Top Twenty-Five Things to Research

1. Ancient Near East Texts/Mythology Pre-Dating the Old Testament
2. The Epic of Gilgamesh and Other Creation/Flood Myths that Pre-Date the Old Testament
3. Zoroastrianism and the Persian Influence on Bible Doctrine
4. The Problem of Evil (Theodicy) and the Hiddenness of God
5. Myths of Dying-Resurrecting God-Men and the Christ Myth
6. Philo of Alexandria
7. The Book of Enoch
8. Gods and Goddesses Assimilated to Become Yahweh and Elohim (El)
9. Natural Empirical Evidence (Science) vs. Supernatural Belief Systems (Faith)
10. This Life vs. Eternity: Weighing in on the Immorality of Heaven and Hell
11. Gospels Not "Historical" Records, but Anonymous Third-Person Narratives
12. The Christian Canon and the "Evolution" of Jesus' Godmanship
13. Saint Paul and the "Re-Creation" of the Christian Myth
14. Israel/Hebrew/Jewish Archaeology
15. Ancient Near East History (Canaanite, Hebrew, Egyptian, Persian)
16. Bible Criticism
17. The Nag Hammadi Library
18. The Ugaritic Texts
19. The Amarna Tablets/Letters
20. The Dead Sea Scrolls
21. The Gnostics
22. The Origin of Satan, Devils, Angels, Heaven & Hell
23. The Jesus Myth
24. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent
25. Critical Thinking

Other Suggested Avenues of Research

Belief, Disbelief, Doubt • Science & Scientific Method • Creationism, Intelligent Design, & Evolution

Anyone who takes the time to study Ancient Near East texts, history, archeaology, and mythology, will quickly discover that much of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) was appropriated and assimilated from earlier cultures and religious traditions (specifically the Sumerians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Hittities, Syrians, Egyptians, and Persians/Zoroastrians). This is not some Bible-bashing liberal idea contrived out of thin-air but a historical and verifiable fact derived from physical evidence and thorough research. Remember, because they were at various times a 'conquered people' the Hebrews would be impacted and influenced by the traditions and ethos of those doing the conquering. If Christians (as well as Jews) would dedicate a little energy investigating Ancient Near East texts and mythology they would see how Old Testament stories were adapted, modified, and evolved from older myths and legends. Why aren't Christians told about all these Ancient Near East texts and mythologies that pre-date the Old Testament when attending church, Sunday school, or bible college? Come on, why do you suppose? What is particularly interesting is that after they are shown how the Hebrews "borrowed" these older stories and altered them for their own religious use, most Christians will still continue to believe in the legitimacy of the Old Testament. Why? Because they would rather 'believe' in comforting religious stories and cling to hope in an 'afterlife' than face and recognize their own denial of death and fear of annihilation.
(Return to Top)

While most conservative Christians may adhere to the notion of the legitimacy and credibility of the Bible or go so far as to proclaim it inerrant (without error), infallible, and inspired by God what they probably haven't been taught is the extent it has 'borrowed' and assimilated myths that pre-date the development of Hebrew doctrine and the writing of the Old Testament itself. For example, nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the use of the Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" in the construction of the Hebrew story of Noah's Flood which share about 20 major points in common. In both cases:

• The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.
• The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
• The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
• The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).
• The hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat
• The ark would be sealed with pitch.
• The ark would have with many internal compartments
• It would have a single door
• It would have at least one window.
• The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.
• A great rain covered the land with water.
• The mountains were initially covered with water.
• The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
• The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.
• The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
• The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
• God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.
• The hero was blessed.
• The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

