A Christian Review of The Bible Fraud by Tony Bushby

Update October 31, 2007: You are viewing the classic article style where all research relating to one article is
posted on one page. If you wish to read this article like a book (this will offer faster page loads for those with
slow internet connections), please click here.

Though it is not my intention to single out individual authors for criticism,
occasionally such a travesty of scholarship comes along that warrants such a
review. The Bible Fraud was brought to my attention by a friend and former
Christian who suggested I take the time to consider its "eye-opening" content. Not
wanting to ignore evidence that had the potential to challenge my core beliefs, I
purchased the book in order to evaluate its material. The following is my review.

The outline we will be following for this discussion is as follows:
1) Introduction
3) Introductory Material
4) Chapter by Chapter Synopsis
5) Conclusion

Plot Summary: Tony Bushby takes the reader on a wild ride of conspiracy and corruption in an effort to reveal
the "true origins" of Christianity. The main premise of The Bible Fraud is the allegation that "the Jesus of the
Gospels" was actually based on the lives of royal twins, Rabbi Jesus and Judas Khrestus.

During my first leisurely read-through of The Bible Fraud, I immediately began to notice some serious errors but
offered Bushby the benefit of the doubt in believing he may have simply cited other authors who previously
presented erroneous material. However, once I began to investigate his claims, I was left to conclude his many
errors were no accident. Unfortunately for us wishing to investigate Bushby's claims, we are told many of his
sources are "preserved in rare archival manuscripts and difficult-to-find ancient reference books." On several
occasions, he makes vague references to phantom evidence such as "ancient documents" or "inscriptions"
without offering the name or location of such evidence. Though this creates many dead-ends in our investigation,
Bushby does reference several verifiable sources on which we will focus our research.

COVER: A Pope's Confession
Alleged Quote: "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." - Pope Leo
X (1513-1521)

Bushby cites the infamous Pope Leo X quote on the cover of The Bible Fraud as well as a few other times
throughout his book. Because we have already debunked the quote on this page, I will summarize our
conclusions here. The quote's true origin is a satirical work by the 16th century playwright, John Bale. Bale wrote
many parodies in which he openly expressed his disdain of papal abuse. One such work, known as The Pageant
of the Popes, is the actual source of this quote:

"For on a time when a cardinal Bembus did move a question out of the Gospel, the Pope gave him a very
contemptuous answer saying: All ages can testify enough how profitable that fable of Christ hath been to us and
our company." (Pageant of the Popes Page 179)

The Catholic Encyclopedia, which openly admits to Leo's questionable practices, even comes to his defense by
stating this quote does not come from him: "His piety cannot truly be described as deep or spiritual, but that does
not justify the continued repetition of his alleged remark... John Bale, the apostate English Carmelite, the first to
give currency to these words in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was not even a contemporary of Leo." Catholic
Encyclopedia

PAGE 11: Did Nostradamus Foresee The Bible Fraud?
"O vast Rome, your ruin draws near. Not of your walls but of your blood and substance. One sharp in letters
makes so horrible a mark. His sharp point goes all the way to the quick." -Nostradamus Quatrain X.65

This isn't necessarily an error inasmuch as it's just ridiculous and arrogant. Though I personally pay little
attention to the Nostradamus predictions, the church seems to be doing quite well in the wake of Bushby's not-so
horrible a mark.

PAGE 12: No Arguments
Many people may find themselves at odds with certain conclusions reached within this book. Therefore the author
publisher and associates of this publication will not engage in written religious argument with readers who hold a
different opinion from those expressed here.

In my opinion, this disclaimer shows Bushby's role as an agenda pusher instead of a truth searcher. To me, this
"no argument" clause basically translates into "I know my research is bogus so please don't bother."

PAGE 18: The Chronicles and The Myvyean Manuscript
Bushby refers to various ancient documents that were destroyed by early churchmen in an effort to conceal
information concerning Christianity. Two particular documents he mentions are The Chronicles and The Myvyean
Manuscript. In a review of The Bible Fraud posted here, a researcher wrote the British Library to confirm the
existence of the documents. I decided to first write to the British Museum as this is where Bushby claims the
documents are kept. This is the response I received:

"Thank you for your email. I cannot find any reference to this manuscript within our catalogue. I would now
advise you to contact the British Library. Our original library collections, the departments of books and
manuscripts of the British Museum, became part of the British Library in 1973. Our current libraries are mainly
specialist collections reflecting the object collections in the British Museum. The material you seek would now be
at the British Library in St Pancras."

I then wrote the British Library and, to my surprise, received an almost verbatim response of the author in the
above link:

"I am afraid that I can find no reference to such a manuscript in our collections. We receive many similar
enquiries relating to subject matter such as this and I have to say many of them are hoaxes or refer to
non-existent manuscripts. It just does not seem to be here."

However, I did notice something peculiar. By Bushby's own admission he began his research for The Bible Fraud
around the late 80's/early 90's. Yet I was told such collections were transferred out of the British Museum (which
Bushby claims owned the documents) in 1973. Bushby also vaguely references "first century coins" which
"clearly and positively" establish the historicity of The Chronicles. As the reader can see in my main site links, I
am a coin dealer. After researching these elusive coins, I could find no such reference to them in any of my
catalogs or records.

PAGE 19: The Sir Francis Bacon Conspiracy
Bushby claims "original documents" in the Records Office of the British Museum mention Bacon's involvement in
the translation of the King James Bible. "They" reveal Bacon personally selecting the staff of translators and
participating in the undertaking in which he would later "encrypt" secret messages into the Bible. Instead of
dwelling on the irrelevant and generally unaccepted allegations, I'll just say that even if we are to believe such
speculation, this only brings the King James Bible into question- not the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts
which Bacon never had access to.

PAGES 29-33: Jesus: Son of Panthera & Stada
"Ben Stada was Ben Panthera, Rabbi Chisda said. Thus the husband was Stada, the lover Panthera. Another said
the husband was Paphos ben Jehuda. Stada was his mother... And she was unfaithful to her husband."

