The Truth Behind the Christ Myth: Ancient Origins of the Often Used Legend

a reply to: Padawan SethTsaddik

Padawan, thank you for reading my post and responding.

Your wrong because you dont care that the things you believe are right or not, only that it sounds good in you madness infested mind. And you dont fact check the actual evidence Padawan.

Islam was 800 years after Alex the Great and his story revolved around the Greek and Egyptian religion youngling. Not Islam like you incorrectly say Padawan.

Your beliefs are all over the place and wrong wrong wrong Padawan.

How about picking up an actual verified ancient history book, may help with weeding out the incorrect information.
And see a doctor for you mental madness Padawan.

So full of hatred you are Padawan. The Darkside is strong with you youngling.

I really do hope you come back to the light, i really do Padawan.

Love Master Coomba
(your female friendly companion... lol)

originally posted by: glend

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: glend

And Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism centuries prior to the DSS, Christianity only adopted it from Judaism, so indirectly.

I have no doubt that the Scrolls have Persian influence, but the parts that are like Christianity don't come from Zoroastrianism at all.

12 and 3 leaders (Community rule) and the terms they use for themselves, reverence for Melchizedek as divine, the Davidic Messiah and priestly Messiah, end of days apocalypticism, destruction of Rome hoped for.

That's just a little bit, seriously, the book is 6$ for a hardcopy, don't ask why but nobody reads them.

I recommend it. You can read the DSS Uncovered online for free too.

Saul/Paul spent three years as a novice essene so think you might be recognizing comparisions between DSS with paulism and his flavour of Chrisitianity. Zoroastrian hymes are said to be very similar to vedic hymes, so might be offsprang from hinduism.

Saul/Paul was a Benjamite Pharisee.

Where is it recorded that he was an Essene novice?

Anyone interested the Catholic encyclopedia has an excellent article on Mitra/Mithra/Mithras.

And in all three cultures, Vedic, Avestan and Roman he is a sun god.

Obviously not the easiest subject to research, if one checks with Encyclopedia Britannica and other reliable sources you will see.

In fact to suggest otherwise sounds like someone read one half of a Wikipedia article and misunderstood the passage from the Avesta completely.

While Mithras Roman cult was more of a sun worship cult than its Iranian and Indian counterparts, the association with the sun is Vedic and shared with Varuna, in Avestan he is still a solar deity.

Though Cronaut thinks not being the sun mean not being a sun god, that is fallacious.

The sun is a fireball, not a deity.

A sun god is not the sun but god of the son, so I see a line of faulty reasoning born of not fully understanding the available information.

Which scholars are sometimes guilty of, hacks anyway.

But, yeah, Mithra is a sun deity. That is one thing that is known for sure, and not much is about Mithra. That IS.

Especially to the Romans, but also to Aryans.

originally posted by: CB328
Christianity is full of pagan ideas and symbolism.

Not only that, these people who are following sectarian religions in America, versus non-denominational Christians are often abusive, deceiptful not following scripture.

There's so many mega churches and televangelists and yet, the Bible says "The hireling careth not for the sheep".

Preaching for money is a conflict of interest. The Baptist ministers offer false doctrine like "Once saved, always saved" for which there is no scriptural support.

What I like about the Buddhists is they live their religion peacefully. They don't bicker about Buddha. They don't shove Buddha in your face. I've never seen a Buddhist televangelist period, or Buddhists steal money from old women and offer fake faith healings like Benny Hinn.

a reply to: Miracula2

That's true, Buddhism has its dark side though.

Certain sects actually are abusive, probably the white guru types mostly but mind control is a practice in some Buddhist sects.

So I have read. I honestly don't know a Buddhist, but every religion has its own secrets.

They do mind their business and are not Scientology so I would agree with you with possibly a few exceptions.

Buddhist based cults must exist though.

a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, my informing you of the facts about Mithra was not designed to humiliate you, if I was saying something untrue I would want to know so I tend to do the same.

Your slightly arrogant insistence that I was just wrong may have made me aggressive but I was more being humorous as I don't get angry over knowledge.

Even when you are wrong it's the smartest thing to say thank you because now you know.

