Jesus and the Lost Goddess

The book starts out with saying there was no such person as Jesus. No one can prove scientifically that he did exist. All we have are various religious and non-religious writings which talk about him. A couple of these include Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93, has two references to Jesus, one of them a reference to James, the brother of 'Jesus, the so-called Christ'.Tacitus in his writings of 116 or 117 C.E. mentions Jesus. There is disagreement over just whether or not he was holy but most writers say that at least there was such a person. Wikipedia says 'Virtually all scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed.' Tacitus in his writings of 116 or 117 C.E. mentions Jesus. There is disagreement over just whether or not he was holy but most writers say that at least there was such a person.

The difficulty is that all this happened over two thousand years ago so actual physical proof that is specific to Jesus doesn't exist. I think the authors are trying to get across the idea that Jesus was invented by later writers.

They discuss the original Christians saying that men and women were considered equal. Here is where I have another problem with the writers. If there was no such person as Jesus then why were there 'early Christians?' Did some guys invent a myth and convince enough people that the myth was true in order to build an anti-Roman religious movement? Occam's razor applies here. This holds that, if there are two explanations for something, the simpler one is usually the correct one. So which is simpler; a man named Jesus existed (whether or not he was the 'son of God' is not important in this argument, just that a physical person existed) or was everything about him constructed by some guys who had their own reasons? That Jesus actually physically existed is the simpler solution.

The book talks a great deal about Gnosticism, Consciousness, the Logos and numerous other topics. There is also a 'Cast List,' a bibliography and a list of related websites.

have two problems with the book. First is there saying that there was no such person as Jesus. I think that they are wrong. Just exactly what he was is debatable, of course, but I think the preponderance of evidence is that he did exist.

The second, major, problem is how the book is written. It is massively boring. Really most sincerely boring. It is so academic that there is nothing there to really grab the interest of the reader and hold it. I had to struggle to get through it and I've studied Gnosticism and related topics for years. Very disappointing.