In an attempt to show Jesus being an illegitimate child, Bushby claims various Talmudic passages which mention
a certain Ben (son of) Stada and Ben Panthera are actually references to Jesus. A better translation of the above
passage is as follows:

"Was he then the son of Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira? Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada, the
paramour was Pandira. [No,] the husband was Pappos b. Judah. His mother was Stada. [No,] his mother was
Miriam the hairdresser. It is as we say in Pumbeditha: This one has been unfaithful to ('turned away from'
[satath da]) her husband." (See: Shabbath 104b footnote 19)

Though some scholars believe this passage is a reference to Jesus (the hairdresser is linguistically similar to
Magdalene), Mary Magdalene was not His mother nor was His stepfather Pappos Ben Judah. Most importantly,
Pappos Ben Judah is a figure mentioned in other Talmudic passages (Mechilta Beshalach Vayehi 6 and Berachot
61 b). Because the Talmud mentions Judah being killed by the Romans in 134 A.D., there is no way he could be
associated with Jesus (See: Pappos Ben Judah). To reinforce his theory, Bushby even references the Gospel of
Luke: "This story [Mary's rape by Panthera] was supported in the Gospel of Luke, with the description of the
departure of Joseph and Mary from their home prior to the birth." However, this is not so. Luke specifically states
the couple left Nazareth to partake in the census ordered by Quirinus! (See: Luke 2:1-7)

PAGES 34-35: The Lineage of Mary
Bushby now connects Mary to the Herodian line to later associate "Rabbi Jesus" and "Judas Khrestus" with royal
heritage. These are some of the connections Bushby makes:

Prince Joseph, son of Herod the Great, was the Joseph of Arimathea mentioned in the Gospels.
Mariamne I, wife of Herod the Great, is the grandmother of Mary of the Gospels.
The Mary of the Gospels, Stada (mentioned above), and Mariamne of the Herodian family are one and the
same.

Bushby doesn't elaborate as to how he came to such conclusions but it seems to me he did so due to the
similarity of the names. If you own a copy of The Bible Fraud, you will notice Bushby provides the alleged lineage
of Jesus in the first few pages of his book. In order to debunk Bushby's theories, check out the actual Herodian
dynasty shown here and here.

PAGES 36-41: The Roman father of Rabbi Jesus and Judas Khrestus
"Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera, an archer, native of Sidon, Phoenicia, who in 9 A.D. Was transferred to service in
Rhineland [Germany]."

The above inscription was discovered on an ancient German headstone. Though Bushby believes this headstone
was created well after the life of Panthera, he alleges the headstone contains a hidden message with the use of
the word Abdes:

"[Augustus was] inclined towards phonetic spelling... When Augustus wrote in cipher he simply substituted the
next letter of the alphabet for the one required, except he wrote AA for X. By applying both of these rules to the
word Abdes on the German headstone a hidden code is thus revealed. Abdes = ab-des = Bc-des = BC days. The
person or person who created the headstone cipher could have only done so after the Sixth Century when the
Julian calender was first instituted."

Bushby believes the inscription was created to reveal a "special message" that Panthera had previously traveled
to Germany in 9 B.C. (not 9 A.D. as the headstone suggests). Bushby is trying to show that Panthera and
Mariamne Herod (Mary) were contemporaries of one another, were connected to each other through Emperor
Augustus, and that Mariamne Herod met Tiberius when he returned to Rome and was either raped by or had an
affair with him. However, my question is if this particular code was used by Augustus yet the headstone was
made post-6th century A.D., what do either of these things have to do with one another? And who does Bushby
claim this Tiberius Panthera, archer of Sidon, was? The Emperor Tiberius!

In summary, the Talmudic passage is not a reference to Jesus (the timing is off by over a century), Bushby's
depiction of Mary's lineage goes against the grain of historical consensus, and the headstone connection falls
apart under scrutiny.

PAGES 45-46: Pope Leo X Reveals a Papal Secret
Bushby claims Pope Leo X confessed various secrets to his homosexual lover, Michelangelo, who later passed
them on to Leonardo DaVinci. Again, we are presented with the false Pope Leo X quote. Bushby speculates that if
the pope would make such a confession then it would certainly be possible for him to confess other secrets to his
lover. Later, these "secrets" would be encoded into the works of both artists in an effort to expose "the Rabbi
Jesus and Judas Khrestus secret." Of course, the quote is bogus so Bushby's speculative connection falls apart.

PAGES 46-47: Twins Depicted in Renaissance Artwork
We are offered two illustrations by Michelangelo depicting Mary with two boys (shown here and here). Notice one
of the titles even states Madonna and Child with John the Baptist. Bushby then references the work La Belle
Jardiniere by Raphael (seen here). Notice Jesus is the child with the halo while John the Baptist is the one
wearing the camel-hair garment described in Matthew 3:4. Bushby also claims the fifth figure from Jesus' right in
The Last Supper is actually Judas the twin. An extremely high resolution copy may be found here (you will need
to click the image for a larger view). This figure is paler, thinner, and more effeminate looking than Jesus.
Furthermore, art historians record this individual as being James the Less.

PAGES 47-49: The Berenger Sauniere Fiasco
As told in the fictional work The Da Vinci Code, Bushby embarrasses himself when he uses the Berenger Sauniere
legend as historical evidence to confirm his twin conspiracy. The reader will notice Bushby seems to understand
this is based on legend due to his frequent use of the phrase, "it was said..." The legend basically states during
the remodeling of his church, Sauniere discovered ancient parchments concealed inside a hollow column which
contained "incontrovertible proof" that the crucifixion was a hoax. Church officials then allegedly paid Sauniere
great sums of money to keep his secret. However, it turns out the "hollow" column was not hollow and is
currently on display in a Rennes-le-Chateau museum. Berenger never did obtain "great wealth" and certainly did
not come to his fortune from accepting bribes. He was forced to resign after being involved in various scandalous
activities including mass trafficking. Instead of dwelling on an urban legend, here are some links to authors who
explain the long-since-debunked myth. See: here, here, and here.

PAGE 51: Dead Sea Scroll Scholars
Bushby begins this chapter by referring to the highly controversial figures, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh
(See: here) which should immediately set off warning bells to those that are familiar with their works. These
individual are known for their unfounded and erroneous claims concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls. More warning
bells sound off when he references the work of Robert Eisenman who Bushby claims "provided the now-accepted
and spectacular connection between the Dead Sea Scrolls, and James, the Gospel brother of Judas and Jesus." In
truth, the scrolls contain no mention of Jesus, James, John the Baptist or Christianity as most of the scrolls have
been shown to predate Christianity. Nor is Eisenman's work generally accepted by the scholarly community. To
see a few reviews concerning these authors, check out the articles here and here.

PAGE 53: St. Epiphanius & The 'Men of Yesu'
Bushby claims the early church father, Epiphanius, referred to the Essenes as Men of Yesu and that the term
Yesu was part of the Druid trinity. However, Bushby does not tell us where these statements are found in the
writings of Epiphanius nor could I find them once I looked for myself. Bushby then claims Epiphanius said the
"Men of Yesu were sometimes called Yasseans after Jesus of the Gospels." Of course, no such statement is found
in the works of Epiphanius and again, Bushby never states where these alleged remarks are found. He then goes
on to claim the connection between Jesus and the Essenes was "documented church fact during the very earliest
years of recorded Christian History." Again, no sources are provided but I did find one reference to the sect in
Eusebius' Preparation for the Gospel Book IX, Chapter III (See: here). However, the reader can see the sect is
in no way connected to Jesus. Eusebius is only documenting the Essenic way of life.