Anyway no hard feelings, it's a debate forum, I noticed someone in error and tried to help them stop making statements that are not true.

Nothing personal, just a fan of Zoroastrianism and it's history and know it too well to let someone live with untrue ideas about Mithra.

:

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
Anyone interested the Catholic encyclopedia has an excellent article on Mitra/Mithra/Mithras.

And in all three cultures, Vedic, Avestan and Roman he is a sun god.

Obviously not the easiest subject to research, if one checks with Encyclopedia Britannica and other reliable sources you will see.

In fact to suggest otherwise sounds like someone read one half of a Wikipedia article and misunderstood the passage from the Avesta completely.

While Mithras Roman cult was more of a sun worship cult than its Iranian and Indian counterparts, the association with the sun is Vedic and shared with Varuna, in Avestan he is still a solar deity.

Though Cronaut thinks not being the sun mean not being a sun god, that is fallacious.

The sun is a fireball, not a deity.

A sun god is not the sun but god of the son, so I see a line of faulty reasoning born of not fully understanding the available information.

Which scholars are sometimes guilty of, hacks anyway.

But, yeah, Mithra is a sun deity. That is one thing that is known for sure, and not much is about Mithra. That IS.

Especially to the Romans, but also to Aryans.

Have you thought through the implications of what you just said?

Mithra was the god of the Sun, but the Sun is just a big fireball, a thing.

It would be like being the god of cheese or the god of cardboard.

Meaningless.

originally posted by: CB328
Here's more information about the Pagan origins of religious traditions that were later incorporated into Christianity. I was well aware of the Pagan influences in Christianity, but I wasn't familiar with this Green man, who seems to be the basis of it all. Just like religions build churches on temples of older religions, Christianity is full of pagan ideas and symbolism.

www.ancient-origins.net...

quite so
..the synchronization of [non]christian early vatican church,
in order to let their message Link with all the variations rooted in ancient egypt,
did more bad then good...

yet
she has nothing to do with christianity --
simple proof is the millions of them murdered by this new type catholicism - since 150 AD....

a reply to: chr0naut
First off, thank you for the elaborate post!
I am well aware Artaxerxes II and III were referring to their native version of Mithra, but it still stands that the cult of Mithra existed long before Christian times. The Mithraism of Rome is certainly different and evolved from the source, but I reiterate, the inscriptions invoking him by the two Artaxerxes proves that he was becoming more prominent. Perhaps an even more likely explanation would be that Persian faiths influenced both the cult of Mithras and the cult of Jesus.

Might Tertullian and Justin Martyr have been a tad biased? What reason might they have had for that?

And being depicted/described separate from the sun does not mean he was not also the sun. Take Shamash for instance. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Shamash is the sun and yet is also separate from the sun:

Gilgamesh said to glorious Shamash, ‘Now that I have toiled and strayed so far over the wilderness, am I to sleep, and let the earth cover my head for ever? Let my eyes see the sun until they are dazzled with looking. Although I am no better than a dead man, still let me see the light of the sun.'

originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: chr0naut
First off, thank you for the elaborate post!
I am well aware Artaxerxes II and III were referring to their native version of Mithra, but it still stands that the cult of Mithra existed long before Christian times. The Mithraism of Rome is certainly different and evolved from the source, but I reiterate, the inscriptions invoking him by the two Artaxerxes proves that he was becoming more prominent. Perhaps an even more likely explanation would be that Persian faiths influenced both the cult of Mithras and the cult of Jesus.

Might Tertullian and Justin Martyr have been a tad biased? What reason might they have had for that?

And being depicted/described separate from the sun does not mean he was not also the sun. Take Shamash for instance. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Shamash is the sun and yet is also separate from the sun:

Gilgamesh said to glorious Shamash, ‘Now that I have toiled and strayed so far over the wilderness, am I to sleep, and let the earth cover my head for ever? Let my eyes see the sun until they are dazzled with looking. Although I am no better than a dead man, still let me see the light of the sun.'

We'll put!

a reply to: chr0naut

I always think about implications of what I say.

Before I say it.

