This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
He also wrote about Hercules far more than he did about Jesus. In fact, the only mention of Jesus that isn't considered a fraud (Testimonium Flavianum) is the reference to him being the the brother of James(see quote). He also wrote about the death of John the Baptist without any mention of Jesus.
Always need a Plan B.But I'm not so sure the other disciples were really all that on board with Paul's activities. Seems like lots of "between the lines" conflicts in the New Testament, and some right out in the open. Might go as far as to say that at some point (Acts 15) Peter and James just concedes to go their way with "the circumcised" and leave Paul to go his with "the uncircumcised". From that point on the whole story shifts to Paul.
I'm not really looking to get into a debate over Josephus, but what exactly is your point by bringing up Hercules in this context?Tim simply asked for some extra-biblical references of some characters found in the Bible, and I provided some
Mormonism, I think.
That bastage LBJ had something to do with one of them, maybe he was in cahoots with Joseph Smith.
Because these extra biblical historians need to be taken with a grain of salt and not oversold. And I was less commenting on John the Baptists being mentioned as much as an earlier post that called these "contemporary historical accounts" (or something like that) on Jesus. I don't think we reject them either just because they get some stuff horribly wrong, but we should keep everything in perspective. If we did throw out Josephus a lot of what we believe to know about Rome needs to go out the window also. That would be rough.
Something like zoroastroism. Too lazy to search.
No one claims (I think) he is the killer, but ...
Now when friends of the family tried to kill Ronnie...
Black Box is correct. It's Mormonism.
Horus?
I believe you're really thinking of the god Osiris, who died and was resurrected; but it's an overstatement (at best) to say that "the whole Christian creation myth" was derived from the Egyptian religion that featured Osiris. They share a few important features, maybe because one borrowed from the other, or maybe by coincidence.
You could be right but I don't remember thinking Osiris. Let me do some more research.eta...yes, horus, osiris. Coincidence though? Seems highly unlikely.
I was responding to what BFS wrote and I think it's applicable because Josephus is used to prove that Jesus existed. If Josephus is writing about Hercules as a human the same way as he was about Jesus then it stands to reason that maybe he's not foolproof evidence. However, I do think Jesus existed since it would be far easier to elevate a regular guy to a God with fantastical stories after he's dead than to invent a person out of nowhere with all of these connections to real people.I'm not really looking to get into a debate over Josephus, but what exactly is your point by bringing up Hercules in this context?Tim simply asked for some extra-biblical references of some characters found in the Bible, and I provided some
I can get on board with that. I was afraid you had gone off the deep end, but I didn't expect you to be wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater based on your posting history.
Interesting theory. But the statements Jesus made above seem to contradict that theory.
I'm sure his point is that Josephus can hardly be considered a great source. Of course it's faulty logic to a degree, but to each his own.I'm not really looking to get into a debate over Josephus, but what exactly is your point by bringing up Hercules in this context?Tim simply asked for some extra-biblical references of some characters found in the Bible, and I provided some
It's not? Hadn't the whole virgin birth, crucified, rose from the dead story been attributed to others long before Jesus?Serious question because I want to know, not fishing.
Of course he's not foolproof evidence. I doubt anyone strongly believes in Jesus because Josephus writes about him.I was responding to what BFS wrote and I think it's applicable because Josephus is used to prove that Jesus existed. If Josephus is writing about Hercules as a human the same way as he was about Jesus then it stands to reason that maybe he's not foolproof evidence. However, I do think Jesus existed since it would be far easier to elevate a regular guy to a God with fantastical stories after he's dead than to invent a person out of nowhere with all of these connections to real people.I'm not really looking to get into a debate over Josephus, but what exactly is your point by bringing up Hercules in this context?Tim simply asked for some extra-biblical references of some characters found in the Bible, and I provided some
Osiris died and was resurrected after 3 days. And of course there were a few pagan traditions that christians 'stole'.
They are if and only if you use "christianized" definitions and read them back into previous myths, IMHO.For example, virgin birth. When Christians say "virgin birth", they mean a miraculous conception of a baby in a woman who had never had sex with anyone, and who then gives birth naturally.When previous myths refer to a "virgin birth", they might mean being born from a rock (i.e. Mithra).Another example, resurrection. When Christians say "resurrection", they mean a miraculous bodily, physical resurrection from the dead.When previous myths refer to a "resurrection", they might mean being cut up into several pieces, strewn about the world, but then brought back together to live as god of the underworld (i.e. Osiris).I doubt there are any other crucifixion stories since that is a specific punishment developed by the Romans.
I'm serious too. That claim is thrown about so easily, but rarely will the people making those claims actually read the ancient sources and think about it.Mithra and Horus seem to be two examples of god's that some try and use to support this claim.Anyway, do the research on google. It's all out there to see. When you read the claims though, go research the actual legends and then decide for yourself if it was really "copied".That being said, I won't deny that much of what christianity became was copied straight from ancient legends. Trinity, hellfire, immortality of the soul, even possibly the cross itself. These were all teachings that had been around for a long time, and were brought into the church. As were many of the religions and traditions that go along with it, like christmas, easter, etc.
