There are people who say that Jesus was nothing more than a copycat. That His story isn’t original. That Christianity just borrowed from myths that were already floating around in the ancient world.
Skeptics on the internet point to all kinds of so-called “messiah figures” in history and say, “See? Jesus is just another version of that.” They bring up Apollonius of Tyana, Krishna, and Dionysus. Some will say there were dozens of “messiahs” just like Him. The idea is that Jesus wasn’t unique at all—He was just another myth recycled and retold.
Honestly, if this were true, it would disprove the Bible and crumble the worldview of billions of people. But is it true? Was Jesus a copycat? In this study, we’re tackling three of the most common comparisons: Apollonius, Krishna, and Dionysus. Plus, we’ll show you how to respond when your cousin, your professor, or that guy on Reddit claims that Jesus is just a copy. Let’s start with…
Apollonius
As opposed to the other two we will discuss, this guy was actually a historical figure. He was born in the first century A.D., around the same time as Jesus. He was known for traveling, teaching about morality, and living a very disciplined lifestyle. The stories say he performed miracles—healings, exorcisms, even raising the dead. And when it came time for him to die, some accounts say he disappeared mysteriously or maybe even ascended into heaven. Sounds eerily similar to Jesus, doesn’t it?
But there’s a catch. The main biography of Apollonius, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus, wasn’t written until more than a hundred years after his death, which is, notably after the gospel accounts of Jesus were already written and widely circulated. Therefore, who may have copied whom? Philostratus openly included mythical elements in his writings, such as talking animals and magical abilities. In Apollonius’ biography, Philostratus hedges on everything. He says things like, “It is reported that…” and “People believe…” and “Some say…”. In one story where Apollonius supposedly raised a girl from the dead, the writer adds, “She may not have really been dead, people just believed she was.”1That’s a far cry from the eyewitness language of the gospel accounts.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John present Jesus as a historical figure who came as both Lord and Savior. On the other hand, Apollonius’ teachings were philosophical, not salvific. He’s no messiah, and certainly no savior. Scholars today don’t treat The Life of Apollonius of Tyana as history. They treat it as legend. And that makes a big difference. Now let’s move on to…
Krishna
Krishna is one of the central deities in Hinduism. In some modern portrayals, you can see him depicted on a cross, pierced in his hands and feet, called “our lord and savior,” and said to have died, risen, and ascended into heaven.
At first glance, it looks like Jesus might have been a copy of Krishna. After all, the Krishna story predates the life of Jesus by centuries. But here’s the key: those details don’t come from the original Hindu texts. They’re found in later traditions, folk adaptations, and even New Age interpretations. For example, some of these alleged parallels came from 19th-century writers in the Theosophical movement—people who were trying to blend all religions together into a single mythic framework in agenda-driven storytelling. They’re not in the Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, or other early Hindu sources.
In the earliest accounts, Krishna is killed by an arrow to the heel, not crucified. He doesn’t die as a sacrifice for sin. He’s not called “savior” in the biblical sense, and there’s no resurrection in the way the gospel accounts describe it. The crucifixion-style imagery and Christian-sounding language only show up much later, often in an attempt to draw artificial parallels between Hinduism and Christianity. We, therefore, ask again: who may have copied whom?
When skeptics claim that Jesus’ story was lifted from Krishna, they’re not quoting ancient sources; they’re quoting modern mashups. Next, let’s look into…
Dionysus
This comparison tends to get a lot of attention. On the surface, the similarities between Dionysus and Jesus seem uncanny.
Dionysus was called the “Son of God.” He was said to have been born under strange circumstances. Some stories say he offered his followers the chance to be “born again.” He supposedly turned water into wine during a celebration. There are claims that he died, descended into the underworld, and came back to life. And his followers are even said to have shared bread and wine as representations of his body and blood.
It sounds almost identical to Jesus at first glance. But when we look at the details, the comparison begins to fall apart.
Dionysus was the Greek god of wine, revelry, and excess. His cult promoted wild festivals, theatrical rituals, and the pursuit of pleasure. His teachings were not about righteousness, self-control, or turning from sin. In fact, they often encouraged the opposite.
Unlike Jesus, the resurrection associated with Dionysus was not taught as a historical event. The story was told to allegorically tie Dionysus to seasonal agricultural cycles—grapes being harvested, crushed, fermented, and returning each year in the form of wine. His “death and rebirth” symbolized the fertility of the land, not the redemption of humanity. Ancient sources don’t present this as historically witnessed in time and space, but as a mystical pattern observed in nature.
