To Straighten Things Up

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

If your point was "Jesus was carefully crafted from martyrs gone by; perhaps designed by a committee", as your final statement in that post suggests, I'd say your point DOESN'T still stand.

That some aspects of the story of Jesus may have been incorporated from other sources is certainly plausible. But this pervading idea that the entirety of his existence (or even the majority of his existence) was taken from other sources who had the exact same origin story is false.


See, that is the thing...I'm certainly not Christian, at least not in the traditional sense. I do not believe that Jesus was God. I don't believe he died for our sins. I have no angle in this argument, or any score in one side being proven right over the other.

BUT STILL, I believe it's better to acknowledge the truth when you find it, even if it disagrees with your point of view, rather than trying to dig up half-facts and twisting them to try and form a semi-coherent opposition to the other side.
I'm not talking about you personally, of course. I mean stuff like that website you linked, and other such websites and documentaries and books that pick up half-facts about religious figures (and hide the other half that completely annuls their point), and form some sort of list that tries to show that Jesus (and everyone else) was an exact copy of each other.
They are doing a disservice to our histories, our mythologies and our traditions.

reply to post by babloyi

That some aspects of the story of Jesus may have been incorporated from other sources is certainly plausible. But this pervading idea that the entirety of his existence (or even the majority of his existence) was taken from other sources who had the exact same origin story is false.

I never insisted Jesus wasn't a real man. (but there is no proof, similarly there is no proof Socrates existed)

He may have been an inspiring martyr for his time; like Ghandi or a similar figure; but the doctirnes were written a time after his alledged existence; and i imagine the story was exaggerated.

It would certainly make sense to extract aspects from historically influential martyr stories to make a successful doctrine.

www.vexen.co.uk...

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

The story may have been exaggerated, but that is no reason to convolute and mutate the stories and mythologies of all these other religions just for the purpose of trying to prove a point against christianity. As I said, that is doing a disservice to our history as humanity.
It'd be like saying "Julius Caeser's conquests were not so important, and it is likely that his life was made up and exaggerated by a committee afterwards to make him more heroic. In fact, if you check this list, you'll see that Caeser, Alexander, Ashoka and all these guys are all actually exactly the same". It does a disservice to our history and to the truth.

The link you linked to show Jesus as a Mystery-Religion rip-off takes most of it's material from "The Jesus Mysteries", which (forget Christian Scholars), even non-christian or anti-christian scholars agree it is silly and mostly over-simplified bunkum.

reply to post by babloyi


The bible is not a historical document. Julius Caesar is incomparable.

Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar looked like and we have a complete history of his life. In turn, general, orator, historian, statesman and lawgiver. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors. Caesar established a style of government – and a calendar – which endured for centuries.

The article i linked wasn't an attempt to prove anything. It merely highlights that remarkably similar martyrs were described and were worshipped before Jesus.

We can't prove Jesus existed in the same way that we cannot ultimately prove Socrates existed. But Socrates' words and wisdom don't come with supernatural strings attached; and he doesn't expect to be idolised and adorned as the savior of mankind, or as an absolver of an entire species "sin".

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Oh dear....I knew the moment I typed "Julius Caeser", the Jesus historicity guys would be jumping down my throat. I was just using it as an example to make a point!

reply to post by babloyi

I knew the moment I typed "Julius Caeser", the Jesus historicity guys would be jumping down my throat. I was just using it as an example to make a point!

Then don't use it as an example; it doesn't make any point.

As i've said; Jesus and Julius Caesar are incomparable. You could of used Socrates.

As i've already stated Socrates can't be ultimately proven, but his account doesn't come with extraordinary supernatural strings attached. Of course Jesus may have been a historical figure, and of course; parts of account may have been exaggerated, misinterpreted or incorrect.

Many of his alledged morals and ethics certainly are questionable to say the least.[

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

But I wasn't comparing Jesus and Julius Caeser at all. I was just using his name to forward an example to explain a point I had been making.

No reflection on you, but it's a sad fact of the high-speed world of the internet that people don't seem to care enough to understand the nuances. They see a broad topic, and (if they are feeling up to it, usually they don't care enough), scan through it, and then based on the title or certain buzzwords alone, they give it their stamp of approval (in the form of "likes" or stars or flags or whatever), or disapproval (in the form of a "dislikes" or some short "YOU ARE WRONG"), or at most, give stock answers to certain buzzwords they picked up from the post they are replying to (like "Jesus and Caeser are incomparable! There is way more evidence for Caeser!" in response to seeing "Jesus" and "Julius Caeser" in the same post).

I feel sad for humanity, but enough of this digression.

reply to post by babloyi


Let's get this straight, this is what you stated:-

It'd be like saying "Julius Caeser's conquests were not so important, and it is likely that his life was made up and exaggerated by a committee afterwards to make him more heroic

It's nothing like that; and as i've already higlighted the historical evidence for Julius Caesar is abundant - Now what was your point you were making?

But I wasn't comparing Jesus and Julius Caeser at all. I was just using his name to forward an example to explain a point I had been making.

So what was your point? That if an account is strong then you could easily claim the character in the story didn't exist? Again, an abundance of historical evidence for Caesar, none for Socrates or Jesus.

No reflection on you, but it's a sad fact of the high-speed world of the internet that people don't seem to care enough to understand the nuances.

I agree.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
It's nothing like that; and as i've already higlighted the historical evidence for Julius Caesar is abundant - Now what was your point you were making?

