Jesus (1 Viewer)

[matuski]

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.

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.

The point was not that jesus is a copy of osiris, or dionysis, or whomever.... but each piece of him has been done before. He seems a collage of many other gods and miracles before him.The "three days" dispute seems a piece of minutia relative to the idea of a man dying and returning a god. 3 days or 20, it happened in egyptian mythology/religion millenia before christ..

Mithra was the son of god, born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose again, atoned for man's sins, became god.

Dionysis......................... Buddha.............................. Greek mythology.......................

This can be repeated ad nauseum throughout the different themes of the bible.

It is in no way a leaky bucket, but rather overflowing. At least from what I can see.

 

[cstu]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why was his resurrection is necessary for salvation? I thought it was his dying on the cross that gave people salvation and that his resurrection was the proof of it.

 

[matuski]

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>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. <BR><BR>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. <IMG class=bbc_emoticon alt= src="http://forumimages.footballguys.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/shrug2.gif"><BR>

<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>Take Osiris for example. Yes, Osiris died, and he was later brought back to life. On a really, <I>really</I> 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. <BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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.<BR>

<BR><BR>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.<BR>

<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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. <STRONG>That's not especially interesting</STRONG>.<BR>

<BR><BR>It is fascinating when the world around me seems to think these miracles and stories are indeed unique to Christ.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why was his resurrection is necessary for salvation? I thought it was his dying on the cross that gave people salvation and that his resurrection was the proof of it.

The standard argument is that Christ's death was an atoning sacrifice, similar to the sacrifices of atonement that had formed part of Jewish ritual up until that point. Don't get me wrong -- lots of people point to the miracles of Jesus, including the resurrection, as confirmation for his divinity. John in particular takes this approach, but that isn't really what Paul is doing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

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.

The point was not that jesus is a copy of osiris, or dionysis, or whomever.... but each piece of him has been done before. He seems a collage of many other gods and miracles before him.The "three days" dispute seems a piece of minutia relative to the idea of a man dying and returning a god. 3 days or 20, it happened in egyptian mythology/religion millenia before christ..

Mithra was the son of god, born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose again, atoned for man's sins, became god.

Dionysis......................... Buddha.............................. Greek mythology.......................

This can be repeated ad nauseum throughout the different themes of the bible.

It is in no way a leaky bucket, but rather overflowing. At least from what I can see.

The point of what you bolded was that Jesus' resurrection wasn't like Osiris'. They're similar on an extremely superficial level, but have almost nothing in common when you actually sit down and read them side by side. It's one step removed from saying "Osiris performed miracles and Jesus performed miracles -- therefore Jesus is just a rip-off of Osiris." Also, most of the stuff you posted about Mithra is factually wrong. We've done that one before, but you can clear it up with background reading. Similarly with Dionysis.

The reference to Buddha doesn't even make sense. Buddha and Jesus have pretty much nothing in common aside from some of their teachings.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Here's a brief CNN story on the Jesus-Osiris thing from a few days ago if anybody's interested. I'm not an expert on either biblical scholarship or classical myth, but I'm acquainted with both, and I'm not aware of anybody credible who takes these sorts of comparisons seriously.

 

[Teumessian Fox]

Even if the Jesus myth is a repeat of previous mythical beings and their legends, that doesn't mean someone had to actively copy them. There could be something about the human condition that leads man to recreate these narratives independent of each other.

 

[matuski]

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.

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.

The point was not that jesus is a copy of osiris, or dionysis, or whomever.... but each piece of him has been done before. He seems a collage of many other gods and miracles before him.The "three days" dispute seems a piece of minutia relative to the idea of a man dying and returning a god. 3 days or 20, it happened in egyptian mythology/religion millenia before christ..

Mithra was the son of god, born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose again, atoned for man's sins, became god.

Dionysis......................... Buddha.............................. Greek mythology.......................

This can be repeated ad nauseum throughout the different themes of the bible.

It is in no way a leaky bucket, but rather overflowing. At least from what I can see.

The point of what you bolded was that Jesus' resurrection wasn't like Osiris'. They're similar on an extremely superficial level, but have almost nothing in common when you actually sit down and read them side by side. It's one step removed from saying "Osiris performed miracles and Jesus performed miracles -- therefore Jesus is just a rip-off of Osiris." Also, most of the stuff you posted about Mithra is factually wrong. We've done that one before, but you can clear it up with background reading. Similarly with Dionysis.