As for the bread and wine, those elements were part of secretive mystery cult rituals, not something grounded in historical memory or tied to a specific moment in time. There was no historical Dionysus to remember. The rituals were metaphorical and deeply symbolic, not commemorative in the way Christians remember Jesus’ actual death and resurrection.
Scholars also point out that most of the supposed similarities to Christianity appear in later forms of the Dionysus tradition. For example, the symbolic bread-and-wine ceremonies are attested in later sources, long after the gospel accounts were already written and spreading across the Roman world. This means that any direction of influence would be the reverse of what critics suggest. In other words, if one copied from the other, it was the cult of Dionysus who copied the historical Jesus (who copied whom?).
While the gospel accounts of Jesus are written in the style of historical biography, the stories about Dionysus belong to the genre of myth. They are not grounded in eyewitness testimony, real geography, or datable events.
While the parallels can sound compelling on the surface, the meaning, the context, and the historical foundations are entirely different. You can make Dionysus look similar to Jesus in artistic retellings, but you cannot turn him into a real person who walked out of a tomb.
So how do we respond to the claim that Jesus is just another recycled myth? Let me give you three facts to keep in mind.
1. The accounts themselves read differently.
The gospel accounts read like history. They name people, places, rulers, and events. They are written like someone reporting what happened. For example, here’s how Luke describes the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist:
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Luke 3:1–3
That sounds like someone documenting actual events, not spinning a legend. On the other hand, the stories about Apollonius, Krishna, and Dionysus read like myths, like legends, like poetry. Even the authors themselves didn’t claim they were straightforward history. They pose no real threat to the authenticity of the gospel accounts.
These figures are often brought up in low-budget documentaries or social media posts with captions like, “What your preacher doesn’t want you to know.” But don’t fall for the clickbait. The surface-level comparisons collapse under honest examination. Look into it yourself and see that the supposed accounts of these other figures are nothing like the eye-witness accounts of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
2. The teachings are drastically different.
Apollonius said that prayer and sacrifice are pointless, and that God can only be reached through intellect, not relationship. Krishna taught karma and a rigid class system, and even said women were of “lower birth” to men. Dionysus promoted drunkenness and indulgence.
Now compare that to Jesus, who taught humility, mercy, and sacrificial love. He lifted up the poor, welcomed the outcast, and called His followers to love their enemies. If Jesus was copying from these figures, why are His teachings not only different, but completely counter to theirs?
3. Similarities don’t disprove Jesus.
Just because two stories share some surface-level details doesn’t mean one copied the other. Most ancient cultures have some version of a flood story. That doesn’t disprove the flood; it actually suggests a shared memory of something real. The same principle applies here.
Almost every serious historian (Christian or not) agrees that Jesus of Nazareth lived in the first century, taught large crowds, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and that His followers sincerely believed He rose from the dead. What sets Jesus apart are the fulfilled prophecies, the eyewitness testimony, and the historical foundation of His life and message.
And when you zoom out and look at the big picture, the similarities actually make sense. If God had been preparing the world for a coming Savior since the beginning of time, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect some echoes of that promise to show up in other cultures? Early humanity started with a knowledge of God. As people spread out across the world, they carried fragments of that truth with them. That’s why you see common threads: floods, towers, strongmen (like Samson), serpent stories, even hints of messianic figures. These aren’t threats to the gospel accounts. They’re shadows of a truth that would one day step into history in full light in the person of Jesus Christ.
So no, Jesus isn’t just another myth. His story is unlike any other. He lived as both man and God. He taught with authority, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the world, and rose again on the third day.
When someone claims Jesus was just a copycat, ask them where they got that idea. Ask them if they’ve actually read the ancient sources, or if they’re just repeating a meme. These comparisons usually come from low-effort documentaries, late-night History Channel specials, or atheist Facebook groups that recycle the same claims over and over without evidence.
In the end, the copycats don’t disprove Jesus. They show that the world was longing for someone like Him. The imitations just point to the real thing. And the real thing is Jesus Christ.
The world is full of imitations, but there’s only one true Savior. He isn’t just another name in history. He is the name above all names. And He invites you to know Him. If you’re a Christian, keep learning and growing in your faith. And if you’re still exploring, take some time to look into the real Jesus, not the memes or modern myths. The truth is worth your attention. If you’d like to study this further, we’d love to help.
- Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 4.45, Loeb Classical Library translation by F.C. Conybeare. ↩︎