PAGES 53-54: The Essenes and Druids
Bushby presents several completely superficial correlations between the Druids and the Essenes:

Both believed in an after life (virtually all religions do)
Both taught the existence of a supreme being (virtually all religions do)
Both had sacred books, hymns, and prayers (virtually all religions do)
Both taught a system of rewards and punishment in the afterlife (virtually all religions do)

Bushby comes to the conclusion that "the remarkable coincidences between the chief features of the Druidic and
Essenic fraternities can be accounted for only by referring them to the same origin." Of course, anyone can see
these similarities are very shallow (and their vast differences far outweigh such coincidences. See: here and
here).

PAGES 55-56: Paul and John the Baptist: Essene Leaders
Bushby makes quite a few far-fetched statements in order to connect Paul and John the Baptist to the Essenes.
He quotes Luke 1:80 and states "from this Gospel information, John the Baptist is now generally recognised, like
Paul, as an Essene." However, this simply is not so and is in no way "generally recognised" by historians or
Biblical scholars. Bushby then quotes Hebrews 8:7 as evidence Paul was associated with the Essenes. Yet, these
verses are so vague, it would be impossible to accept them as definite references to the Essenes. Furthermore,
Bushby focuses on the fact the Essenes were known for wearing white robes but ignores the passages which
describe John the Baptist as wearing camel-hair (brown) clothing. Furthermore, the significance behind John's
baptism (cleansing of sin) dramatically differs from the Essenes (ritual bathing).

PAGES 56-57: John the Baptist: A Messiah Figure
Bushby points to the "conspiracy" that some believed John the Baptist was a messiah figure- but even the Bible
testifies to this (See: L uke 3:15-16). The New Testament was very forthcoming in mentioning other Messiah
figures (like Simon the Magician. See: Acts 8:9-24) or those who were believed to be the Messiah by the people
(such as John). Bushby also claims figures such as Origen and Epiphanius "clearly recorded that John the Baptist
was a 'Krist' figure but made no reference to Jesus himself attaining that status." Yet this is obviously false.
Check out this one sample from Origen's writings. Origen wrote volumes professing Jesus (not John) as the
Christ. Chapter 14 mentions John the Baptist representing the Old Covenant (So much for Bushby's Essene "New
Covenant" theory). As for Epiphanius, he also clearly professes Jesus as the Messiah- not John (See: here,
Chapter 35).

PAGE 64: Jesus: A Drunkard and Glutton
Bushby claims he has made the clergy "squirm" by pointing out Biblical references where Jesus confesses to
being a drunkard and a glutton. However, let's examine the two references in Matthew and Luke to see what was
really said:

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and
drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners." Matthew 11:18-
19 and Luke 7:33-34

Bushby claims Jesus "frankly admitted He was a glutton and a drunkard," much to the church's embarrassment.
But Jesus said no such thing- He is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Jews who accused John of being possessed
for fasting and refusing to drink wine. Yet, these same people accuse Jesus of being a "drunkard and glutton"
because He drank wine and dined with sinners. Jesus is not admitting to these accusations but pointing out the
hypocrisy in what others said.

PAGES 66-69: Judas Khrestus Gospel References
Throughout the next few pages, Bushby presents more verses which he feels allude to two separate Christ
figures:

Luke 14:26 and Luke 12:51. These verses mention Jesus telling us to "hate" our family and His intent to
bring war, not peace. He re is an article by another author who offers an explanation for those who find
this a problem.
John 2:15. This verse describes Jesus driving out the money changers in the temple. But is Jesus not
allowed to be disgusted with wickedness? See my explanation here under "Theological Conflicts"
concerning God's dual nature.
John 10:20. This verse contains the accusation of those who said Jesus was insane and possessed.
However the context shows the Jews being divided by Jesus' claim of being the Son of God. The context
(shown here) also tells us many accepted Jesus' testimony. All Bushby is doing is quoting the opinions of
the naysayers.
Mark 4:38-39. Bushby absurdly uses this verse to accuse Jesus of being "peeved when awakened from
sleep." However Jesus doesn't appear to be "peeved" but authoritative in commanding the wind and
waves to cease.

Bushby goes on to mention other passages such as Jesus cursing the fig tree, the healing of a deaf man, Jesus'
warning about divorce, and the "apostle Jesus loved" (which Bushby claims is a reference to a homosexual
relationship with John). Bushby also claims this medieval fresco gave rise to the rumor of John engaging in oral
sex with Jesus.

PAGES 75-76: Galileans, Galilee, and Gaul
In an effort to connect Jesus to the Celtic Druids, Bushby offers us a string of forced logic:

The Gospels clearly state Jesus was a Galilean. This was actually Judas Khrestus.
Galilean became an ambiguous term meaning either a person from Galilee or a symbolic term for a
Christian.
The Romans named the region of Northern Galilee Gaulantius (originally Gaul-anti-us, today Golan
Heights).
Objects often received their names from descriptive sources therefore Gaul-anti-us was a composite
name signifying a place originally populated by Gauls.

I'll stop here so I can explain a few things. Galilee is derived from the Hebrew word galil which means circle.
Galilee existed prior to Roman occupation and is mentioned in the Old Testament book of Isaiah (written about
700 B.C. See: Isaiah 9:1). The area was originally named for the Hebrew tribes that had founded the city
(Zebulun and Naphtali). Though Bushby's statement that the Romans called the region of Galilee Gaulantius is
absolutely correct, his line of speculative reasoning goes against the facts of history. The Gauls were never said
to have inhabited Galilee. The area has been inhabited by numerous people including the Assyrians, the Persians,
the Hebrews, and various others but never the Gauls. (See: here, and here)

But we are not out of the woods yet- Bushby throws us a few more curve balls:

The Roman name for Gaul was Gallia
The plural form of Gallia is Gallicans, which is linguistically similar to Galileans.
Thus the Galileans, Celts, Gauls, and the Druids of Britain all had ties to each other.

I have some problems with Bushby's logic. The fact that Gallicans is "linguistically similar" to Galileans is not
proof. Countless words are "linguistically similar" to one another yet have nothing essential in common. Once
again, Bushby presents more evidence-by-speculation.