The reference to Buddha doesn't even make sense. Buddha and Jesus have pretty much nothing in common aside from some of their teachings.

Mithra keeps coming up as I've posted. Dionysis the same. Seems the only sources denouncing the parallels are christian sites. You are assuming too much to think I am equating these gods to jesus. I am equating themes, miracles, and stories from preceding religions and mythologies that are amazingly similar to those in the bible.

Buddha has plenty of parallels to stories in the bible. Buddha's birth from Queen Maya after a white elephant from heaven visits her (forgive me if this isnt exact) is similar to the holy spirit visiting mary.

I know wiki isn't the end all be all, but easily cites several scholars in the following sample on dionysis alone:

Parallels with Christianity Main article: Jesus Christ in comparative mythologyThe earliest discussions of mythological parallels between Dionysus and the figure of the Christ in Christian theology can be traced to Friedrich Hölderlin, whose identification of Dionysus with Christ is most explicit in Brod und Wein (1800–1801) and Der Einzige (1801–1803).[42]

Modern scholars such as Martin Hengel, Barry Powell, and Peter Wick, among others, argue that Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels. They point to the symbolism of wine and the importance it held in the mythology surrounding both Dionysus and Jesus Christ;[43][44] though, Wick argues that the use of wine symbolism in the Gospel of John, including the story of the Marriage at Cana at which Jesus turns water into wine, was intended to show Jesus as superior to Dionysus.[45]

Scholars of comparative mythology identify both Dionysus and Jesus with the dying-and-returning god mythological archetype.[7] Other elements, such as the celebration by a ritual meal of bread and wine, also have parallels.[46] Powell, in particular, argues precursors to the Christian notion of transubstantiation can be found in Dionysian religion.[46]

Another parallel can be seen in The Bacchae where Dionysus appears before King Pentheus on charges of claiming divinity which is compared to the New Testament scene of Jesus being interrogated by Pontius Pilate.[45][46][47]

E. Kessler in a symposium Pagan Monotheism in the Roman Empire, Exeter, 17–20 July 2006, states that Dionysian cult had developed into strict monotheism by the 4th century CE; together with Mithraism and other sects the cult formed an instance of "pagan monotheism" in direct competition with Early Christianity during Late Antiquity.[48]

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My recommendation is that you read The Bacchae, and then come back and tell me how similar the characters of "Dionysus" and "Jesus" are. The parallels you're drawing involve picking out one or two similarities, while ignoring the scores of differences.

 

[Ilov80s]

Here's a brief CNN story on the Jesus-Osiris thing from a few days ago if anybody's interested. I'm not an expert on either biblical scholarship or classical myth, but I'm acquainted with both, and I'm not aware of anybody credible who takes these sorts of comparisons seriously.

It is no different then the prophecies of Nostradamus. Pick out what works, scrap the rest and sell a book/promote a website.

 

[matuski]

Here's a brief CNN story on the Jesus-Osiris thing from a few days ago if anybody's interested. I'm not an expert on either biblical scholarship or classical myth, but I'm acquainted with both, and I'm not aware of anybody credible who takes these sorts of comparisons seriously.

I think I see the miss here.I am not claiming Jesus is someone else's god. I am simply saying that many of his miracles and stories were done before him..

You seem to keep going back to Jesus does not equal Mithra, Jesus does not equal Osirus, Jesus does not equal Dionysus, etc.

Are there distinctions? Plenty. The general idea however, of a god/man dying and returning, is not original or unique to Jesus.

I'll stop now as I think we can go in this circle for a lifetime.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Here's a brief CNN story on the Jesus-Osiris thing from a few days ago if anybody's interested. I'm not an expert on either biblical scholarship or classical myth, but I'm acquainted with both, and I'm not aware of anybody credible who takes these sorts of comparisons seriously.

It is no different then the prophecies of Nostradamus. Pick out what works, scrap the rest and sell a book/promote a website.

You do know that is exactly one of the "charges against" the gospel writers? That they picked out stuff from the Old Testament and applied it to Jesus in the gospels. And then the whole thing was "Hellenized" over the next few centuries.

 

[Ilov80s]

Here's a brief CNN story on the Jesus-Osiris thing from a few days ago if anybody's interested. I'm not an expert on either biblical scholarship or classical myth, but I'm acquainted with both, and I'm not aware of anybody credible who takes these sorts of comparisons seriously.