I see no problems, but thanks!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
Anyone interested the Catholic encyclopedia has an excellent article on Mitra/Mithra/Mithras.

And in all three cultures, Vedic, Avestan and Roman he is a sun god.

Obviously not the easiest subject to research, if one checks with Encyclopedia Britannica and other reliable sources you will see.

In fact to suggest otherwise sounds like someone read one half of a Wikipedia article and misunderstood the passage from the Avesta completely.

While Mithras Roman cult was more of a sun worship cult than its Iranian and Indian counterparts, the association with the sun is Vedic and shared with Varuna, in Avestan he is still a solar deity.

Though Cronaut thinks not being the sun mean not being a sun god, that is fallacious.

The sun is a fireball, not a deity.

A sun god is not the sun but god of the son, so I see a line of faulty reasoning born of not fully understanding the available information.

Which scholars are sometimes guilty of, hacks anyway.

But, yeah, Mithra is a sun deity. That is one thing that is known for sure, and not much is about Mithra. That IS.

Especially to the Romans, but also to Aryans.

Have you thought through the implications of what you just said?

Mithra was the god of the Sun, but the Sun is just a big fireball, a thing.

It would be like being the god of cheese or the god of cardboard.

Meaningless.

No, meaningless was this cheap analogy of what I said, which happened to make perfect sense.

And the sun IS a ball of fire. So Mithra being considered a friend of the sun doesn't mean he was not a sun deity.

What is so complicated about this? That you get steamed and make cheese metaphors.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: Miracula2

That's true, Buddhism has its dark side though.

That's why I like how China runs religion. Religions are managed by the federal government. You don't get self starters with loose cannons like David Koresh or false prophets like Joseph Smith.

You can worship in China as a Christian but it is approved by the government. That way you don't get Pentacostal snake handlers or psychological manipulation and threats by Mormon cults.

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: Miracula2

That's true, Buddhism has its dark side though.

That's why I like how China runs religion. Religions are managed by the federal government. You don't get self starters with loose cannons like David Koresh or false prophets like Joseph Smith.

You can worship in China as a Christian but it is approved by the government. That way you don't get Pentacostal snake handlers or psychological manipulation and threats by Mormon cults.

That's a bit extreme to my American ears, but funny as hell.

Didn't they invade Tibet and outlaw Buddhism?

And the Dalai Lama escaped to India?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: glend

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: glend

And Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrianism centuries prior to the DSS, Christianity only adopted it from Judaism, so indirectly.

I have no doubt that the Scrolls have Persian influence, but the parts that are like Christianity don't come from Zoroastrianism at all.

12 and 3 leaders (Community rule) and the terms they use for themselves, reverence for Melchizedek as divine, the Davidic Messiah and priestly Messiah, end of days apocalypticism, destruction of Rome hoped for.

That's just a little bit, seriously, the book is 6$ for a hardcopy, don't ask why but nobody reads them.

I recommend it. You can read the DSS Uncovered online for free too.

Saul/Paul spent three years as a novice essene so think you might be recognizing comparisions between DSS with paulism and his flavour of Chrisitianity. Zoroastrian hymes are said to be very similar to vedic hymes, so might be offsprang from hinduism.

Saul/Paul was a Benjamite Pharisee.

Where is it recorded that he was an Essene novice?

It isn't. But some speculate that Pauls journey to Dismaccus to confront the essense eventually resulted in his conversion.

In summary: Acts portrays a period of persecution of Jesus people in which Saul/Paul took a leading part. Assuming this persecution did take place, it is unclear who were its chief movers, the Jerusalem priests (as Acts would have it), the Romans, or Herod Antipas. Probably they all cooperated. In any event, a young kinsman of Herod Antipas, Saul, was chosen to lead the persecution effort in the streets. After driving out Jesus people from Jerusalem, Saul led a small armed force against a pro-Jesus people refuge called "Damascus" in Herodian Perea. However he went through some sort of epiphany in the process and wound up in the "Damascus" refuge as a convert to the beliefs of those very Jesus people. While he was there the war broke out between Herod Antipas and the Nabataean Arab king Aretas, and the Arabs occupied Perea. The Arab king�s governor of Perea discovered the presence of an Herodian kinsman in the area he controlled and tried to arrest him, but Saul escaped through the basket episode. He returned to "Damascus" when the Arabs evacuated Perea following a peace treaty in early 37 CE.