PAGES 76-77: Judas Khrestus: The Galilean Zealot
Bushby now (mis)quotes Scripture to "confirm" Judas Khrestus as being an anti-Roman warmonger:

Luke 22:57, 22:59, and 23:6. To associate Judas Khrestus with the Galilean Zealots, Bushby mentions
three references in Luke. However the first verse doesn't have anything to do with Galileans, the second
verse is a reference to Peter, and the third verse simply mentions Pilate asking Jesus if He was a Galilean.
Regardless, even though these verses are irrelevant, the New Testament does make it clear in other
passages that Jesus was associated with Galilee. However, this has nothing to do with Bushby's theory
that it was because "Judas Khrestus" was a Galilean Zealot.
Matthew 26:73. Bushby points out that this verse mentions the Galileans having a peculiar accent.
Dialects, anyone?
John 4:45. This verse mentions the Galileans welcoming Jesus at His arrival. That's nice.
Luke 23:5. Bushby claims this passage is said by Pontius Pilate. But the context of Luke 23 tells us the
Jews who were against Jesus said this. Furthermore, the reason why Pilate asked Jesus if He was a
Galilean was to ensure the matter was within his jurisdiction (not to ask Jesus if He was a Galilean rebel).
It was not, so Jesus was sent to Herod.

Bushby then makes an odd statement: "But it was Judas Khrestus, not the Gospel Jesus Christ nor Rabbi Jesus,
'who began his ministry in Galilee and from whence he drew his apostles.'" Bushby's source for this is The
Catholic Encyclopedia. Though his other references to the Catholic Encyclopedia contain the volume, year, and
page number, Bushby's footnote to this claim simply states Catholic Encyclopedia. And for those not familiar with
the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is extremely voluminous!

PAGES 81-82: Khrestus in Early Roman Records
Bushby claims Tacitus mentions the name Khrestus in his writings (we discuss this passage in depth h ere).
However, Tacitus does not use the word Khrestus. The original Latin of Tacitus' Annals may be seen here.
Tacitus specifically uses the word Christus which is simply Latin for Christ. Another passage we are offered comes
from Suetonius. Again, we have discussed the quote in depth h ere. The original Latin may be seen here. The
word used is not Khrestus, but Chresto.

PAGES 82-83: Khrestus In Rome
Bushby tells us that Khrestus went to Rome along with his Galilean rebels in an effort to challenge his father,
Emperor Tiberius. Bushby quotes Luke as saying Jesus "started in Galilee" and then traveled "all the way here" to
Rome. But what does the context Luke 23:5 actually say? That Jesus was being questioned by Pilate in Judea! I
suppose that's why Bushby only quoted fragments of Luke 23:5 instead of citing the entire verse (and sneaking
in the word Rome).

PAGES 84-87: The Crucifixion Substitute of Khrestus
After Judas Khrestus was arrested on charges of treason, Bushby claims he appealed to an "age old tradition"
that allowed a substitute to accept punishment in his place. Evidence of this tradition is found in "an ancient
Babylonian clay tablet." "The priests" allowed royal descendants to have a substitute "meet his destiny" in their
place. But what is the name of this tablet? Where is it kept? What is the context of "meet his destiny?" Who were
these priests? Bushby provides no references.

PAGES 88-89: The Crucifixion of the Substitute, Simon of Cyrene
Bushby claims the early "presbyter" Basilides documented the "crucifixion hoax" in his work A True History:

"Hence he did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was forced to bear his cross for him, and it was he
who was ignorantly and erroneously crucified, so that he was taken for Khrestus. While Khrestus for his part...
stood by, laughing at them. Therefore people who know these things have been set free from the ruler that
crafted the world. One should not acknowledge the man that was crucified (Simon of Cyrene) but rather the one
who came in the form of a man, was thought to have been crucified, was named Khrestus."

But let's examine the actual words as preserved in the work of Irenaeus (provided here):

"But the father...sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on them
that believe in him... He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought
miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore
the cross in his stead. So that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was
crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed
at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured
himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be
laid hold of, and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities
who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in
the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus..."

A few important facts must be noted which are omitted by Bushby:

Basilides was an Egyptian Gnostic- not a traditional church father as Bushby presents him to be.
Basilides words are preserved In Irenaeus' Against Heresies where the bishop is refuting Basilides'
absurdities.
The quote does not contain the name Khrestus as Bushby claims.
The actual quote is filled with Gnostic/mystical undertones (such as Jesus and Simon trading forms and
Jesus' invisibility!). It is not a record of historical events as Bushby makes it appear.

PAGES 93-94: The Pagan Origins of the Term "Christian"
Bushby claims the term Christian was originally a pagan term. However, the word Christian comes from the
Greek Christianos which refers to a servant and follower of Christ (Anointed One). It appears three times in the
New Testament (See: here). Bushby then alleges the context of Acts 11:26 suggests "outsiders applied the name
disrespectfully to a particular body of people." It does? My Bible says no such thing. It states the disciples were
first called Christians at Antioch (vs. 26) and that they converted a great number of people (vs. 21).
Apparently they weren't thought of too badly! (See: Acts 11 context)

PAGES 94-96: The Christian Criminals
In an effort to prove early Christian involvement in detestable rituals, Bushby terribly misquotes the early church
fathers:

Justin Martyr

Bushby claims Justin Martyr said: They met in secret to eat human flesh and once the lamps had been
upset, to participate in incestuous intercourse. -I Apology 26:7
Justin Martyr actually said: And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds- the
upsetting of the lamp, promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh- we know not. But we do know
that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. I Apology
XXVI
Conclusion: Justin Martyr isn't even talking about the Christians but pagan practices. Justin admits he does
not know if the allegations are true but points out the injustice that Christians are put to death solely for
being Christians while those who engage in detestable pagan practices are acceptable to the government.

Minucius Felix

Bushby claims Felix said: "The names of brother and sister hallow fornication as incest. Their foolish
superstition makes a boast of crime. A condemned criminal is the object of their veneration. Finally there
is infant murder, cannibalism, and the banquet with incestuous intercourse." Octavius IX
What was actually said (But not by Felix- he is documenting claims against Christians by the pagan,
Octavius): "They call one another promiscuously brothers and sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery
may by the intervention of that sacred name become incestuous: it is thus that their vain and senseless
superstition glories in crimes...I hear that they adore the head of an ass, that basest of creatures...I
know not whether these things are false...Thirstily--O horror!--they lick up [the infant's] blood,
eagerly they divide its limbs..." Octavius IX.
What Felix said: "And of the incestuous banqueting, the plotting of demons has falsely devised an
enormous fable against us...that before inquiring into the truth it might turn men away from us by
the terror of an abominable charge. It was thus your own Fronto acted in this respect: he did not
produce testimony, as one who alleged a charge, but he scattered reproaches as a rhetorician. (XXXI)
But how unjust it is, to form a judgment on things unknown and unexamined, as you do! Believe us
ourselves when penitent, for we also were the same as you, and formerly, while yet blind and obtuse,
thought the same things as you: that the Christians worshipped monsters, devoured infants, mingled in
incestuous banquets. And we did not perceive that such fables as these were always set afloat by those
(newsmongers), and were never either inquired into nor proved. (XXVIII)
Conclusion: Felix is not endorsing, confirming, or documenting these acts but is refuting the false
accusations. Felix even admits to having believed these things uncritically prior to his conversion. He
points out such accusations were based on rumor and that no one even bothered to investigate the claims.
Anyone remember the Salem Witch Trials?