Historical evidence for Julius Caeser is absolutely irrelevant to the point I was making, yet that was the part you were obsessing over. I realised that the use of Julius Caeser is abundant in arguments involving "Did Jesus Christ Exist", which is why I was hesitant to use the name, in case someone would jump to the conclusion that I was saying something akin to "There is as much evidence for Caeser as for Christ" (which I ABSOLUTELY WAS NOT DOING). However, someone who was simply skimming the thread, or has the "Julius Caeser" as a buzzword that requires a standard reply would jump on it.
I was using Julius Caeser as an EXAMPLE. It'd be like I was trying to explain some minor point about economics with "So, you walk into a supermarket to buy some ice-cream, and...." and you say "I don't like ice cream, thus your point is invalid!".

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
So what was your point? That if an account is strong then you could easily claim the character in the story didn't exist? Again, an abundance of historical evidence for Caesar, none for Socrates or Jesus.

No, that wasn't my point at all. Read what I originally said again. I'd like to think it wasn't THAT complicated.

reply to post by babloyi

As I said, that is doing a disservice to our history as humanity.
It'd be like saying "Julius Caeser's conquests were not so important, and it is likely that his life was made up and exaggerated by a committee afterwards to make him more heroic. In fact, if you check this list, you'll see that Caeser, Alexander, Ashoka and all these guys are all actually exactly the same". It does a disservice to our history and to the truth.

Apologies; I understand your point now. But i wish to highlight that in regards to Caesar, Alexander, Ashoka; there are many sources by which we can verify their existence; and their accolades. But i agree in the sense that some scribes would have exaggerated accounts of Caeser (for example) but Caesar was a writer himself, and again; there are many sources; different viewpoints; the bible is one viewpoint, and quite bias if i'm honest.

Jesus may have existed, and may have been a great man, that may be the truth. But we can't confirm his existence, and my original point (and referencing my original link) is that the supernatural claims, the miracles and the alledged "words of Jesus" may have been tweaked and altered and they definetly bear significant resemblance to martyrs gone by.

listverse.com...

Again, the parallels are quite remarkable. (Virgin birth, ressurected, miracles etc.)

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

I am happy that you understand, but then you quote that same website again, with the same nonsense. To go through (just a bit of) it again, since I cannot go through the whole thing:

Krishna wasn't "sent from heaven". He was born in Mathura. His adoptive father was a (leader of) cowherders. He had nothing to do with carpentry. His real father was certainly not a spirit or ghost, he was Vasudeva. He certainly wasn't visited by wise men and shepherds, he was born secretly in a prison, then smuggled out.
Krishna certainly wasn't crucified. After a fight broke out during a festival (which your site tries to compare to Jesus's last supper), Krishna withdrew to the forest to meditate, at which point a hunter mistook him for an animal and shot him with an arrow. He gave up his mortal form and ascended as a spirit (he wasn't "resurrected like Jesus", as the site claims).

Then the site brings up the EXACT SAME points about Odysseus which I refuted in my previous post. Then the site also brings up the EXACT SAME points about Zoroaster that I refuted in my previous post as well.

This was exactly my original point. In their vehement attempts to discredit Christianity, militant atheists end up distorting and contorting a whole slew of other mythologies as well, just to prove a point, which really is sad. This is where my original analogy involving Julius Caeser came in. It would be as if in a (misguided) attempt to disprove Julius Caeser, someone did disservice to Alexander and Ashoka as well, just because.

PS: The only major sources we have for Ashoka are also just some small number of Buddhist scriptures.

reply to post by babloyi

This was exactly my original point. In their vehement attempts to discredit Christianity, militant atheists end up distorting and contorting a whole slew of other mythologies as well,

It's not hard to discredit Christianity (And although you were referring to "militant" Atheists - i'll point out that I wasn't trying to in this thread) And i didn't claim any truth or credibility to the article i linked; All i am stating is martyrs that pre-date Jesus are remarkably similar in regards to supernatural descriptions:-

listverse.com...

If the link is faulty, insufficient or false - I would reccommend anyone to carry out their own research; and with as little bias as possible.

Of course, one can study each martyr independantly; that's just one link, and it's not detailed at all.

Jesus Christ in comparative mythology

60 Similarities between Jesus and Joseph

Originally posted by gremlin2011
different religions have been intwined in each other throughout history and all we have today are alot of false truths imbedded within these books to oppress the population

I heard them saying that same thing on a movie Zeitgeist, I can't believe this is true! say it isn't because if it is then it's a conspiracy that has been planned from the very beginning.

here is another conspiracy... how to you peak the populaces interest in something? you create mass controversy in that something which then peaks peoples interest, and that something actually builds and grows stronger over time.

maybe you just got a deal from the Hidden Hand

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
All i am stating is martyrs that pre-date Jesus are remarkably similar in regards to supernatural descriptions:-

listverse.com...

If the link is faulty, insufficient or false - I would reccommend anyone to carry out their own research; and with as little bias as possible.

Of course, one can study each martyr independantly; that's just one link, and it's not detailed at all.

But again, that is my point. I HAVE studied each of these figures independently (most aren't considered martyrs at all), which is why I keep repeating how that link IS faulty, insufficient and false.
I wasn't claiming you were militant in your attempts in this thread, just that the link you provided seemed to have it in for Christianity, and didn't care what other histories and mythologies got mangled and distorted along the way.

reply to post by babloyi

But again, that is my point. I HAVE studied each of these figures independently (most aren't considered martyrs at all), which is why I keep repeating how that link IS faulty, insufficient and false.

Many people study the bible and come to different conclusions; eisegesis is it's often inevitable (due to mistranslation, or unknown metaphors) especially when you have committed to a particular belief before studying.

Perhaps a thread for discussion of martyrs/demi-gods/legends that pre-date Jesus is in order; so we can examine the similarities and differences; your opinion would be very much appreciated in it.

Peace