Finally, it seems clear that the "Damascus" site was essentially Essene, much like Qumran if the ruins there were actually once the home of the sectarian group that hid the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Essenes would not have been entirely uniform in doctrine. By the very nature of the sect, people with varying visions and scriptural interpretations would arise frequently. People like John the Baptist and Jesus may have formed subsects within the larger Essene movement, differing in details but not in general belief. Even if the overseers of Essene wilderness centers did not entirely approve of these subsect leaders, they may well have sympathized with them enough to open their wilder-ness centers to them when they came as refugees from persecution by the hated establishment authorities. In the case of the wilderness refuge called "Damascus", however, the overseer there may well have been a Jesus believer, both at the time of Paul�s conversion experience and later on.

Here

There is also the Damascus Document (DSS Scroll 4Q271Df)

a reply to: glend

Paul was clear about being a Pharisee and going to Damascus has nothing to do with Essenes.

I know you are thinking of the DSS because you mentioned the Damascus Document which only presents a character called the Lying Tongue and other epithets for someone who resembles Paul's character.

But those people weren't Essenes. That was something pushed by Catholic scholars and De Vaux.

There is nothing in the Scrolls to suggest they were the peaceful Essenes, these people were militant and desired to conquer Rome, and similar to the Nazarenes, sometimes called themselves Ebionim, a Jewish Christian Church that rejected Paul.

And they were also called Zaddikim, Hasidim, for the ultra pious or righteous.

I would love to think it was Paul they were talking about but it's highly unlikely and I see no evidence other than being an enemy and called a liar that is where the information and similarities end.

a reply to: glend

Major point being you are using unreliable sources if you think the DSS people were called the Essenes or were the group described by Philo and Josephus, Essenes.

Nothing resembling the word occurs in any of the Scrolls and they have different names for themselves, none Essene.

And it was not them. It was a militant, anti Roman fanatical group, some were probably killed at Masada, some of the same scrolls were found there.

Ironically, also the prototype for Messianic Judaism, Nazarenes or Ebionim eventually the fighting ended.

For a while. Then they vanished from history.

But most certainly Paul was not an Essene, he gives a detailed personal pedigree and he makes no mention of the Essenes, a separate party from the Pharisees who could have been friends but were still different movements.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I would love to think it was Paul they were talking about but it's highly unlikely and I see no evidence other than being an enemy and called a liar that is where the information and similarities end.

The conundrum is this, Jesus taught his apostles christianity, so who taught Paul Chistianity? His conversion to Christianity is suppose to have occured on the road to Damascus. If instead, it occured in Damascus under an essene sect, perhaps headed by a righteous teacher, one of the apostles of Jesus, would Paul admit it. He wanted to be the leader, not pupil. So I don't dismiss the possibility that Paul was the Lying Tounge that studdied under the essenes. Problem as you point out, just no evidence.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I am not a scholar and have to bow to your greater knowledge on the subject but from what I have read the essenes were described by Pliny the Elderas having existed for thousands of generations. living near the Dead Sea. The documents they had, DSS or not, would have been from the Jewish faith, perhaps interpreating them differently, who knows.

a reply to: glend

You needn't bow, even if I was an actual scholar.

Essenes are said by a few historians to have existed for that amount of time, true indeed.

But I only mean they were not the sect whose writings were found at Qumran don't match the peaceful Essenes as described by the same historians and were militant xenophobes.

Probably with good reason, as Rome was the oppressor, they victims, sold out by collaborators.

But any violence associated with the Essenes goes against what is written about them, combine that with the absence of any term resembling Essene in the Scrolls and you can see De Vaux and the Vatican WANTED them to be Essenes, so they BECAME Essenes.

But now that anyone can read the books online, I will get you some links shortly (gotta finish my coffee) so you can read them for free.

Geza Vermes translation is also available as a PDF.