It is no different then the prophecies of Nostradamus. Pick out what works, scrap the rest and sell a book/promote a website.

You do know that is exactly one of the "charges against" the gospel writers? That they picked out stuff from the Old Testament and applied it to Jesus in the gospels. And then the whole thing was "Hellenized" over the next few centuries.

I believe like 2% of the things in the gospels.

 

[matuski]

My recommendation is that you read The Bacchae, and then come back and tell me how similar the characters of "Dionysus" and "Jesus" are. The parallels you're drawing involve picking out one or two similarities, while ignoring the scores of differences.

I can only repeat that I recognize the "scores of differences", that as a whole Jesus is his own character.An amazing number of the pieces bear a remarkable resemblance to these pieces that came before. A smart move in my opinion, when creating a god, to take what worked well before and combine them into one.

 

[Ilov80s]

My recommendation is that you read The Bacchae, and then come back and tell me how similar the characters of "Dionysus" and "Jesus" are. The parallels you're drawing involve picking out one or two similarities, while ignoring the scores of differences.

I can only repeat that I recognize the "scores of differences", that as a whole Jesus is his own character.An amazing number of the pieces bear a remarkable resemblance to these pieces that came before. A smart move in my opinion, when creating a god, to take what worked well before and combine them into one.

Or maybe Jesus story just sold well because it had so many of the elements that naturally work for people? Chicken or the egg?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Here's a brief CNN story on the Jesus-Osiris thing from a few days ago if anybody's interested. I'm not an expert on either biblical scholarship or classical myth, but I'm acquainted with both, and I'm not aware of anybody credible who takes these sorts of comparisons seriously.

It is no different then the prophecies of Nostradamus. Pick out what works, scrap the rest and sell a book/promote a website.

You do know that is exactly one of the "charges against" the gospel writers? That they picked out stuff from the Old Testament and applied it to Jesus in the gospels. And then the whole thing was "Hellenized" over the next few centuries.

I believe like 2% of the things in the gospels.

Huh? Where does 2% come from?Are you saying that you believe that 2% of the gospels are lifted from the old testament? Or are you saying that those that advocate this idea the most only claim 2%? Something completely else?

 

[Chairshot]

My recommendation is that you read The Bacchae, and then come back and tell me how similar the characters of "Dionysus" and "Jesus" are. The parallels you're drawing involve picking out one or two similarities, while ignoring the scores of differences.

I can only repeat that I recognize the "scores of differences", that as a whole Jesus is his own character.An amazing number of the pieces bear a remarkable resemblance to these pieces that came before. A smart move in my opinion, when creating a god, to take what worked well before and combine them into one.

Or maybe Jesus story just sold well because it had so many of the elements that naturally work for people? Chicken or the egg?

Or maybe it sold well because Jesus was a real person, an amazing teacher with a charismatic personality. Someone who comforted the sick and weak, treated everyone kindly and proclaimed a message of love that appeared right on time for the people he was preaching to.Even if one doesn't believe in his miraculous abilities, it certainly seems possible that Jesus could have had a perfect blend of personality and speaking/teaching ability that made him endearing to so many that he met. It could be one reason why his message endured and so many people were drawn to him - because he presented himself well and helped as many people as he could.

I do have Christian faith, but even if I didn't believe that he was the Son of God, the above seems totally possible to me.

 

[Ilov80s]

Here's a brief CNN story on the Jesus-Osiris thing from a few days ago if anybody's interested. I'm not an expert on either biblical scholarship or classical t, but I'm acquainted with both, and I'm not aware of anybody credible who takes these sorts of comparisons seriously.

It is no different then the prophecies of Nostradamus. Pick out what works, scrap the rest and sell a book/promote a website.

You do know that is exactly one of the "charges against" the gospel writers? That they picked out stuff from the Old Testament and applied it to Jesus in the gospels. And then the whole thing was "Hellenized" over the next few centuries.

I believe like 2% of the things in the gospels.

Huh? Where does 2% come from?Are you saying that you believe that 2% of the gospels are lifted from the old testament? Or are you saying that those that advocate this idea the most only claim 2%? Something completely else?

I am saying I don't think much of the gospels are historical facts.

