The Jesus Similarities

Originally posted by charles1952
TheCelestialHuman doesn't seem to want to take advantage of the $1000 offer. May I suggest you look into it and win the prize before he does?

I'll pass on the bait: thou shalt not solicit or some such (the 11th commandment). I have looked into it and that's why I wrote somewhere in a later post the disclaimer "... provided that this can be proved to be true scientifically." Plus, I am an ex-even-born-again Christian and present agnostic. See, the beauty of being agnostic is - at least for me: I don't know if the Christian God exists and I don't care!

So you seem to agree with TheCelestialHuman that Jesus is fictional and was cretaed by combining existing myths from all over the world. That's an extraordinary claim, but to win the $1000 all you need is strong evidence that those myths actually existed before Jesus was born. I'm sure you have some evidence.

I could send you to some of my favorite pages claiming and arguing quite convincingly that this is indeed the case, but I'm sure you already know about them and have seen them. Again, I'll pass on the solicitation bet, unless the 3 amigos approve of such a bet and are willing to play referee. I really doubt that however.

Go check out the site and let us know how you do.

Thanks, but I have checked out enough Christian apologetic sites to last me a lifetime. Plus, I am ex-Christian and agnostic for a reason - and it has all to do with reason in the sense of philosophical logic.

As far as the OP losing credibility, I expressed my major problem like this:

You are advancing the proposition, apparently, that because Jesus sounds like five other characters, He is not real. What?!? Even if your premises are granted, your conclusion doesn't follow. And I'm denying your statement that Jesus was similar to the five other characters and asking you to provide some evidence other than your say-so.

True, but what is more logical, that Jesus was real or that like all Gods before him he was fictional and a byproduct of multiculturalism and religious syncretism? You can deny whatever you want; and I'll do the same. You know, it's really strange: if Jesus was real how come there is not any credible historical proof of his existence; credible in the sense of not being a Christian interpolation in Josephus or quotes of ancient historian in writings of Christians bishops almost four centuries after the fact? How come the earliest New Testament texts are Paul's epistles who seems to know only of a heavenly Christ and nothing about his life on earth?

One final word about sending people to educate themselves on Christian apologetic sites: don't do it. Personally, I am well educated in that regard and don't need further education, not to mention that to read same old same old all over again just bores me to death. That is also why I choose not to send you to some site that argues convincingly - at least for me - for Jesus being a product of religious syncretism.

reply to post by racasan


Dear Lord! Would it kill you to look up a word in the dictionary. What is wrong with people these days?

Faith Definition:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

I am not confusing belief with faith.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Does agnostic count as a belief, too, in your book or is it only strictly atheists?

reply to post by WalterRatlos


Scroll up and re-read my earlier post. Come on people! Stop being so lazy.

I answered that question before you asked it.

I was studying Alchemy a while back and articles on Jesus came up in a few places. Acording to one Alchemist the Alchemists have been keeping records for thousands of years. He said Jesus did exist according to the records but the date was actually about 1500 BC. He didn't elaborate on it too much but said somehow the dating system of parts of history got all screwed up possibly during the dark ages. There were many languages and different ways of interpreting time and the constant translations and messed up history after plagues and stuff got things all screwed up. This seems to put Jesus in the time of Horus I think. Names changed with locality, My last name was only the same in Finland, India, and Italy I think. It changes to other names in other countries in the past. Simply changing a name can mess up history, Jew Zues could be Horus the son of The god Zues. Things were often passed on orally for a very long time back in the old days before getting written down.

So This Alchemist said that Jesus did exist but the timing may have been off and maybe things were filled in a little because assumptions were made. Sounds to me that nothing much has changed over the years. The world is still full of assumptions. I'm not sure exactly of the validity of the Alchemists records but they were of the earliest of the writers. I probably read fifty articles and three books on alchemy and I haven't a clue where to find the supporting articles..

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Would you say that Christianity is something that has to be taken on faith?

As in

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Or

Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

As far as I can tell, there is no ‘logical proof or material evidence’ for any theistic religion a situation that is as true for Santa as it is for bible god

So how would you describe state of belief in regards to Santa?

reply to post by racasan


Why do you keep bringing Santa Claus into this and what do you hope to prove. The definition of the word faith is correct. Stop playing games and say what you mean. Do you understand? Faith is faith. It requires no explanation. No defense. It is faith. Stop playing games and come out and make your argument. Playing a Socratic method with faith is pointless.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by racasan

 

Why do you keep bringing Santa Claus into this and what do you hope to prove. The definition of the word faith is correct. Stop playing games and say what you mean. Do you understand? Faith is faith. It requires no explanation. No defense. It is faith. Stop playing games and come out and make your argument. Playing a Socratic method with faith is pointless.