PAGES 100-101: The Wives of Rabbi Jesus
No conspiracy theory regarding Jesus would be complete without claiming Jesus was married. But Bushby doesn't
stop there. He alleges Jesus had several wives. He rationalizes since Jesus was referred to as Rabbi, and
because rabbis were allowed to marry, then it would have been "within the Law" for Rabbi Jesus to have had
"several wives." But how is this proof? Bushby then names a few particulars including Princess Cypros (Herod's
granddaughter) and Mary Magdalene. Unfortunately for us wishing to investigate the claims concerning Princess
Cypros, we are told, "to determine when, where, and how they met is now almost impossible to establish. There
was no documentary church evidence available to assist in providing more detail on this marriage nor should we
expect to find it..." Instead, the evidence Bushby provides is the Herodian family tree (which we have already
debunked). As for Mary Magdalene, Bushby cites various New Testament and apocryphal references which
confirm Jesus' and Mary's closeness. Again, how is this proof? Closeness does not conclusively prove sexual
intimacy.

PAGES 102-102: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Catholic church teaches the concept of Mary's perpetual virginity (but in my opinion this is not supported by
the Gospels so I do agree with Bushby on this point). However Bushby claims artists often depicted Mary with
seven children. As an example, we are shown The Virgin and Child Surrounded by Angels by Jean Fouquet (which
Bushby incorrectly calls The Virgin Surrounded by Red Angels). (Shown: here). I count nine angels. I'm
guessing Bushby referred to the painting by the wrong title in order to reinforce his theory as there are six red
angels in the painting (making Jesus the "7th" child).

PAGES 103-104: Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany
Bushby offers us another long-winded linguistics game (like in the Gaul/Galilean episode shown above) in order
to prove the two Marys were one and the same (thus showing Jesus' biological relation to Mary Magdalene).
Instead of boring the reader to death by citing Bushby's line of reasoning, both sides of this argument are
explained quite nicely in this article. In a nutshell, Bushby brings all the above points together in order to show
Rabbi Jesus and his brothers intermarrying with their sisters. This is done to support Jesus' ties to the British
Druids and various royal ancestors.

PAGE 108: The New Name of Rabbi Jesus
Bushby claims "from information available" Jesus was given the name Cunobeline after His marriage to Mary
Magdalene. What is this "information?" The Shakespearean character Cymbeline! If you own a copy of The Bible
Fraud, take the time to pay attention to the wording Bushby uses to make these connections: maybe, possibly,
could be, etc. In other words, no hard evidence is provided to support any of this.

PAGES 115-117: Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline: The Druid King of Britain
Bushby now associates Rabbi Jesus with various druid orders in which He became "twice born." Bushby claims
the Gospel writers even attest to this by quoting John 3:3. Using more speculative terminology such as "maybe,"
Bushby claims Rabbi Jesus succeeded King Tenvantius on the British throne. Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline now
becomes known as Bran the Blessed, a character from British mythology (a fact of which Bushby seems totally
unaware)! (See: here).

Chapters 10 and 11 are very brief (a few pages in length) and somewhat irrelevant. Their purpose is to basically
lay the historical groundwork by explaining the volatile situation between Britain and Rome at the time. Bushby
doesn't really make any allegations concerning Christianity but is preparing us for the next few chapters. If
anyone has any questions concerning these brief chapters please let me know. Otherwise, there is no point in
dwelling on them.

Chapter 12 also focuses on historical aspects but Bushby does make some strange claims regarding a British
palace in Rome where many of the apostles, Rabbi Jesus, and even Paul came and went as they pleased. Of
course no evidence is presented to support this- not even a single footnote. Bushby makes vague statements like
"other characters were recorded as living in the Palace" but never cites any references or historical documents to
verify this. The only relevance this chapter has to Christianity is Bushby's skepticism on the authorship of the
Pauline Epistles (Bushby only uses one pre-19th century source for his claims, by the way). Since I plan on
discussing the dating and authorship of each book of the Bible in the near future, I will skip over this for now, but
if anyone has a question, feel free to contact me.

In the previous chapters, the Panthera twins have been associated with the Essenes, the Druids, the Gauls, and
various royal ancestors. Bushby now turns our attention to the Egyptian mysteries in which he claims Rabbi Jesus
became initiated. Again, instead of presenting hard evidence to validate his claims, Bushby uses more
conjecture. He alleges Jesus' acceptance into the Egyptian and Masonic mysteries was "probable" due to his
earlier association with the Druids and Essenes.

PAGES 143-144: Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline, the Magician
Bushby cites various authors in order to show Jesus' involvement in the Egyptian mysteries. We'll focus on Justin
Martyr's statements as this is the author Bushby uses the most:

Alleged Reference: "They even ventured to call him a magician and a deceiver of the people." -Dialogue
With Trypho. The context of this remark may be found here. In its full context, Justin mentions the
miraculous works Jesus performed such as healing the sick and raising the dead. However, the skeptics of
the day could not accept the legitimacy of His power so they dismissed it as the work of a sorcerer.
Alleged Reference: Bushby claims Justin attests to the fact that Jesus "acquired a great knowledge in
magical arts with the high priests of Egypt." Though he does not cite the actual words of Justin, Bushby
does provide the reference from where the accusation is supposedly found: First Apology XXXVI. I located
the work in question and this chapter says nothing of the kind. It refers to the prophecies regarding the
Messiah (See: here, chapter 36).

Other various authors include the pagan Celsus, the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, and St. Austin c. 380 (who?
- I can find no mention of an individual by this name living around 380 A.D.). Regardless, there is no conspiracy
as even the Bible and the early church fathers mention the Jews accusing Jesus of such things.

