Some have argued that Christianity isn't founded on a historical Jesus, but rather on a mythical creation.[168] This view proposes that the idea of Jesus was the Jewish manifestation of Hellenistic cults that acknowledged the non-historic nature of their deity using it instead as a teaching device.[169] Author Brian Branston has argued that Christianity adopted many mythological tales and traditions into its views of Jesus. According to Branston these traditions, largely from Greco-Roman religions, have parallels to the story of Jesus.[170]However, the position that Jesus was not a historical figure is essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship.[171][172][173][174][175]

Scholars and historians such as James H. Charlesworth, caution against using parallels with life-death-rebirth gods in the widespread mystery religions prevalent in the Hellenistic culture to conclude that Jesus is a purely legendary figure. Charlesworth argues that "it would be foolish to continue to foster the illusion that the Gospels are merely fictional stories like the legends of Hercules and Asclepius. The theologies in the New Testament are grounded on interpretations of real historical events…"[176] Similarly, the existence of the category of life-death-rebirth gods is questioned by mainstream scholarship.[177]

In addition, on Christian origins presented in Acts of the Apostles Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White states:

For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted…. The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time…. Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, [showing that] even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core.

– Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press (1963), pp. 189-190.

A classic response to the criticism of the relations between Greco-Roman mythology and Christianity is that of J. R. R. Tolkien and subsequently C. S. Lewis, who considered that just because a story was a myth does not preclude it from also having taken place as a historical event. Pagan myths can be seen as prefiguring the life and death of Christ, but without detracting from their historical and religious significance. Lewis even went so far as to suggest that the existence of these Pagan myths lend Christianity credibility, as their existence might reflect God's hidden watch over all human history and his influence on the collective subconscious in the form of "good dreams" and premonitions. Lewis states that he would be far more doubtful of the reality of a supposed historical event of the magnitude of the Atonement if humanity had neglected to anticipate it in any way. A similar approach is used in justifying the Gospels, whose own similarities, yet in lacking exactness of words, point to a common "truth" arrived at separately by the four evangelists.