For Pre-Dating Flood Myths see: Ziusudra - Atrahasis - Utnapishtim - Deucalion

Christian apologists, when confronted with this evidence, immediately go into spin mode and either (1) attempt to explain it away with rationalizations and arguments that one would expect any eighth-grader might see through, or (2) simply state there is no direct correlation between the accounts as if flat denial is all one needs do to convince the ever-faithful. The apologists will argue that (a) although the Epic of Gilgamesh was indeed written before the Old Testament, the Sumerians/Babylonians probably stole the story from the Hebrews' "oral" account, in other words, the Hebrews "said" it first but the Sumerians "wrote" it first; (b) there can't be a correlation because of the differences between the two stories, for example in Genesis a raven and doves were sent out, but in Gilgamesh a dove, a swallow, and a raven were sent out; (3) the Book of Genesis is a 'real historical' account, but the Epic of Gilgamesh is only a myth [NOTE: I kid you not, I have run across this third argument in various apologetic sources at least thirty times; so insulated have the apologists become by their own denial and spin, they are completely unaware how preposterous this last argument really is. They honestly believe it is a legitimate reason! That being the case, please consider the source when evaluating their other so-called arguments and explanations when regarding what they so genteelly call 'Difficulties' instead of Contradictions, Inconsistencies, Fatal Flaws, Absurdities, Questionable Guidelines, Immoral Behavior, Atrocities, and outright Errors.]
(Return to Top)

Another thing most conservative Christians are not taught is the extent by which Judeo-Christian doctrine was influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism during the Jewish 'exile' in Babylonian captivity. In other words, the Jews went into Babylon believing one thing and came out of Babylon believing something else entirely. What happened? Babylonian myths and doctrines were absorbed and assimilated during the Jews' captivity and reworked into local doctrine upon their return home. Any college graduate who has studied Ancient Near East history is well aware of this Zoroastrian influence as a matter of course, but churches are not all filled with college graduates. It's easy to believe one thing if you've never learned (or never made the effort to learn) otherwise. So what kinds of things did the Jews pick-up during their Babylonian captivity? The pre-exilic Jews did not believe in life after death where there would be a judgment of the soul (i.e., reward of heaven or retribution of hell), the Messiah (in the pre-exilic period, messiah was a only a title granted to important people regarded as close to god) or an eternal Kingdom of God, Resurrection of the Body, Angels or Demons, or the ongoing battle between Good or Evil that would be played out until the End of the World (eschatology). Post-exilic Jews came away from captivity with all these ideas that were eventually worked and reworked into the Hebrew bible to ultimately influence the ideas inherent in Christian doctrine.
Questions for consideration: If the Jews had never been deported to Babylonia in 597 BCE would they ever have invented the notion of Messiah? Angels? Devils? Heaven? Hell?
(Return to Top)

For some inexplicable reason, conservative Christians and apologists like to describe God's attributes even though they have never actually seen God in order to determine these attributes. Only through tradition do they construct this list of attributes and for no other reason. In other words, conservative Christians and apologists will endlessly argue who and what God is based on abstract language alone (i.e., words representing something impossible to determine) and nothing else. What do I mean by this? You can point to a tree and list its attributes, you can point to a dog, you can point to your neighbor, but in order to list God's attributes you can only point to words, the abstract language of tradition alone, therefore said attributes are inherently meaningless, grounded solely on abstraction and artifice. Again, what does this mean? It means that if the only way you can show God's attributes is by pointing to words in a book or repeating words you heard, then those attributes have been determined solely through the abstraction of language and nothing else. Therefore, the attributes of God are really empty attributes because they might as well be anything. You can say that God is an invisible color-blind jazz singer with a distaste for all things Norwegian and the only proof that you have are the words you use. Think this is wrong? If so, then show me, don't just tell me, any one of God's attributes (and pointing to more words in a book do not amount to 'showing' but only 'telling' twice removed).