 

[Ilov80s]

My recommendation is that you read The Bacchae, and then come back and tell me how similar the characters of "Dionysus" and "Jesus" are. The parallels you're drawing involve picking out one or two similarities, while ignoring the scores of differences.

I can only repeat that I recognize the "scores of differences", that as a whole Jesus is his own character.An amazing number of the pieces bear a remarkable resemblance to these pieces that came before. A smart move in my opinion, when creating a god, to take what worked well before and combine them into one.

Or maybe Jesus story just sold well because it had so many of the elements that naturally work for people? Chicken or the egg?

Or maybe it sold well because Jesus was a real person, an amazing teacher with a charismatic personality. Someone who comforted the sick and weak, treated everyone kindly and proclaimed a message of love that appeared right on time for the people he was preaching to.Even if one doesn't believe in his miraculous abilities, it certainly seems possible that Jesus could have had a perfect blend of personality and speaking/teaching ability that made him endearing to so many that he met. It could be one reason why his message endured and so many people were drawn to him - because he presented himself well and helped as many people as he could.

I do have Christian faith, but even if I didn't believe that he was the Son of God, the above seems totally possible to me.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Even if Jesus was real, he'd need a good story to sell.

 

[shader]

Almost any significant thing Jesus could have done had been alluded to in the countless legends and god stories that existed at some point in ancient history.

"Jesus came from heaven? HA. That's been done before! Obviously THAT was borrowed."

"Jesus was resurrected? An obvious allusion to any number of other guys who were brought back to life".

"Jesus healed sick and poor? What a plagiarist. Been done many times previously."

See how easy this is?

The funniest one is the "supposed" link to Mithra that Matsuki brings out.

Of course a cursory search proves that dead wrong, as IK pointed out. "It is sometimes said that the birth of Mithras was a virgin birth, like that of Jesus. But no ancient source gives such a birth myth for Mithras."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems

But as is often the case, some people believe what they want to believe, and if they see that some random SCHOLAR says that the christians copied the idea of the virgin birth or the resurrection from ancient sources, they believe 100%.

Of course, for that to be true, the scholar would actually have to somehow prove that the christians did in fact plagiarize those sources. Since they can't, it is just an opinion.

No matter how smart anyone is, no matter how many degrees they have, whether they have been scholars for their entire lives, know 10 different languages and are as well versed in history as any man alive, it's still just an opinion. It's still just reading the ancient Mithra (or other gods) legends, reading the bible, and determining whether or not it was copied or not.

But yet you'll see people proclaim definitively (as if it's proven fact) that the bible is directly plagiarized from these ancient sources.

One thing that no one can claim was plagiarized though, is Jesus' message.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Analytical thinking erodes belief in God

A stunning discovery.

 

[FavreCo]

Most over-rated person in the history of the planet.

 

[Kumerica]

Great stuff in HERE, if you've got 55 minutes. The first 15 - 20 minutes are particularly interesting.

 

[CrossEyed]

Most over-rated person in the history of the planet.

You'll get the chance to tell him that.

 

[zoonation]

Most over-rated person in the history of the planet.

You'll get the chance to tell him that.

He'll no doubt be forgiven though...

 

[matuski]

Almost any significant thing Jesus could have done had been alluded to in the countless legends and god stories that existed at some point in ancient history.

"Jesus came from heaven? HA. That's been done before! Obviously THAT was borrowed."

"Jesus was resurrected? An obvious allusion to any number of other guys who were brought back to life".

"Jesus healed sick and poor? What a plagiarist. Been done many times previously."

See how easy this is?

The funniest one is the "supposed" link to Mithra that Matsuki brings out.

Of course a cursory search proves that dead wrong, as IK pointed out. "It is sometimes said that the birth of Mithras was a virgin birth, like that of Jesus. But no ancient source gives such a birth myth for Mithras."

http://en.wikipedia...._belief_systems

But as is often the case, some people believe what they want to believe, and if they see that some random SCHOLAR says that the christians copied the idea of the virgin birth or the resurrection from ancient sources, they believe 100%.

Of course, for that to be true, the scholar would actually have to somehow prove that the christians did in fact plagiarize those sources. Since they can't, it is just an opinion.

No matter how smart anyone is, no matter how many degrees they have, whether they have been scholars for their entire lives, know 10 different languages and are as well versed in history as any man alive, it's still just an opinion. It's still just reading the ancient Mithra (or other gods) legends, reading the bible, and determining whether or not it was copied or not.