PAGE 150: Rabbi Jesus' Mystical Skin Markings
In another attempt to associate Jesus with the Egyptian Mysteries, Bushby cites this passage from the Talmud:

"He who scratches on the skin in the fashion of writing is guilty, but he who marks on the skin in the fashion of
writing is exempt from punishment. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: But has not Jesus brought magic out of Egypt in
this way? They answered him: On account of one fool we do not ruin a multitude of reasonable men"

However, the actual passage (See: here) does not state Jesus but Ben Stada- and we have already shown this to
not be a reference to Jesus. I refer the reader to this article which discusses various Talmudic passages that
allegedly refer to Jesus. Bushby then cites another bogus Talmudic passage to reinforce the allegation that Jesus
stole a Torah scroll from the temple:

"Though shalt not have a son or disciple who burns his food publicly like Jesus the Nazarene." -Babylonian
Sanhedrin 103a

But let's see what the actual passage says: "Thou wilt not have a son or a disciple who publicly burns his food."
Babylonian Sanhedrin 103a. As we can see, the words Jesus the Nazarene are not included in the text.

PAGES 153-154: The Stoning at Lud
The Jewish leaders are now in "hot pursuit" of Jesus who has escaped to Britain after absconding with the sacred
Torah scrolls. The following references are used by Bushby to reinforce the story of Jesus' stoning at Lud:

Tertullian

Alleged Quote: "ye stoned him."
Bushby's Interpretation: "Tertullian spoke of the stoning of Rabbi Jesus not as the invention of an enemy,
but simply as a genuine piece of accepted church history."
Actual Quote: "Ye stoned him not." An Answer to the Jews XI Bushby omits the very important little word,
"not."
Full Context: "On account of the works ye stoned Him not, but because He did them on the Sabbaths." On
one hand, I must come to Bushby's defense and explain the full context does seem to imply that Jesus
was stoned due to His work on the Sabbath (a sin according to Jewish law). However, Bushby claims this
was not the "invention of an enemy" but "a genuine piece of accepted church history." But this is not so.
When we look at the text carefully, we can see this is exactly what the statement is. The text in question is
in quotes, showing Tertullian was not confirming this account!

The Talmud

Alleged Quote: "...And to bring him forward to the tribunal and stone him. And thus they have done to
Jesus at Lud, and they hanged him on the day before Passover."
Actual Quote: "It is our duty and seemly for us, the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to the
Beth din, and have him stoned." Tractate Sanhedrin 67a
Footnote (See: full context here): "In the uncensored editions of the Talmud there follows this important
passage: 'And this they did to Ben Stada in Lydda and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ben Stada
was Ben Pandira. R. Hisda said: 'The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But was nor the husband
Pappos b. Judah? His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair?
(megaddela neshayia) As they say in Pumbeditha, This woman has turned away from her husband
(committed adultery).' [Some identify] this Ben Stada with Jesus of Nazareth...This hypothesis, however,
involves the disregard of the Talmudic data, for Pappos b. Judah lived a century after Jesus...Derenbourg
rightly denies the identity of Ben Stada with Jesus, and regards him simply as a false prophet executed
during the second century at Lydda."
Summary: Internal Talmudic evidence proves this passage to not be a reference to Jesus. Also,
Lod/Ludd/Lydda is an actual city in Israel (See: here) but Bushby claims this was a location in ancient
Britain.

PAGE 155: The Parchments of Sauniere
Once again, Bushby refers us to the Sauniere parchments, using more speculative terms:

"It was probable that the parchments that stunned [Sauniere and his associates] contained this
information."
"It was also probable that it was Sauniere who created the [Tiberius Panthera] headstone in Germany"
(WHAT!?!)
"It was said the scrolls provided evidence that the crucifixion was a fraud and Rabbi Jesus was still alive
in 45 A.D." By who?
"According to a Jewish legend, three boatloads of Jews arrived in Arles circa 53 A.D. and the theory
proposed is that this group was pursuing Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline."

PAGE 157: James Herod
In this brief two-paged chapter, Bushby's offers the claim that "James Herod," the brother of Judas Khrestus and
Rabbi Jesus, also escaped persecution by fleeing to Britain. Bushby's source for this is The Forgotten Monarchy of
Scotland by Michael J. A. Stewart. I am not familiar with this modern work but I know this allegation definitely
goes against the grain of early historians (such as Josephus and Hegesippus) who clearly describe James' death
as taking place in Jerusalem.

PAGES 160-162: Sir Francis Bacon
Bringing us back to the nonsense mentioned earlier in this article, Bushby claims "Sir Francis Bacon and the
Mystery schools knew the full story of Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline's royal family adventures." Bushby then points out
the number 33 was often used by Bacon in his encryptions. Here are some examples that Bacon allegedly placed
into the King James Bible:

The Temple of Solomon stood for 33 years in pristine splendor (Not so- the temple stood for
approximately 500 years before its destruction by the Babylonians. Second, the Bible states it stood
unused [pristine splendor?] for 13 years).
King David ruled over Jerusalem for 33 years. (But his total reign lasted 40 years. See: I Kings 2:10)
Jesus Christ was crucified at the age of 33 (Bushby gets one right).

Regardless, we have already mentioned the theory of Bacon encoding the King James Bible as being irrelevant.
Earlier manuscripts that were never in Bacon's possession contain the same information.

Note: The purpose of this chapter is to basically discredit the writings of the early church fathers. Though we will
show most of Bushby's claims to be false or distorted from their original context, it certainly makes one wonder
why Bushby (who accuses these writings of being unreliable) would reference them so many times as evidence
to confirm his theories!

PAGE 165: Bishops vs. Presbyters
Bushby claims the church fathers were not called bishops until the 3rd century (he claims they were only known
as presbyters). Allegedly, this title was later attributed to them in order to glorify their position. However, the
term bishop is frequently found in the works of early church fathers such as Ignatius (~ 110 A.D. See: here),
Polycartes (~ 190 A.D. See: here), and Irenaeus (~180 A.D. See: here) as well as many others.

PAGE 168: Eusebius: A Liar?
Alleged Quote: "It is an act of virtue to deceive and lie when by such means the interests of the church might be
promoted."

This quote has been proven to be spurious as it appears nowhere within the works of Eusebius (See: our article
here).

PAGES 171-172: Jerome: A Liar?
Bushby references various quoted fragments allegedly said by Jerome but does not quote any of his original
works. Bushby also states that Jerome accused St. Paul of being a liar but I can find no evidence of this. The
passage referring to Paul by Jerome may be found here under chapter 5.

PAGE 172: St. Augustine: A Thief and Sexual Deviant?
In Augustine's work, Confessions, he explains the various acts he engaged in before his conversion to
Christianity (hence, the title of his work). Augustine exposes his vulnerable side by frankly admitting one of the
things he found difficult after becoming a Christian was curbing his sexual appetite. Basically, this entire work
relays his Pre-Christian lifestyle in order to encourage other converts who were having a hard time adjusting
from paganism and the various acts that were once acceptable. However, in a distortion of context, Bushby
claims Augustine admitted he "lusted to thieve and did it." Though these words are not a direct quote, the context
of this passage may be found here in chapters 8 and 9.

