By Robert Mortem
Many are under the impression that Jesus Christ (as taught by the church) was an actual historical figure. I find the arguments often presented as anything but compelling however. For instance, one of the "earliest" artifacts presented for Jesus and his crucifixion is known as the Alexamenos graffito. We are told that this is Jesus (even though it resembles the Gnostic understanding of Anubis), as the inscription displays a crucified figure allegedly being worshipped. Yet, it appears very mythological, as the figure contains the head of an animal. Some claim that this must be a mockery, and that without evidence of course. For instance, some may assert that a donkey head would have been considered insulting at the time. This is simply not the truth. The deity Silenus (for example) was depicted with donkey ears, and was worshipped as a God in Orphic Hymn 54, as Sileni (satyrs) were seen as divine entities as early as the 7th century BCE (e.g. Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite).
Moreover, the inscription in Greek says: ΑΛΕΞΑΜΕΝΟϹ ϹΕΒΕΤΕ ΘΕΟΝ (Alexamenos sebete theon) which literally translates to: Alexamenos worships God (not his God). In other words, this is simply an informal artifact of worship, and is remotely similar to the Roman Limestone relief of Abraxas. Note the parallelism below.
"Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules . . ." (The First Apology, Ch 21, bold added)
Notice, Justin unwittingly admits that parallelism between Jesus and all of these other mythological figures of the time period! It's amazing how many Christians today contend just the opposite. Justin at the time propounded nothing different from the common mythology.
Furthermore, some may reference the writings of Flavius Josephus as history. The problem? There is no actual evidence of him being a historian. For instance, his famous Antiquities of the Jews reads radically similar to the Pseudepigrapha, which Christians often reject as heresy and inaccurate information. Again, the confirmation bias involved here is tremendous.
"when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him" (The Antiquities of the Jews, 18.64)
Here, we have Josephus mentioning Pilate, yet there is actually no evidence that Pontius Pilate historically existed. For instance, as a nearest antecedent, the Greek God Pontus (meaning Sea) is in mythology at the time. A key clue as to the esoteric nature of this figure is seen in the fact that "he took water and washed his hands before the multitude" (Matthew 27:24). Notice, what happens to Pilate in the story is in direct correlation to his already given name, and this is a crucial in understanding the nature of mythos. For example, in Homer's The Odyssey, the Cyclops (meaning circle-eye) is directly connected to a volcano crater as part of the story, and it is the same kind of thing here with Pontius Pilate. Some may argue that the Pilate Stone is evidence of his existence, but the fact of the matter is, many Gods were engraved onto stones in early centuries (e.g. Abraxas stones).
Thus, we have all the etymological evidence to understand these writings of Josephus no different than the Pseudepigrapha, or The History of Joseph the Carpenter (rejected as authentic history nonetheless).
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man" (ibid. 18.63)
Notice in this quote from Josephus, it doesn't seem to be consistent with the New Testament which adamantly asserts that Jesus was a man (1 Tim 2:5; 1 John 4:2-3). Why accept this as accurate history, but reject the early Gnostic writings as anti-history (heresy)? This is completely inconsistent. Likewise, some may reference Polycarp as an early reliable Christian; Polycarp actually taught against 1 Corinthians 13:3 in his epistle to the Philippians saying, "alms delivers from death". Should not this be rejected as false? Do not Christians call the Gnostics heretics and deny their writings as accurate history? Again, the inconsistencies here are staggering.
Finally, some may assert an appeal to authority fallacy, claiming that the majority scholars agree Jesus was historical. The problem is, these Christians are inconsistent, as the majority of scholars likewise deem Moses to be mythology and not historical. You may consider the Book: Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver.