20of%20a,cortex%2C%20the%20brain's%20rational%20part. Â
https://sirtravisjacksonoftexas.tumblr.com/post/653751033750781952/does-genesis-27-indicate-that-abortion-is
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God,-Omniscience-OfÂ
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/jointsÂ
https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/bone-marrow