PAGES 172-173: Miscellaneous Quotes
Because the following quotes are not referenced from the original works of the authors in question (and because
I could not find the quotes once I researched the original works myself), I will list them as spurious unless
someone can prove otherwise:

"[Hippo Augustine] believed that Christ (Krist) resided in the sun. Many other church presbyters of the
same time taught the sun was Jesus Christ 'driving his chariot across the sky.'" (Bushby offers no footnote
for this allegation).
"The Bishop of Troy was one who confessed to this belief and also said he had always secretly prayed to
Jesus Christ in the sun." (Bushby refers to a second-hand source)
"St. Augustine said, 'I was already bishop of Hippo when I went into Ethiopia with some servants of
Christ... In this country we saw men and women without heads, who had two great eyes in their breasts.
And in countries still more southly, we saw people who had but one eye in their foreheads.'" (Again,
Bushby does not cite an original work of Augustine)

Note: The list of quotes continue with Bushby citing sources ranging from pseudographical and apocryphal texts,
to second-hand and non referenced sources. However, if you feel I have skipped over something important,
please let me know and I will respond to your inquiry (Or check out our discussion on Christian misquotes here
to see if it answers your question).

PAGE 182: No External Evidence
Bushby cites a certain author as saying, "We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with
respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than the presbyters' writings." I will take this opportunity to disagree and
point the reader to our discussion here regarding extra-Biblical evidence which mentions Jesus Christ.

PAGES 185-186: Marcion the Heretic
Though I might be misunderstanding Bushby's allegation, he seems to imply the earliest Christian manuscripts
somehow fell into the hands of Marcion, in which the original Gospel accounts became distorted. Bushby's
reference for this is Tertullian (an author he just accused of being unreliable in the previous chapter!) in his work
Against Marcion, Book V. However, Tertullian does not seem to imply that Marcion obtained the original
documents but altered the copies in his possession in order to create his semi-gnostic gospels. But once again, I
may have incorrectly interpreted Bushby's comments.

PAGES 186-187: The Tampering of the Gospel of Matthew
Bushby contradicts himself by stating the Gospel of Matthew was altered in the 3rd century, with various
information later being added into the text. Bushby claims this forgery was loudly protested by Marcion. However
my question is, if these additions occurred in the 3rd century, but Marcion lived during the 2nd century, how is
this possible?

PAGES 188-189: The Gospel of John
Alleged Quote: "It [John] has been severely edited, as its closing words make clear. And there is evidence of
heavy tampering in the earliest manuscripts, obviously glosses and so forth, as well as sheer muddle. Thus
Chapter Five should follow Chapter Six and the final chapter is clearly an addition." - Encyclopedia Britannica, ed.
IX vol. 10 page 783.

I was immediately suspicious of this quote being that it is found in an encyclopedia (known to report "just the
facts" and not speculative opinion). Sure enough on page 783 in volume 10 there is an article on Greece. Giving
Bushby the benefit of the doubt, I also looked up The Gospel of John, The Gospels, and New Testament. Then,
just to be sure, I electronically searched the encyclopedia to see if these words appear anywhere within the text.
The result: this quote simply does not exist.

Bushby then quotes a few church fathers who allegedly admit to the Gospel of John being altered such as Bishop
Callistus and Eusebius. However, once again, Bushby only cites out-dated second-hand sources- not the authors'
original works.

PAGE 190: The New Testament Canon
Alleged Quote: "No New Testament canon, except a partial and unauthorised one existed until the latter half of
the Second Century AD, that is, till the idea of a universal church began to be entertained... One hundred and
seventy years from the coming of Christ elapsed before the collection assumed a form that carried with it the
idea of holy and inspired." - Encyclopedia Britannica, Ed. IX, vol. 5 pages 7-8

We are offered another bogus encyclopedia quote. The article found on the pages in question concern Guillen De
Castro Y Bellvis, a Spanish dramatist of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Gospels are not mentioned at all. Again,
just to be sure, I looked up articles where this quote might be found such as Canon, Canonization, and The
Gospels. I then performed another electronic search to see if this quote appeared anywhere within this edition (it
does not).

In this chapter, Bushby echoes the long-since debunked theory that the stories of Jesus were plagiarized from
pagan beliefs. We examine this topic in depth on this page where we reference the actual religious texts of the
individuals in question.

PAGE 194: Other Virgin Births
Bushby offers us a list of other figures who were said to be born of virgins. However, none of the figures were
said to be born of virgins and I encourage anyone to provide evidence from an original religious text to prove me
wrong. We'll briefly list how the figures were actually believed to have come into existence:

Hercules: Zeus impregnated Hercules' married mother the old fashioned way- through sex.
Perseus: Like Hercules, Perseus was born from the union of dead-beat-dad Zeus and his mother- through
sex.
Buddha: Buddha's mother, married to Buddha's father for twenty years, was supernaturally
impregnated by a white elephant. There is no mention of a virgin birth within the Buddhist texts.
Horus: Horus was born from Isis who resurrected her deceased husband, Osiris, and became pregnant
from his semen.
Quetzalcoatl: An ancient God of Mexico was said to have been the son of the goddess, Coatlicue, who had
previously given birth on several occasions as she was said to be the "mother of all existence."
Mithras: Mithras was never said to have been "born" but to have emerged as an adult out of solid rock.

PAGE 196-197: Other Crucifixions
The fact that Bushby uses the proven-erroneous work The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves is
painfully obvious. Though we have already discussed this matter on this page, I'll give a brief run-down here:

Osiris: Said to have been tricked by his enemy, Set, who sealed him into a chest.
Bel: Often associated with Zeus, was never said to have died.
Attis: Bled to death after castrating himself.
Tammuz: Killed by demons sent by Ishtar after she discovered him on her throne.
Dionysus: Killed as an infant by Titans who devoured everything but his heart.
Krishna: Accidentally shot by a hunter's arrow while meditating in the woods.
Esus: Often associated with Mars and Mercury, was never said to have experienced death.
Indra: Swallowed alive by a great serpent but was later rescued by the gods.
Bali: Was forced down bodily into the underworld.
Iao: I can find no mention of Iao experiencing death.
Alcestis: Agreed to die in the place of her husband after he struck a deal with the Gods. The gods took
pity on her and reunited her with her husband. She was described as being in bed when she died.
Quetzalcoatl: Either committed suicide or was incinerated by the gods for having sex with a priestess.
Wittoba: See: here
Prometheus: Was condemned to have his liver eaten by an eagle.
Quirinus: Associated with the mythical Romulus, was never said to have died.
Mithras: Never said to have died.