Thank you.
How does the statement he made while he was alive indicate that he wanted the message spread to non-Jews?
Does only having sex with other women count? Because my guess is that as it becoming more and more acceptable to be a lesbian that woman who have never had sex with a man and then gives birth naturally is going to be a common occurrence. You may want to tweak your definition of "miraculous conception" a tad bit.'Black Box said:
Ignoring how one might try to explain the meaning of the gospels, is Jesus being a historical figure really a prerequisite to strongly believing in Jesus? Can Jesus' message be fully true and relevant while all of the "history" in the bible actually be fiction? Not arguing that it is all fiction or that Jesus never existed in any form, but asking does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?'shader said:
I don't know.I had hoped, by starting this thread, that enough historical evidence would be presented so as to bring me closer to believing in the existence of Jesus in the physical form. I've done a ton of reading on the subject over the past week and all of the evidence presented have compelling enough counter arguments to put doubt on them. I do like the thought of the improbability of a religion like Christianity starting without an original messenger. I intend to look deeper into the beginnings of Christianity to learn more.
We've done threads on this sort of thing before. Sometimes it's about Osiris, sometimes about Dionysus, sometimes about Mithra. These all turn out to be junk after 10 minutes of scrutiny.
Use the same standard you would apply to the veracity of any historical documents. Don't hold the existence of a historical Jesus to a different standard than you would for say a historical political figure or a historical person in general. I think it is important to know that a historical Jesus existed aside from the divinity associated with him. Why? It gives you a starting point. I am not going to worship Paul Bunyan because I know he is a mythical figure and the stories associated with him are also just that - stories. Now if Jesus was a historical figure, at least I have a starting point. He was a teacher. He was a good man. The I expand from there to those things associated with him. Are those accounts plausible (obviously the miraculous is a bit implausible)? Are the reporters/writers/recorders trustworthy as best i can tell - again this could be a stretch. Bottom line - his very existence does matter to at leats establish a starting point.
For me, each individual unique source can be questioned. Any historical source can be questioned. That is not really the point.
Also, don't count out the bible and all the gnostic writings as historical evidence for his existence. They should be given some merit.
I may not have expressed myself correctly, but this is exactly what I was saying.
Playing devil's advocate-Do you worship Jesus or the stories about Jesus? I would think that you don't worship Paul Bunyan because there is no message of faith to worship. I assume you don't worship to many other historical figures who did great things so why would you worship the strictly historical Jesus? Is it your amazement of the miracles performed that matters? Or is it his teachings on how to live? Or is it his message that you are now free of the burden of your sins? (Or some variations of these as I am trying to be generic.)
I try not to read the bible for its history. In many ways it is a remarkable historical document in capturing times and place, but it is not suppose to be a historical recount like what your father put together (though there are times when your father's work certainly felt like reading the bible when he said things like such and such can still be found today.) I don't mean dismiss the history as we keep finding that this or that place or person was likely real after all. But we also keep finding that we imagine the people and places with a lot more Hollywood grandeur than they really were. So even if God doesn't exists there is value to the bible. But I also feel there is value to the bible if the opposite is true, that not much of the history is real. Oh, and either way I can't shake the ultimate belief in God. It just doesn't matter to me what we humans were able to record and communicate accurately about the history of God's people if we still get God's message out of there. I think that message is "Do unto others..." or the "Love thy neighbor..." variation of the same message. Ultimately to me I think the proof is simply that when I have the courage, the faith to be selfless I am happier than when I am selfish. Unfortunately I'm as selfish as the next person at my root. Since I find this to be true, I tend to believe that the rest is true at some level also. Can't always see how, and at times am positive (see the Palm Sunday comments) that the common narrative is, as Jayrok called it bunk but those things are just interesting to discuss and try to figure out, not real threats to my faith. Others, though seem to tie their faith on "just one thing being wrong and I'm out of here". I'm a "the world is gray" kind of guy so I just don't (can't) operate in that kind of "black and white".
Well Muhammad and Buddha were definitely real people, so that is a major roadblock removed if you are seeking a higher purpose.
There was, by definition, an original messenger. Assuming for the sake of hypothesis that the overall story was based primarily on tidbits from the lives of two or three men (with additional smaller tidbits thrown in from a few others), one of them must have lived a bit earlier than the others. Whoever that was, he's the original.
Valid question - the object of worship should be Jesus. Ultimately I guess that doesn't happen though until you have areason to worship him. So the prelude to that would be a basic understanding about who he was purported to be or what would give you the impetus to worship him. My whole point has been the determination that he did in fact exist is at least a starting point for a journey. If he didn't exist, then it logically follows that he did not actually die and rise again on the third day. If that didn't realy happen, then the foundation of Christianity is a lie and completely worthless exercise regardless of whatever good and/or bad that might ensue from the pursuit of that faith.I am in your camp with regard to veracity of the biblical accounts. Some may be historical, some may be allegorical, some may be poetry so i really don't care at the end of theday - what I do care about is at its essence, do I believe he died and rose again and by that act atoned for the sins fo those that accept it. Heck I even struggle with what that looks like as I am no biblical scholar. I find it a bit hard to believe that only people that worship in a certain manner will be saved. If that salvation is universal then there HAS to be a means for it to be universally delivered.