If you can only talk about God's attributes (or only talk about angels, or devils, or miracles, or talking snakes, etc.) then you have fallen into the trap of a reification error. Reification (or hypostatization) is a language fallacy that involves ascribing existence, substance, attributes, and behavior to mental constructs or concepts, then talking about these constructs and concepts using language that presupposes them to be real. It is similar to a metaphor, but a metaphor that has been extended too far and taken to a spurious extreme. When applied to fantastic entities or gods, it is similar to anthropomorphism. While it is useful to be creative and employ metaphors and abstractions in our language, unless we are mindful of the symbolic properties of words we risk the danger of treating abstract entities as 'real' solely through the attributes we metaphorically use to describe them with words. How we talk about and discuss things has a great influence on what we believe about them, which means our impression of reality is often structured by the very language we use to describe it. Being aware of the reification fallacy can teach us to pay critical attention to the words we use or else we run the risk of projecting our descriptions outside the abstract world of language and into the realm of the concrete world itself.

So what are the supposed attributes of God and what do they have to do with the Problem of Evil? According to tradition, God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere at once), changeless, eternal, and all-loving (see biblical list here). If God is really all these things, then why is there evil in the world (whether natural evil—earthquakes, hurricanes, disease, etc—or man-made evil—murder, rape, theft, torture, war, etc)? You can ease the question further by acknowledging the need for some evil in order for freewill to work, but ask why there is as much evil? For example, why are some unfortunate children born with progeria (Hutchinson-Gilford Syndrome) only to suffer with accelerated premature aging and die by age thirteen? This demonstrates the Problem of Evil. If God really is God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all-loving then why doesn't God prevent progeria, infant abuse and torture, painful birth defects, etc? If God could prevent it (being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent) but doesn't then God isn't all-loving. If God is all-loving but can't prevent it, then God isn't omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Finally, if the knowledge and acceptance of God is essential for the condition of my eternal soul (that's 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x forever), whether I will be granted an eternal reward (that's 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x forever) or an eternal punishment (that's 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x forever), then how come God is hidden? I am a rational human being. I derive knowledge empirically, i.e., through my five senses. If the future whereabouts of my eternal soul (that's 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x forever) is dependent upon my accepting the 'right' doctrine, then don't just point me to abstract words in this book (the Bible) or that book (the Koran), or infer that I am suppose to make a reification error as a matter of faith. Why? Because I am by nature an empirical creature. I learn through reasoned experience. Don't just tell me, show me! If God could show me (being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent) but doesn't then God isn't all-loving. God must be playing cat-and-mouse with me. If I'm empirical and rational, but suppose to behave as if I were metaphysical and irrational, then there's something awfully wrong going on here. I'm suppose to believe in what I cannot see, act irrationally, and feign intellectual ignorance, or else i will be damned for all eternity (that's 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x forever).

It is evident to me that these two things—the Problem of Evil and the Hiddenness of God—prove that God is not the kind of God that tradition attributes Him to be; He cannot be all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere, changeless, eternal, and all-loving. Given the human condition, that particular flavor of God most certainly does not exist.
(Return to Top)

Most conservative Christians mistakenly believe that the virgin birth, miraculous life, death, and resurrection are original and unique to Jesus Christ. Au contraire. Long before the story of Jesus entered the collective scene, there were myths of dying-resurrecting god-men throughout the Mediterranean and Ancient Near East who were born of virgin human mothers and divine fathers, performed miracles, were killed and buried only to finally resurrect in glory. What does this mean? It means that the notion of dying-resurrecting god-men is an archetypal "mythic type" common to the collective belief systems of the peoples of the Mediterranean and Middle East at this particular point in history and most cultures had their own 'local' myth that referenced a god-man (and oftentimes a dying-resurrecting god-man) including Dionysus, Osiris, Tammuz/Dumuzi, Bacchus, Mithras, Attis, Adonis, Pythagoras, Apollonius Of Tyana, Krishna, Murukan, the Corn King, the Green Man, to name a few. Any rational thinker worth his-or-her intellectual salt can confirm any of this with a little dedicated research and scholarly elbow-grease. Hell, I've listed several books below and even offered links to examine. How much easier could it be? The problem is that many conservative Christians really don't like doing research or dedicating any time to study if it nudges them, however slightly, from their presupposed comfort zones. Apparently it's a whole lot easier to simply believe than it is to roll-up your sleeves and do the work to unearth the 'truth' whatever it may be or wherever it may lead. Once again, I really think it's a kind of infantile pathology in order to (1) avoid acknowledging the inescapable reality of complete, utter, and total death, and (2) avoid putting away the wondrous promises of being rewarded with a Magical Happy Place so as not to have to take full responsibility for one's own life right here and right now and become an all-grown-up autonomous being.
(Return to Top)

Most conservative Christians have never heard of Philo of Alexandria (Philo Judaeus) nor are aware of his influence on Christian doctrine. He was an an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher born in Alexandria, Egypt in 20 BCE (died 40 CE). The few biographical details concerning him are found in his own works (especially in "Legatio ad Caium") and in works by Josephus. When Hebrew mythical thought met Greek philosophical thought in the first century BCE it was only natural that someone would try to develop speculative and philosophical justification for Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy. It was Philo who produced a Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought, later appropriated by Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen. He likely influenced Paul, his contemporary, and the authors of the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the process, he laid the foundations for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today. Philo's primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity, particularly the platonic idea of the Messiah and the Logos.

The doctrine of the Logos, or Word, as an emanation or essence of divine wisdom is very old. It is found in the ancient religions of Egypt and India. It was recognized in Zoroastrian theology, and was appropriated and incorporated into the Jewish theology by the Babylonian exiles. It constitutes an important element in the Platonic philosophy. The presentation of Jesus as an incarnation of the Logos belongs to the second century and is prominent in the Fourth Gospel. The ideas are chiefly those of Plato and Philo of Alexandria. Plato's trinity was Thought, Word and Deed. The Word occupies the second place in the Platonic trinity as it does in the Christian trinity. That the author of the Gospel of John, written several decades after the time of Philo, borrowed largely from that philosopher, is shown by the following parallels drawn from their writings:

Philo: "The Logos is the Son of God" (De Profugis)
John: "This [the Word] is the Son of God" (John 1:34)

Philo: "The Logos is considered the same as God" (De Somniis)
John: "The Word {Logos] was God" (John 1:1)

Philo: "He [the Logos] was before all things" (De Allegoriis Legum)
John: "The same [the Word] was in the beginning with God" (John 1:2)

Philo: "The Logos is the agent by whom the world was made" (De Allegoriis Legum)
John: "All things were made by him [the Word]" (John 1:3)

Philo: "The Logos is the true light of the world" (De Somniis)
John: "The Word [Logos] was the true light" (John 1:9)

Philo: "The Logos only can see God" (De Confusione Linguarum)
John: "No man hath seen God.... He [the Word] hath declared him" (John 1:18)

(Return to Top)

Ah, one can only imagine how different Christianity would be and how better off the world itself would be had there never been a Book of Enoch. Scholars date its composition to the 2nd century BCE. This 'pseudepigraphical' book (not part of the Old Testament canon either Protestant, Hebrew, or Catholic, although now part of the Ethiopian canon) about fallen angels and the cosmic battle between good and evil had a major influence on post-exilic Jewish and early Christian doctrine, as well as apocalyptic literature. Although it did not garner enough 'votes' to be included in the New Testament, portions of the Book of Enoch are interestingly enough referenced there (see here and here). I repeat: while the Book of Enoch is called pseudepigraphical, it was considered otherwise to early Christian writers as the quote from 1 Enoch 1:9 in the New Testament book of Jude 14-15 clearly indicates: "In the seventh (generation) from Adam, Enoch also prophesied these things, saying: 'Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners spoke against him'."