I think we are having a communication problem

What I need to know is - what is the state or category or word you use in your relation/faith/belief to Santa Claus, because whatever that is it’s the same as I have in regards to bible god or any of the theistic gods

reply to post by racasan


All you need to know is that I am in agreement with lexicographers on what the word faith means. If you disagree with dictionaries then make your argument, but any communication problems are due to your failure to communicate. I have provided the definition of faith, I am in agreement with that definition.

reply to post by TheCelestialHuman



Why is it that no one seems to think the below parallel is significant?

Mark 4:10 When he (Jesus) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables.
11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables
12 so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

Compare this remark to a remark attributed to Socrates in Plato's Theaetetus:

"In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples."

Protagoras reportedly lived in the 5th century BCE and belonged to the philosophic group known as "Sophists". In Protagoras Plato writes:

"Now the art of the Sophist is, as I believe, of great antiquity; but in ancient times those who practiced it, fearing this odium, veiled and disguised themselves under various names, some under that of poets, as Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides, some, of hierophants and prophets, as Orpheus and Musaeus, and some, as I observe, even under the name of gymnastic-masters, like Iccus of Tarentum, or the more recently celebrated Herodicus, now of Selymbria and formerly of Megara, who is a first-rate Sophist. Your own Agathocles pretended to be a musician, but was really an eminent Sophist; also Pythocleides the Cean; and there were many others; and all of them, as I was saying, adopted these arts as veils or disguises because they were afraid of the odium which they would incur."

Since Homer and Hesiod produced significant writings associated with Greek Mythology it does not seem at all unreasonable to suspect that the Sophists were involved in the promotion of other myths. Furthermore, Christ’s efforts to hide his true identity (referred to as the “Messianic Mystery”) also fits into the Sophist pattern.

In his dialogue Sophist Plato opens with the following remarks:

Theodorus: Here we are, Socrates, true to our agreement of
yesterday; and we bring with us a stranger from Elea, who is a
disciple of Parmenides and Zeno, and a true philosopher.
Socrates: Is he not rather a god, Theodorus, who comes to us in
the disguise of a stranger? For Homer says that all the gods, and
especially the god of strangers, are companions of the meek and
just, and visit the good and evil among men. And may not your
companion be one of those higher powers, a cross-examining deity,
who has come to spy out our weakness in argument, and to cross-examine
us?
Theod.: Nay, Socrates, he is not one of the disputatious sort-he is
too good for that. And, in my opinion, he is not a god at all; but
divine he certainly is, for this is a title which I should give to all
philosophers.

Soc.: Capital, my friend! and I may add that they are almost as
hard to be discerned as the gods. For the true philosophers, and
such as are not merely made up for the occasion, appear in various
forms unrecognized by the ignorance of men, and they "hover about
cities," as Homer declares, looking from above upon human life; and
some think nothing of them, and others can never think enough; and
sometimes they appear as statesmen, and sometimes as sophists; and
then, again, to many they seem to be no better than madmen.

So what is wrong with the idea that Christ was just another Sophist or the creation of a Sophist?

reply to post by WalterRatlos

Dear WalterRatlos,

I'm having a good time eavesdropping on Jean Paul Zodeaux and hate to interrupt it, but I did want to comment on your post.

Please send me to those convincing sites which show evidence for syncretism. I would appreciate knowing if I am wrong. (Besides, if you don't want the $1000, I do.)

You mention a couple of things about the history of the New Testament. One concerns Paul's letters.

How come the earliest New Testament texts are Paul's epistles who seems to know only of a heavenly Christ and nothing about his life on earth?

From King David 8

Paul was not writing a biography of Jesus. He also wasn't a witness to any of Jesus' miracles, other than His having met the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus. His mentioning them would have been unnecessary. Exactly where in all of Paul's texts would you expect the 'water-into-wine' or virgin birth to show up?

And some of Paul's letters are the earliest New Testament texts, some are not. Generally accepted times for Paul's letters are between 52 and 65 A.D. Paul's letters Dates for the Gospels of Luke and Mark are usually set before 62 A.D., Matthew before 69, and John in the 70-90 A.D. range.

Your other historical question deals with the historians of the day. Again, from King David 8:

But think of it this way - there are seven historians who would have had cause to mention Jesus (Phlegon, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger). Of these seven, we know that at least three of them did, a fourth mentioned a "Chrestus" (that most scholars, even non-Christian ones, believe was a reference to Christ), and we have reason to believe that a fifth one, Phlegon, also did (though we no longer have the actual text). So, per the evidence, at least five out of seven of the historians who would have had cause to mention Jesus likely mentioned Him. There are only two historians who would have had cause to mention Jesus, but (as far as we know) did not. But since much of their work has been lost over time, we can't say for certain that they didn't mention Jesus.

What worries me most is your comment:

See, the beauty of being agnostic is - at least for me: I don't know if the Christian God exists and I don't care!