I've actually had the opposite impression. The list is so long... holidays, halos, resurrection, Greek, Egyptian, Budhist, Hindu, Pagan, and on and on and on. All preceding Christianity. Individually I can accept some may be a stretch - but on the whole it seems very obvious Christ is not the original on many miracles and themes.
What you're describing is sometimes disparagingly referred to as the "many leaky buckets" strategy. The person trying to make the case knows that each individual argument is very weak, but he's hoping that he can make up for it in volume. Take Osiris for example. Yes, Osiris died, and he was later brought back to life. On a really, really superficial level, that sounds kind of like the Gospel narrative. But if you actually take the time to google Osiris and read about his death and resurrection, you would see that it has almost nothing in common with the Jesus story, aside from the fact that they both involve somebody being raised from the dead.I've actually had the opposite impression. The list is so long... holidays, halos, resurrection, Greek, Egyptian, Budhist, Hindu, Pagan, and on and on and on. All preceding Christianity.
Individually I can accept some may be a stretch - but on the whole it seems very obvious Christ is not the original on many miracles and themes.
It's really not important whether Jesus' story was a direct copy of an earlier myth, but the idea of a resurrection to prove that a person was God wasn't a original idea to the Bible. I posted a quote from the Bible that stated that the resurrection was basis for the entire religion so of course they knew the value of it from older myths.What you're describing is sometimes disparagingly referred to as the "many leaky buckets" strategy. The person trying to make the case knows that each individual argument is very weak, but he's hoping that he can make up for it in volume. Take Osiris for example. Yes, Osiris died, and he was later brought back to life. On a really, really superficial level, that sounds kind of like the Gospel narrative. But if you actually take the time to google Osiris and read about his death and resurrection, you would see that it has almost nothing in common with the Jesus story, aside from the fact that they both involve somebody being raised from the dead.I've actually had the opposite impression. The list is so long... holidays, halos, resurrection, Greek, Egyptian, Budhist, Hindu, Pagan, and on and on and on. All preceding Christianity.
Individually I can accept some may be a stretch - but on the whole it seems very obvious Christ is not the original on many miracles and themes.
Then you have to add in the fact that a lot of the "coincidences" people like to harp on in these threads are literally made up out of thin air. For example, Clif mentioned earlier that Osiris was ressurrected three days after his death. That "three days" part is just plainly wrong and is the invention of some guy on the internet that then gets reposted at half a dozen different crackpot sites.
The way threads like this go is these points get knocked down one after another, but then people come along and start rehashing mistakes that were refuted a couple of pages back.
You're right that Paul thought the resurrection was crucially important, but you're mischaracterizing the reason why. For Paul, the resurrection is about the salvific character of Christianity, not just a story that's being told to get people to believe it. But this is immaterial. All of us agree that there are scores of ancient religions, each with their own mythology and gods. It's inevitable that any one particular religion is going to share some similarities with some other. That's not especially interesting.It's really not important whether Jesus' story was a direct copy of an earlier myth, but the idea of a resurrection to prove that a person was God wasn't a original idea to the Bible. I posted a quote from the Bible that stated that the resurrection was basis for the entire religion so of course they knew the value of it from older myths.What you're describing is sometimes disparagingly referred to as the "many leaky buckets" strategy. The person trying to make the case knows that each individual argument is very weak, but he's hoping that he can make up for it in volume. Take Osiris for example. Yes, Osiris died, and he was later brought back to life. On a really, really superficial level, that sounds kind of like the Gospel narrative. But if you actually take the time to google Osiris and read about his death and resurrection, you would see that it has almost nothing in common with the Jesus story, aside from the fact that they both involve somebody being raised from the dead.I've actually had the opposite impression. The list is so long... holidays, halos, resurrection, Greek, Egyptian, Budhist, Hindu, Pagan, and on and on and on. All preceding Christianity.
Individually I can accept some may be a stretch - but on the whole it seems very obvious Christ is not the original on many miracles and themes.
Then you have to add in the fact that a lot of the "coincidences" people like to harp on in these threads are literally made up out of thin air. For example, Clif mentioned earlier that Osiris was ressurrected three days after his death. That "three days" part is just plainly wrong and is the invention of some guy on the internet that then gets reposted at half a dozen different crackpot sites.
The way threads like this go is these points get knocked down one after another, but then people come along and start rehashing mistakes that were refuted a couple of pages back.
Yeah, as I was typing that I was sort of expecting for somebody to chime in with something like "You mean like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?" Oh well.