PAGE 197: The Crucified Orpheus
Bushby presents a picture of the "Crucified Orpheus" which depicts a figure on a cross. Bushby claims this relic
predates Christianity by more than 400 years. However, this artifact has been proven by scholars to be a 4th
century A.D. forgery.

PAGES 197-199: Parallels between Jesus and Pagan Figures
Though Bushby mentions other figures, he focuses his attention on parallels between Jesus and Krishna. It must
be noted that although Bushby quotes exactly where the "copy" can be found in the Bible, he never shows where
the "original" is found within the Hindu texts (in our article here, we dispel this allegation once and for all by citing
the Hindu scriptures):

Krishna means Christ in Sanskrit. Actually, Krishna means Black in Sanskrit as Krishna was believed to
have dark skin.
Krishna was born from a virgin. Actually, Krishna was the 7th of 8 children born to a married couple.
Krishna was visited by wisemen who were guided by a star. There is no mention of this in any Hindu text.
We are told Krishna was born in a prison where his parents were being held captive by a king who
planned to kill Krishna once he was born. It's unlikely such visitors would arrive only to alert the captors
to Krishna's presence.
An evil king issued a decree to kill all infant males. This is not so. We are told the wicked King Kamsa only
targeted the siblings of Krishna due to a prophecy foretelling his demise. He never issued a decree to kill
all infant males.
Krishna's parents fled to Mathura to protect Krishna. They never fled anywhere- they were imprisoned by
Kamsa. Bushby claims Jesus' parents also fled to such a place but the Gospels make it clear they fled to
Egypt.
Krishna atoned for mankind's sins. Not so- Krishna never held such a purpose. He was strictly seen as an
earthly "warrior savior" who saved the people from the tyrannical reign of Kamsa.
Krishna was crucified and is often depicted as being pierced with arrows. Krishna was never said to have
been crucified. He was accidentally shot by the hunter, Jara, who mistook him for a deer.
Krishna, after his death, descended into hell for three days. The Hindu texts make it clear Krishna
immediately returned to life and ascended into his own "inconceivable region" (Nirvana).

PAGE 206: Emperor Constantine
In an allegation which contradicts known history, Bushby claims Constantine was born in Britain. Though he did
travel to Britain later in his life, it is clearly recorded that he was born near modern Yugoslavia. Regardless,
Bushby provides no evidence for his ultimate conclusion: that Constantine was a descendant of Rabbi Jesus.

PAGE 210-211: Confusion of Dual Nature
We are told the early church bishops "argued constantly about the dual nature of Jesus Christ, a concept they
couldn't understand because they were unaware that their writings now embraced two separate life stories." If
this is true, then this pretty much dismisses Bushby's whole premise that the life of the twins was purposely
concealed by these authors. Second, I feel we have sufficiently debunked every piece of evidence Bushby has
offered to confirm the existence of the twins. Bushby then claims this rift is what caused Constantine to order the
development of a canon. However, the actual reason for creating the canon had nothing to do with the confusion
over "the twins." After the onset of Christianity, bogus manuscripts began to circulate and were being passed
around as authentic. In order to avoid this and to keep the heretical texts from holding the same importance as
the true texts, a council was formed. There was no conspiracy to "hide" or "conceal" anything as the apocryphal,
pseudographical, and gnostic texts are readily available to anyone who has an interest in them.

PAGE 213-215: The Deification of "The Twins"
Again, I have a problem with Bushby's account of history. He claims that under Constantine, Christianity became
finalized as a religion. Though it is true Christianity was legalized under Constantine, Jesus was recognized as a
deity for centuries before Constantine's lifetime. Just because Christianity was now considered legal, it was not
new. Thus, Bushby's long-winded explanation of the Roman process of deification is meaningless. However he
goes on to say, "Constantine 'officially' decreed divine honors on the twins whose two separate names had now,
by a show of bishops hands, been combined as one entity." Pretty impressive considering Bushby just admitted
in the previous pages these individuals were unaware of the existence of the "Jesus twins."

PAGES 218-219: The Royal Bloodline of Constantine.
We are again brought back to Bushby's theory of Constantine's biological relation to Jesus. Bushby claims it was
"probable" that Constantine deified "the twins" in order to protect his family lineage. "The records" reveal all of
this. Of course, probable does not mean definite, the twins never existed, and a vague reference to the records
just doesn't cut it.

PAGE 219: The Forgery of Eusebius
Bushby accuses Eusebius of forging the Testimonium Flavianum into the works of Josephus. Bushby claims the
passage has definitely been "exposed as a priesthood forgery" but there is no conclusive evidence to prove this.
Though it is unlikely the passage is entirely genuine, pointing the finger at Eusebius is based solely on
speculation. To view our discussion of this passage, see h ere (under Jewish sources). Also, check out this article
and this article submitted by a reader (Thanks David!).

Alleged quote: "It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode
of treatment."

This is another bogus quote we discuss in our article on this page. Though this quote does appear in the later
works of Eusebius, it appears as a chapter summary which was later added into the text. The content of the
passage in question contains a quoted dialogue from Plato's work The Laws in which Plato and Cleinias are
discussing the concept of lying for the sake of religion. Eusebius neither condones or orders the act of lying.

PAGES 219-220: Origen on Josephus
Bushby claims the Christian author "admitted [to] adding to the Jewish historian's works." Bushby cites a bogus
reference to Origen's Contra Celsus because such a chapter does not exist. The chapters of Book I (cited by
Bushby) only go up to 71 but Bushby cites this admission as coming from chapter 100. The two references in
Origen's works that do mention Josephus contain nothing in regards to him altering the text (See: book II and
book IV).

PAGES 220-221: Constantine and Pagan Tradition
Bushby continues with more Pagan practices that were adopted by Christianity during the reign of Constantine.
Rather than dwelling on this, the point is such rituals and mergers (like Christmas trees, Easter eggs, December
25th, etc.) were instituted centuries after the onset of Christianity and were never taught by Jesus or the original
apostles.

We can conclude that Bushby simply has not proven his case. The majority of his evidence is based on
speculation, linguistic games, bogus references, and terribly misquoted sources. Bushby has not sufficiently
provided any kind of sound proof that should cause us to dismiss known history and accept his claims. A pope
never admitted to Christ being a fable, the Jesus twins never existed, and Christianity was not based on pagan
myths.

Bookmark Us
(Ctrl + d)