It makes perfect sense to me for someone to be agnostic, I have no problem with that at all. What does worry me is that you say you don't care if a Christian God exists. Surely, the question of the existence of God is the fundamental question a man must face. Everything else is subordinate. I have more respect for someone who says "I have sweated over this God question for years and have decided there isn't one," than for someone who says " My decision on the existence of God is not important, I'm perfectly free to ignore Him without deciding whether He's there or not. I can play Russian roulette without knowing if there's a bullet in the gun or not. I don't have the curiosity to look into the question that has occupied men for millennia." That position I cannot understand.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by TheCelestialHuman

Now that I realize I was wrong on Jesus being a combination of many mythical figures predating him, could you perhaps give me some reasons why you think your theism is more true than other theism's?

OMG! What did you do OP, read one article and start a thread on a topic you have no knowledge of? You read another person's counter argument and you give up abandon your OP!

Look, way back, scores of years ago, I went to college. Ancient History 101, University of Hawaii, laid it all out. If you want to think the premise of Christianity, ie: virgin birth, wise men and astrological line ups, wondrous acts, crucifixion/ betrayal/ murder and resurrection, is unique, I have a bridge to sell you.

Jesus is an amalgamation! There are libraries and tomes that prove this. There is tons of evidence. I have read scored of books on ancient mystery schools, Zoroaster, monotheism, pantheism, polytheism, Vedas, Chinese mythology and others. I don't have the many of those books any more, and don't really feel like scouring the ones I do have to prove a moot point in a thread the OP has given up on.

That's all. Maybe I'll participate more in another thread, at another time. Christian bias is burning me out.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I hope you're not leaving this thread. I'd really enjoy talking with you. But I do think you're being a bit unfair to TheCelestialHuman. He did some digging and changed his mind. I've done that here a few times. After the iniitial embarassment, it feels good that my thinking is clearer for the correction.

But while the OP may have changed his mind, the argument has been taken up by a worthy successor. By all means support him and straighten out my thinking.

Sell me your bridge, forget tons of evidence, I'll settle for pounds and I promise to give you 1/3 of the money I earn for proving your point. Please don't hit and run.

Just to tantalize me, which god figure was fastened to a cross and died there?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by WalterRatlos

 

Scroll up and re-read my earlier post. Come on people! Stop being so lazy.

I answered that question before you asked it.

Ok, for politeness sake, I'll humour you and I'll scroll up. I can't imagine why you are so upset though. Would it have killed you if you answered my question repeating yourself or just pointing me to the relevant post. And no I won't stop being lazy; I am retired and have earned my right to be lazy. What's your excuse?
P.S.: I scrolled up to page one and I find nowhere a statement of yours regarding agnosticism specifically. I did find a passage that any -ism is belief. I think you are just playing semantics games here and I wish you just could stop it, because it just sidetracks the whole discussion, the topic of which is similarities of the Jesus myth to other pagan religious myths. A myth is a myth, end of story! I agree with you on one thing though, which you stated in your post about Gallileo, namely that it is neither your responsibility as a theist to convert me to your religious belief nor mine to convert you or anybody else for that matter to my agnostic position. I also agree with you that the OP is overly zealous to do just that, i.e. to "enlighten" blind religious believers and convert them to atheism. That reminds me fresh converted people who tend to be extreme zealots for "the cause".

The Jesus mythology was not lifted from a single source, as believers want the nonbeliever to try and prove. Instead, the entirety of Christianity was lifted from a variety of pre-Christian sources. All of these plagiarized traits were then cast into a giant mixing pot, stirred well, and poured out under the guise of a "new" religion. The origin of Jesus is not Krishna, anymore than it is Mithra, Dumuzi, the Buddha, or Odin. Instead, all of those mythologies were combined.

Odin (hanging for nine days from the Yggdrasil, to learn the truth about the Afterlife), mixed with Mithra performing miracles and being resurrected, was added to Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, and Attis dying-and-rising god mythology, which was then paired with Inanna's three-day descent and return from the Underworld where she was killed. All of this, and more, then came together to equate with the Jesus myth.

Christianity was a political tool for the expansion of the Roman state. Everywhere that Rome went, Christ followed. In order for Rome to maintain it's political stronghold, their state-religion had to be acceptable to the conquered people, a feat which was done by melding pagan stories into Christian stories, so the new citizens of Rome would accept them.

Enlighten yourselves.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by rickymouse

This alchemist is absolutely wrong! Concerning the dating problem since at least the time of Julius Ceasar a year is well defined and since the reformation of the calendar by Gregory the small error Julius made has also been corrected. So, no there are no missing years in our chronology. It's a fringe, lunatic theory that has no merit scientifically.
About the "Jews Zues", maybe you meant Zeus, but he is the head god of Ancient Greece (and Rome as Jupiter), the father of gods and demigods.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Well do you think there’s a word for someone who thinks theistic religions such as Christianity fall into the same category as any other myth?