But yet you'll see people proclaim definitively (as if it's proven fact) that the bible is directly plagiarized from these ancient sources.

One thing that no one can claim was plagiarized though, is Jesus' message.

Yeah, no. Even his teachings were nothing new. Again, largely done before. I don't recall ever saying anything was plagiarized... just unoriginal.You seem offended that Jesus' miracles had been done before, sorry. The facts stand, each of these pieces had been seen before in prior myths.

That Jesus' creators took a mish mash of ideas that worked previously is both obvious, and obviously genius.

 

[CrossEyed]

Most over-rated person in the history of the planet.

You'll get the chance to tell him that.

He'll no doubt be forgiven though...

Ah, betting on Universalism. Good luck.

 

[FavreCo]

Most over-rated person in the history of the planet.

You'll get the chance to tell him that.

You are in for one rude awakening. In the next 20 years or so it will be proven that we are far from alone in this universe and this fairy tale will be done with. Is there something after death? Maybe, but you have no idea what it is and neither do I. But if there is, I have a far better grasp of what it is than those that believe the fairy tales & fiction.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Most over-rated person in the history of the planet.

You'll get the chance to tell him that.

He'll no doubt be forgiven though...

Ah, betting on Universalism. Good luck.

Your "Good luck with that" schtick is consistent with...

My desire is to be a kinder, gentler CE going forward.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Most over-rated person in the history of the planet.

You'll get the chance to tell him that.

You are in for one rude awakening. In the next 20 years or so it will be proven that we are far from alone in this universe and this fairy tale will be done with. Is there something after death? Maybe, but you have no idea what it is and neither do I. But if there is, I have a far better grasp of what it is than those that believe the fairy tales & fiction.

If we can get rid of the selfish "life after death" concerns while keeping the "love thy neighbor" lifestyle of Christianity, would that be a bad thing?

 

[CrossEyed]

Most over-rated person in the history of the planet.

You'll get the chance to tell him that.

He'll no doubt be forgiven though...

Ah, betting on Universalism. Good luck.

Your "Good luck with that" schtick is consistent with...

My desire is to be a kinder, gentler CE going forward.

"Good luck" is unkind?

 

[ren hoek]

I've always wondered how much money is tied up in the Church. For protestants, lutherans, catholics, baptists, etc. All of Christianity pooled together, just pure profit margins. Are there stats for that? It's gotta be a pretty big time industry I would say.

Here's a photo of Southland Christian Church, I pass it by every now and then.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Southland_Christian_Church.jpg

 

[CrossEyed]

I've always wondered how much money is tied up in the Church. For protestants, lutherans, catholics, baptists, etc. All of Christianity pooled together, just pure profit margins. Are there stats for that? It's gotta be a pretty big time industry I would say. Here's a photo of Southland Christian Church, I pass it by every now and then.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Southland_Christian_Church.jpg

Don't know anything about how denominational churches work, but I can tell you that there is no such thing as "profit" in your typical American nondenominational church. And church budgets are given out to church members. They know exactly where their money is going.

 

[ren hoek]

Also, why are churches exempt from taxes?

 

[ren hoek]

I've always wondered how much money is tied up in the Church. For protestants, lutherans, catholics, baptists, etc. All of Christianity pooled together, just pure profit margins. Are there stats for that? It's gotta be a pretty big time industry I would say. Here's a photo of Southland Christian Church, I pass it by every now and then.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Southland_Christian_Church.jpg

Don't know anything about how denominational churches work, but I can tell you that there is no such thing as "profit" in your typical American nondenominational church. And church budgets are given out to church members. They know exactly where their money is going.

Really? All churches function in this way? I'd be curious to know the salary for the average pastor. At what point is his salary defined as "nonprofit?" Isn't that kind of a slippery slope?

 

[CrossEyed]

I've always wondered how much money is tied up in the Church. For protestants, lutherans, catholics, baptists, etc. All of Christianity pooled together, just pure profit margins. Are there stats for that? It's gotta be a pretty big time industry I would say. Here's a photo of Southland Christian Church, I pass it by every now and then.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Southland_Christian_Church.jpg

Don't know anything about how denominational churches work, but I can tell you that there is no such thing as "profit" in your typical American nondenominational church. And church budgets are given out to church members. They know exactly where their money is going.