Thought lost for millennia after being destroyed by early dogmatic Christian authorities, it was rediscovered in 1773 in Ethiopia. The Book of Enoch remains one of the oldest extant mystical documents and is referred to in the Hebrew Zohar, the Epistle of Jude, and is considered a critical influence on the New Testament. It also includes the lost "Book of Noah," early references to a messiah as "Christ" and "Son of Man," and an accounting of the angels and subsequent creation of demons, as well as discussion of Heaven, Hell, Eternal Life, and Divine Judgment, all ideas appropriated from the Babylonian Exile.
(Return to Top)

Conservative Christians seem to have the rather quaint idea that the notion of the Judeo-Christian God, that is to say Yahweh (or YHWH), has always been around in pretty much the same way as He is today. Once again, evidence demonstrates quite the contrary. Like everything else connected to the language of religion, the idea of God (whether called Yahweh or Elohim) evolved over time and was assimilated and adapted by the Hebrews over millennia. As you might have already guessed, the names Yahweh and Elohim did not even originate with the Hebrews, but date all the way back to the early Canaanites who themselves appropriated customs, religious myths, and language from the early Sumerians/Babylonians. The term 'Elohim' that is used for God throughout the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) is actually plural, reflecting early Judaic polytheism. Originally meaning "the gods", or the "sons of El," the supreme being, the word may have been singularized by later monotheist priests who sought to replace worship of the many gods with their own patron god Yahweh (YHWH) alone. Interesting enough, as matriarchal religions evolved into patriarchal religions, the old goddesses were transformed into the new gods. Originally Eve (as in Adam and Eve) was a goddess and considered the mother of all (the Hebrew word for Eve is HWH, or He-Waw-Heh). Side Note: The word 'Adam' literally means 'mankind' so Adam and Eve are 'Mankind and the Goddess Mother'. When patriarchal priests started to change the goddesses into gods, all they had to do was add the masculinizing Y (or Yod) to Eve's name (HWH), and so, with the inclusion of a simple Y, the god Yahweh was born (YHWH, or Yod, He, Waw, Heh). Of course this process took hundreds of years and evolved through all the various cultural soundings of Yahweh (Yah, Yahu, Yahwa, et al), but the bottom line is there is nothing vaguely unique, original, or proprietary about the Hebrew god Yahweh.

For further study regarding the early Semitic/Hebrew goddesses please research the Asherah/Astarte/Anath connection (from which the word Easter originated), as well as Shekhina and Matronit.
(Return to Top)

Conservative Christian apologists will either tell you that (1) there is no real conflict between science and the Christian faith (example here), or (2) science is inherently evil because it attepts to explain the universe without kowtowing to the invisible and proprietary Judeo-Christian God of the Bible (example here). As you might have guessed, I disagree with both these choices and offer a third: (3) there is a conflict between science and religion because (a) science advocates what can be examined, analyzed, and tested whereas (b) religion advocates what can never be examined, analyzed, and tested while (c) exhorting that believing in the invisible, irrational, and non-provable is a good and righteous act but thinking rationally, logically, and deliberately is a selfish act. If the God of the Bible wants to punish me for all eternity for wanting to be rational and deliberate during my examination after truth than so be it. I would rather suffer damnation with Einstein and Gandhi, then celebrate in Heaven while the fires of Hell burn my brethren below.
(Return to Top)

