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:
  1. 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. Here is an article by another author who offers an explanation for those who find
    this a problem.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:
  1. The Gospels clearly state Jesus was a Galilean. This was actually Judas Khrestus.
  2. Galilean became an ambiguous term meaning either a person from Galilee or a symbolic term for a
    Christian.
  3. The Romans named the region of Northern Galilee Gaulantius (originally Gaul-anti-us, today Golan
    Heights).
  4. 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:
  1. The Roman name for Gaul was Gallia
  2. The plural form of Gallia is Gallicans, which is linguistically similar to Galileans.
  3. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. Matthew 26:73. Bushby points out that this verse mentions the Galileans having a peculiar accent.
    Dialects, anyone?
  3. John 4:45. This verse mentions the Galileans welcoming Jesus at His arrival. That's nice.
  4. 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 here).
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 here. 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:
  1. Basilides was an Egyptian Gnostic- not a traditional church father as Bushby presents him to be.
  2. Basilides words are preserved In Irenaeus' Against Heresies where the bishop is refuting Basilides'
    absurdities.
  3. The quote does not contain the name Khrestus as Bushby claims.
  4. 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?
Bookmark Us
(Ctrl + d)
Google