By Lewis Loflin
This site hosts extensive material on religion, particularly rational monotheism and the Bible. To understand Christianity’s roots, we must look to the Hellenistic world shaped by Alexander the Great. The Roman Empire didn’t “fall” in 476 CE (not 479 CE as often misstated); it transformed over centuries, a process accelerated by cultural and religious shifts like the rise of Christianity.
“We cannot command religion, for no man can be compelled to believe anything against his will.” — A timeless reminder of faith’s personal nature.
Jonathan Went, a Christian, argues for studying the historical Jesus: “Because our faith is based upon a historical figure for whom more evidence exists than for Julius Caesar. Christians, Jews, journalists, theologians, historians, and skeptics all take an active interest in every archaeological or manuscript discovery that might shed light or doubt on the origins of our faith. We must be armed with these facts to confirm our faith and answer enquirers (1 Peter 3:15).”
Went’s claim about evidence surpassing that for Julius Caesar is exaggerated. While Caesar left writings, coins, and contemporary accounts (e.g., his own *Commentarii de Bello Gallico* and Cicero’s letters), evidence for Jesus is largely from later sources like the Gospels, written decades after his death. Still, most historians agree a Jew named Jesus lived in the 1st century CE, likely claimed to be the Messiah—a political figure expected to free Jews from Roman rule—and was crucified by the Romans for sedition.
Crucifixion was a Roman punishment for state crimes like rebellion, not Jewish religious offenses. Mark 15:27-32 supports this: “They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!’ … Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe…” The term “rebels” (not “robbers” in some translations) and the mocking title “king of Israel” indicate a political charge. Mark, likely the earliest Gospel (circa 70 CE), offers the most historical glimpse of Jesus’ execution.
The concept of a risen Christ—a spiritual figure—stems from Paul’s visions, possibly linked to epileptic episodes, as some scholars suggest (e.g., studies on temporal lobe epilepsy and religious experiences). Paul’s epistles, written in the 50s CE, predate Mark by about 20 years. A former persecutor of Jesus’ followers, Paul worked for Temple officials loyal to Rome, tasked with quelling rebellion to protect their own interests.
Paul wasn’t just a Roman citizen; he was a well-connected one. In Acts 23, when Jews threatened him for undermining the Law, his nephew informed Roman authorities. Acts 23:23-24 describes the response: “Then he [the Roman commander] called two of his centurions and ordered them, ‘Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. Provide horses for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.’” This significant military escort for a single “Jew”—at a time when Jews faced routine violence—suggests Paul’s family wielded influence. The incident, dated to 58 CE by sources like biblestudy.org, followed Paul’s break from the Jesus sect around 51-52 CE over disputes with James, Jesus’ brother, particularly on circumcision and the Law (Galatians 2).
Paul, possibly from a family of recent converts, rejected traditional Judaism, embracing Hellenism—a cultural fusion of Greek philosophy and local traditions—and elements of Greek Gnosticism. While Judaism focuses on the “here and now,” Gnosticism and Christianity emphasize the afterlife, aligning with Roman interests. Paul urged obedience to Roman authorities (Romans 13:1-7), promising heavenly rewards post-death. His theology replaced the Law with faith in a divine mediator—the Christ of his visions—whom he never met in life.
Paul’s conflict with James centered on money and Gentile converts, who resisted Jewish practices like circumcision. Paul’s Gentile-focused theology, supported by wealthy patrons, demonized Jews as “Christ killers,” possibly to deflect Roman suspicion of rebellion from his sect, a narrative that fueled centuries of antisemitism.
While skeptics often challenge Christianity, many—especially on the left—defend Islam. Jesus, Paul, and James are widely accepted as historical figures, with Paul’s writings forming Christianity’s foundation. But what of Muhammad? Unlike Paul, there are no contemporary records of Muhammad during his lifetime (traditionally 570-632 CE). The earliest biography, by Ibn Hisham, relies on Ibn Ishaq’s work from 750 CE, over 120 years after Muhammad’s death, and exists only in later copies. Muhammad left no writings, and his revelations, delivered via an angel, were compiled into the Quran decades later, raising questions of authenticity.
Ibn Warraq, in Koran Origins, notes: “The traditional accounts of the life of Muhammad and the story of the origin and rise of Islam, including the compilation of the Koran, are based exclusively on Muslim sources… The Prophet Muhammad died in 632 C.E. The earliest material on his life that we possess was written by Ibn Ishaq in 750 C.E., in other words, a hundred twenty years after Muhammad’s death…” This gap undermines historical certainty.
Will Durant, in Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian Sources of the Koran, argues the Quran heavily borrows from earlier traditions: “As the style of the Koran is modeled on that of the Hebrew prophets, so its contents are largely an adaptation of Judaic doctrines, tales, and themes… Its basic ideas—monotheism, prophecy, faith, repentance, the Last Judgment, heaven and hell—seem Jewish in proximate origin… It deviated from Judaism chiefly in insisting that the Messiah had come.” Muhammad, living in Medina where Jews comprised half the population, drew from the Talmud and Jewish haggadic stories, though he later expelled or massacred these communities.
Durant continues: “Allah is Yahweh; Allah is a contraction of Al-Ilah, an old Kaaba god… The Koranic refrain that Allah is ‘gracious and compassionate’ echoes the same frequent phrase in the Talmud… The teachings of the Koran about angels, the resurrection, and heaven follow the Talmud rather than the Old Testament… In Zoroastrian, as in Mohammedan, eschatology, the resurrected dead must walk upon a perilous bridge over a deep abyss; the wicked fall into hell, the good pass into a paradise…” Muhammad’s revelations, like Paul’s, repackaged existing beliefs—Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian, and Arab—adding little new.
The core issue with both Paul and Muhammad is faith in their mystical claims. Paul’s visions contradict the Hebrew Bible in key areas (e.g., his reinterpretation of the Law in Galatians 3 misaligns with Deuteronomy 27-30). Muhammad’s revelations also diverge from earlier scriptures, blending traditions with inconsistencies, such as confusing Mary, mother of Jesus, with Miriam, sister of Moses (Quran 19:28). Neither figure offers verifiable evidence for their divine encounters.
Should we accept claims of divine revelation on the say-so of evangelists? As a skeptic, I say no—truth demands evidence, not faith alone.
For more, see Origins of Christianity 101.
Acknowledgment: Thanks to Grok, an AI by xAI, for assistance in refining this article. All views and final edits are mine.