Conservative Christians are unethical and immoral, period, if they can consciously and deliberately accept going to Heaven knowing that the majority of the world's population will be spending the rest of eternity (that's 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x forever) being deliberately tortured in Hell. They are unethical and immoral if they can, with a clear conscience, praise and worship the type of Deity who will condemn a person for all eternity (that's 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x 10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰ years x forever) for behavior and/or choices made (or not made) during his-or-her incredibly short human lifespan (that's 70-80 years vs. Eternity). They are unethical and immoral if they do not reject this behavior on the part of the Deity outright, confront the Deity for being the architect of the atrocities of Hell (at least the Nazi Holocaust only lasted a few years), reject their own salvation on moral priciples, make plans to charge the Gates of Hell and free its prisoners, or offer to take another's place in Hell as a pure act of Unconditional Love. As long as there is a Hell—even the slightest threat of Hell—I could not morally or ethically consider that kind of Deity a god worthy of worship or emulation (whether Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) but a tyrant more in keeping with Hitler's "Final Solution" and the stoking of the ovens. What I find inconceivable is how any Christian considers this Deity worthy of praise and worship, unless beneath it all it's really about enlightened self-interest, not caring how many others will suffer just so long as he-or-she can avoid the flames. If this is the case, then they've become just like their chosen Deity—shameful, unethical, immoral, and incredibly selfish. Side Note: If Jesus died for my sins then how come I can still go to Hell? There must be a sin that Jesus didn't die for, the ultimate sin, the biggest sin of all—the sin of my not accepting of him. If that's the case, then what kind of Savior is this? He'll die for my lying, he'll die for my cheating, he'll die for my thievery, or adultry, or murder, but when it comes to my not acknowledging him that's where he draws the line. He'll die for all my sins, except the one that really counts. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Don Cupitt has said it best: "All the doctrinal themes are meant gradually to sink in and become part of one's own being—which gives rise to the paradox that when you have fully become a Christian, you aren't one any longer." And so, over the years, I've evolved and discovered that I can no longer be a Christian. I've found it impossible to constantly work at justifying what is blatantly selfish, offensive, horrific, and cruel. Maybe that's the final test, the secret test, the real test, come Judgment Day. Are you willing to hand your salvation back to the Deity and reject Heaven outright because accepting it would be plain wrong? The first shall be last, and the last shall be first, because many are called but few are chosen...
(Return to Top)

Too often conservative Christians use the argument that "by all historical accounts Jesus rose from the dead." Ask them what they mean by "historical accounts" or what they are using for historical records and they will quickly point you to the New Testament, specifically the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But is it at all reasonable and rational to consider the Gospels 'historical accounts' beyond the basic fact that they were created sometime in history? When Christians use the terms 'historical accounts' or 'historical records' what they want to mean is 'eyewitness accounts'. Are the Gospels 'eyewitness' accounts? Were they composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as witnesses to the life of Jesus? As any true student of the Bible and church history can tell you, the four gospels are not eyewitness accounts: (1) they were written as third-person narratives, and (2) they were originally composed anonymously and the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ascribed to them were actually second century "guesses" in order to give them the appearance of legitimacy and credibility. So what does it mean when someone makes the claim that 'by all historical accounts Jesus rose from the dead'? It actually means that according to an anonymously written third-person narrative a supernatural and/or magical event occurred in which a character called 'Jesus' circumvented the Laws of Physics and Biology and rose from the dead. And what, exactly, is an anonymously written third-person narrative? It is nothing more than hearsay thrice-removed! Not only is there (1) not an eyewitness account, but (2) only a third-person account, without (3) a named or recognized author taking credit for the composition of that third-person account! That is why the Gospels are hearsay three-times removed. No one knows who wrote the Gospels or if any of the events contained therein actually happened. In other words, millions of people may be using as a "testimony" of their faith four documents describing magical and supernatural events that may have been created out of whole cloth purely for political or religious reasons. Which explanation is more feasible given what we know about the way the world works? That magical/supernatural/miraculous events occurred two thousand years ago, although such events haven't occurred since, or that these documents were deliberately and anonymously created in order to satisfy a political or religious agenda? Since they were anonymously written and in the third-person, it would be irrational to attribute to them any sense of validity because the events they describe simply do not correspond with the way we know the real world works. Miracles and magical and supernatural hocus-pocus simply do not occur, so the simplest explanation (by way of Occam's Razor) is that these anonymously-written third-person narratives were created solely as a tool for propaganda in order to entice superstitious or magically-inclined people to climb aboard a particular band-wagon.

Please consider the following discussion of First, Second, and Third-Person accounts: