These bitter and terrible words spoken by the Evangelist about Christ apply to all Christian history: "He came to his own, and his own did not receive Him" (John 1:11). The Savior was met in the world with doubt, distrust, and outright malice. He was rejected, betrayed, desecrated and killed. And He foretold to His disciples in the world tribulation, hatred and persecution. From the first days of the apostolic evangelism, this prophecy has been fulfilled. The Church wanders the earth, amidst enmity and resistance. "Light came into the world, but men loved darkness more than light" (John 3:19)... And in our days the world's rebellion against Christ is beginning again. If until recently many did not see and did not understand this, it was only because they did not want or were afraid to see it. Now it is even more terrible not to see, now it is no longer possible not to see and not to look. The time has come when everyone is required to give a direct answer about his hope, confession and firm choice are required. The anti-Christian movement broke through by force to the historical surface and found itself in power. Disbelief became open and frank. And in the face of this militant and undisguised offensive, many hesitate and get lost, feel helpless and unarmed, do not know what and how to respond, do not know how to respond even to themselves. In this confusion is manifested spiritual immaturity and lack of faith. And lack of faith is unresponsive to the onslaught of unbelief. But the weakness of believers does not yet testify to the weakness of faith itself.

Unbelief appears under the name of science, passes itself off as the only real knowledge, as its highest level. And too often, and too many, are ready to agree to this and give in.

In fact, in the name of knowledge, unbelief claims falsely and without any right. In reality, unbelief is "reverse faith," and "faith" is blind and biased. In unbelief there is no genuine will to know at all, there is no inner caution and freedom by which true knowledge lives and moves. In unbelief there is always a bad passion. Usually unbelief stems precisely from ignorance and insensibility, and always from ignorance of one's own ignorance, and therefore from inability and unwillingness to be convinced. At the root of unbelief there is always a narrowing of the spiritual horizon, a dulling of inner vision. Unbelief is based on preconceived opinions, the groundlessness of which is covered by the desire that they be well-founded. More bl. Augustine sensitively noted that the denial of God is always based on a secret desire that God should not exist... Unbelief has its own seeming persuasiveness; the arguments of unbelief sometimes seem strong - they seem strong to those who are weak... Only those who know how to oppose it with firm and real knowledge can resist this imaginary and falsely named knowledge, and it reveals the truth of faith. In the direct and immediate evidence of faith is indisputable evidence against unbelief. For one who is directly and firmly convinced by living experience of the truth of a certain judgment about an object, the illusory and false nature of contrary opinions is thereby exposed. Faith is experience, and the evidence of believing experience excludes the very possibility of doubt – one does not doubt the obvious... A believer does not need justification, justification or proof of his faith. Nor does he need to refute the objections and arguments against it. In his very faith he has a direct testimony to the truth. And his confidence does not depend on the refutation of contrary opinions. Origen spoke well about this in the preface to his defensive book "Against Celsus". "Much better will be the one who, having accidentally read the book of Celsus, will not feel any need to refute this book at all," says Origen. And he refers to the example of the Lord Himself. "When they gave false witness against him, he was silent: and when he was accused, he gave no answer. He was convinced that all his life and deeds committed among the Jews were stronger than the speech spoken in denunciation of false testimony, stronger than the words spoken in refutation of accusations... Jesus is constantly being falsely testified, and when there is anger among the people, there is not a moment when he is not accused. And yet to this day He answers all this with silence, does not raise His voice in response"... With this introduction to his extensive book of defense, Origen wants to warn against making faith dependent on evidence and arguments. Protection has a conditional and limited meaning. He lifts the siege from the truth, reveals the illusory and unconvincing objections. But this is still not enough for real faith. A different path leads to it, the path of direct, not indirect, verification. And only in it does the defense itself receive the last and indestructible foundation. Doubt is overcome not by arguments, but by faith – by seeing faith, by experiencing the truth.

Christianity was revealed in the world as a great joy, and at the same time as a preaching of repentance. For the new wine of the Gospel, new wineskins were required - podvig and spiritual renewal were required. And this was opposed by the stubborn and obstinate human will. Christian preaching was heard for the first time in the dying and senile world. The more and better we now know the life of that epoch, the more clearly is revealed all the richness and complexity of the apostolic expression: the fulfillment, the fullness of times (Gal. IV. 4)... The Christian gospel was modern and timely: it satiated all the burning and tormenting searches of ancient man. This modernity and timeliness of the Christian "good news", its correspondence to the "spirit of the times" are so great that many are tempted to understand and present Christianity itself as one of the natural, pagan religions that historically grew up at that time. But at the same time, the flip side escapes attention.

And the point here is not so much in persecution by the state authorities. Much more expressive is that deaf social resistance which manifested itself in outbursts of popular hatred, and in slanderous denunciations of Christian communities, and in polemical struggle against Christian teaching. All this testifies to the difficulty for the old, Jewish and pagan consciousness to assimilate and accept the Church's teaching, which in some basic and main respects turned out to be completely new, unprecedented and unaccustomed, and therefore required a decisive renewal, "being born again."

In this novelty of Christianity is the evidence of its divine origin – not from man, but from God. The obstinate consciousness opposes this novelty, and instead of subjecting itself to the test of a new divine revelation, it seeks to subject it to its own judgment. This is the beginning and root of false teachings. From the earliest times, Christian heresies have always been attempts to adapt Christianity to a natural and pre-Christian consciousness: in this sense, heresies are always "reactionary," expressing the stubborn inertia and backwardness of thought, which cannot and does not want to completely break away from the past and be completely reborn. And in their content, heresies always represent a kind of curtailment and truncation of the original church teaching and faith, a squandering of the original wealth, a struggle with the fullness revealed in Christ. Throughout Christian history, this struggle runs – the silent rejection of the "good news", the rejection in the form of distortion or substitution.

By our time, a great multitude of false testimonies, doubts and denials have accumulated around the image and face of Christ. His divine dignity is rejected. The entire Gospel story and its historical authenticity are being questioned. And attempts are made to explain Christianity without Christ. In recent years, an attempt has been made to reject the historical existence of Christ altogether and to turn the Gospel into a myth that is not based on any real events. This false interpretation is carried out with particular sharpness and force in the book of the German professor A. Drews, to which the author gave a quite frank title: "The Myth of Christ" (the first German edition was published in 1909). Recently, this book was published in Russian translation in the guise of godless and atheistic propaganda.

Drews himself is, in fact, an agitator. In his book, he not only explores, but also preaches a new, philosophical religion. In the name of this new religion, he rejects Christianity: Drews is not at all an atheist and sees in materialism the worst and most dangerous enemy. He is looking for new religious forms and a new faith. He is not at all a scholar or a historian, but a preacher, agitated and obsessed with a dream of a new religious, and precisely religious, revolution. It was as an agitator that Drews spoke for a long time in Germany on behalf of the so-called "Union of Monists", a kind of pseudo-religious community. He is not at all an investigator who seeks and substantiates the truth by weighing and testing arguments. He carries out his preconceived pseudo-religious idea and tries to support it with a bizarre and unrequited selection of all kinds of references and comparisons that can create the impression of authenticity. And it must be said that in science, Drews's speech was met with indignation, and his book was branded with shame and disgrace. Even very free-thinking opponents of Christianity, who, however, stand on the ground of scientific knowledge, speak with disgust and bewilderment of the shameless arbitrariness with which Drews and his supporters select and falsify evidence and facts, seeing here only a "bad joke," "a mixture of vague thoughts and childishness." The objections and reproaches raised against him did not confuse or enlighten Drews, not because they were unsuccessful or weak, but because he did not know how to hear them and did not want to understand them. He lacks the honesty and patience for self-examination and research. His book breathes passion and obsession, hatred and malice against Christianity. And against this possession and possession the arguments of reason are powerless. Drews's preaching has success and success among the uneducated and ignorant masses, in an environment where a sharp and blasphemous word is valued more than a firm and weighty argument. And it ignites the masses with ominous excitement.

This must be remembered first of all: Drews's book does not at all reflect the actual state of science, does not at all convey the conclusions to which calm and impartial scientific and historical research leads. And therefore, first of all, it is subject to denunciation and refutation from the scientific point of view, from the point of view of the scientific-historical method, the most elementary rules of which it tramples on and violates. That is why it was met with unanimous indignation on the part of scientists of the most diverse religious and philosophical moods and beliefs. Drews does not so much prove as assert. In his work, the place of evidence is occupied by strained convergences, arbitrary conjectures and conjectures, in which all times and terms are confused. Drews does not distinguish between the possible and the actual; his sober historical perception is hindered by a restless and playful imagination. He has a very weak sense of historical reality. And at the same time, it is not love or at least an unselfish interest in the truth that moves him, but enmity, enmity and hatred towards Christ and Christianity. This is the key to his relative success.

The main idea of Drews's mythological theory can be expressed very briefly. Christ never existed. The Gospel is in no sense history, but a myth in which various legendary and mythical tales, Jewish and pagan, about divine saviors are crossed and intertwined. And only later was this myth accepted as history, as a historical story about real events. The worship of the heavenly God Jesus existed in the pre-Christian era in some Jewish sects, and the theology of Ap. Paul, who knew nothing and said nothing about the historical Jesus. It must be said frankly: none of these propositions is even approximately substantiated by Drews.

To analyze, or rather to expose, Drews's arguments and proofs would be a vain effort.

All of Drews's constructions lose their foothold if it is shown that historical evidence about Christ has the character of a direct reflection of reality. All the mythological constructions of Drews collapse in the face of the indisputable testimony of self-witnesses, in which a living contact with the person of Jesus is clearly expressed. Drews denies all such historical evidence, rejects or eliminates it. But there is no persuasiveness in these challenges, they are completely arbitrary and, above all, completely improbable. In fact, even from the point of view of the most captious historical criticism. There are no more reasons to doubt the historical existence of Jesus Christ than to suspect the reality of any historical person, even from the very near past. Drews's basic thesis is historically implausible, and this must be shown in the first place. The question is not exhausted by this. In relation to every feature of the Gospel image of Christ, to every event of His life, the question arises again. But the very sting of mythological theory will already be blunted and erased. Of course, the question of faith has not yet been resolved. And it should not be solved by historical arguments. The indisputability of Christ's historical existence does not yet predetermine the question of Who was He? And the Savior's interlocutors and questioners hesitated to this question; and it was not flesh and blood, but the Heavenly Father who revealed to the apostles themselves the true knowledge of His person (cf. Matt. 16:17). And according to the testimony of St. Paul. Paul, "no one can call Jesus Lord, except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3). Only faith can know Christ.