Because I don’t think belief/disbelief describes the situation


an adult doesn’t believe in Santa because the adult knows the Santa story is just for the amusement of children

the christian story was created by the roman empire to create social cohesion in the empire – the holy roman catholic (catholic meaning universal) church seems to have tried to merge all or most of the religions available in the empire at that time into a whole, the Jesus bits are most likely included to cover people who followed some kind of sun worship

like

jesus mary/horus isis


apollo the good shepherd


jesus the good shepherd


Very obvious sun imagery


The solar year as a cross on which the solar hero is hung

reply to post by racasan

I carry my blue/black toy poodle around my neck sometimes like that...
...does that make me Jesus or Apollo?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by WalterRatlos

 

Dear WalterRatlos

Please send me to those convincing sites which show evidence for syncretism. I would appreciate knowing if I am wrong. (Besides, if you don't want the $1000, I do.)

Dear charles1952,
you can start here I can't find my favorite one at the moment but this is just as good and a good start. And I still refuse to swallow your soliciting bait. I will contact the site owners though and see if they are willing to let it pass and play referee. I very much doubt it though. Judging from your username your are 8 years older than me so it won't take long for one of us to find out the real truth of this matter. For you it's a win-win situation or so you think, because if there is God and the afterlife, as a devout Christian, you will be in heaven or so you think; if there is no God and no afterlife you lose nothing, you will be dead and soon forgotten. For me it's a gamble, if I'm right I loose nothing, if I'm wrong I'm in big doodoo 'cause the one and only unforgivable sins are the sins against the Holy Ghost. So, I'll be rocking with John Lennon and Jimmy Hendrix in hell, if you believe fundamental Christians.

One concerns Paul's letters.
From King David 8

Paul was not writing a biography of Jesus. He also wasn't a witness to any of Jesus' miracles, other than His having met the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus. His mentioning them would have been unnecessary. Exactly where in all of Paul's texts would you expect the 'water-into-wine' or virgin birth to show up?

Dates for the Gospels of Luke and Mark are usually set before 62 A.D., Matthew before 69, and John in the 70-90 A.D. range.

The point of bringing up Paul's letters was mainly that they are the earliest surviving copies of Christian New Testament scripture. It is my understanding that he was present in early puberty at the stoning of Martyr Stephanus (Steven), see Acts of the Apostles, so at the time of Jesus entry into Jerusalem he was a kid probably already a pupil of Gamaliel (?) and would have hearsay knowledge of the miracles and of the Crucifixion, but strangely enough he relates nothing that could be deemed a personal testimony, apart from his strange encounter of the third kind on his way to exterminate more blasphemers to the Jewish faith.

About dating in the bible in general you have to distinguish between Christian apologetic dating and scientific, historical dating. Christian apologetics try to convince us that the gospels were already in circulation before or about the same time as the letters of Paul, but the scientific evidence, meaning surviving manuscripts, just isn't there.

Regarding the 5 out of seven historians, see the link at the beginning. I'll just mention briefly Josephus and Tacitus (I believe?). The passage in Josephus is absolutely out of character for Josephus, because he was a rebel but devout Jew who later became loyal to the Romans. He would certainly not write such a positive testimonial about somebody who the Romans crucified as King of the Jews which was comparable to high treason today and who was accused by his fellow Jews of being a blasphemer. Both would have been risky for him to do, so most probably it was a Christian apologetic interpolation. About this Chrestus Tacitus mentions it all depends on the proper transliteration from the Greek: it could be from Greek Χριστός (the anointed one) or it could be from the Greek name Χρήστος (which has it's root in the Greek word χρηστός = honest, honorable, upright, decent) just that the stressing mark has moved to the first syllable over the Milena.

What does worry me is that you say you don't care if a Christian God exists. Surely, the question of the existence of God is the fundamental question a man must face. Everything else is subordinate.

See, you only deem the question of the existence of your God to be fundamental and of prime importance, because you choose to believe in him. I used to believe in him but fortunately I remembered soon enough and choose to believe Marx instead who said: "Religion is opium for the masses!" Strangely enough this happened when I worked as a social worker in Christian Baptist Drug Rehab Center and while we were reading every morning together and discussed the Gospel according to John. During a short 2 months time I realized two things: Jesus was a hippie revolutionary and rehab worked by replacing a lethal drug with a non-lethal drug, namely born again Baptist Christian religion. So, I'm perfectly willing to bet and risk not the lousy 1.000 bucks you are offering, but eternal life or damnation.

reply to post by troubleshooter


Neither, I guess. I used to carry my cat when he was a kitten like that and sometimes I still do, although not that often and not that long since he is much heavier now. I did not turn to Jesus or Apollo yet? Besides dogs don't count, it has to be a lamb.