Really? All churches function in this way? I'd be curious to know the salary for the average pastor. At what point is his salary defined as "nonprofit?" Isn't that kind of a slippery slope?

Every church I've been a part of as a member or a staff person functioned that way. I'm an associate pastor with a Masters degree and 8 years in full-time ministry. I make $43k and have no healthcare (covered under my wife). Does that sound like I'm overpaid? Should pastors not make a wage for the services they provide?

 

[Pick]

Paid ministry just seems like such a conflict of interest.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Paid ministry just seems like such a conflict of interest.

You'd think that being able to spread the word of god would be payment enough.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

i am not a religious scholar but i think the "historical Jesus" is pretty well established as having lived.

Based on what?

some such books and documentaries. i can't quote you titles off the top of my head, but from what i recall the evidence seems to be quite convincing (although not irrefutable, iirc). pretty sure there is indeed a faction of scholars who are not sold on the existence of the historical Jesus but, again if memory serves, they are few and far between. anyone looking for absolute proof would be better served studying mathematics.

Even if there really was a historical Jesus, there wouldn't be very good evidence of his existence. We're talking 2,000 years ago, when written records were mostly non-existent, and whatever records did exist are nearly all lost.No, there's no good evidence of a historical Jesus. Which doesn't tell us much one way or the other, since the lack of evidence is consistent with both scenarios — that there was such a person, and that there wasn't.

MT, I was not going to take the bait here but I can't help myself. The records are pretty sturdy dating back to Constantine. Whatever he deemed the "Bible" at that point was roughly 300 years after...we know the disciples wrote, we have John's version and he was present according to scripture. Catholics feel a special connection to Peter who in their eyes founded the Catholic Church shortly after Jesus' execution, resurrection, and asuncion. We are talking about a couple hundred years between Jesus and Constantine but there was a huge outcry and push...that had to come from somewhere. I also feel it's getting harder to understand everything and I also at times am questioning if he existed...but there is strong evidence...it's not like someone opened a book 2,000 years after and said "Harry Potter" and I think you are writing far below your pay grade in that previous post. It's been 2,000 years of a movement.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews was written around 94 AD. It's not like we don't have writings from those times, Herodotus dates back to 5th century BC. Who were some of the known scholors/writers from the time of Christ?

Th problem is Jesus wasn't written about by very many people. And even less survived. In fact if we are to believe the impact the Bible ascribes to him then we have to wonder where are all the writings? He should be every where in multiple texts by multiple authors. But he isn't. Now personally I believe that there was an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus. I believe he was one of the several dozen such preachers known to exist at that time. They all allegedly performed miracles. I believe that Jesus had the most savvy followers of the time. His story was changed to fit into more acceptable conventions to the Romans and Greeks. They inflated his story and wrote ads for him. Those are what gospels are after all. I don't believe he rose from the dead or was born of a virgin. Any more than I believe Zeus had sex with Alcmene and placed the babe at Hera's breast so it would be partially immortal and become known to us as Hercules.

Here's the thing though...his story is not about beating a nation of people, it's much different. What are they selling NCC...love? You're right the gospels are a bit of a commercial but for what?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I think the existence of so many texts written by different people over a range of time indicates that someone existed. I am not sure what more you expect from someone who lived 2000 years ago and for most of his life was just an unknown child of a carpenter. Not too many video cameras back then.

I expect someone who allegedly had so much impact on the empire to be written about by contemporary scribes of that empire. They recorded the minutiae of the everyday empire business but not someone who caused a stir like this? Unlikely.

He was crucified like a common thief, doubtful Pontious Pilate truly thought twice about him...and for those that point to the PotC like it's a documentary...go watch what David Bowie did with the role in LToC which is a far superior film IMO. He's not on screen for long but he nails it, no pun intended.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Jesus' existence doesn't give me any trouble. I believe it.Jesus' position as the son of God doesn't give me any trouble. I don't believe it, but I can understand it.Jesus AS God and as the Son of God at the same time- that continues to make my head reel no matter how many times ernest Christians attempt to explain it to me, probably because they don't really understand it themselves. If Jesus is God why is He talking to Himself, begging His Dad (who is also supposed to be Him) to do this or do that, to remove His burdon or forgive these people, etc.?

I'm thinking once the nails were in place and he was 6 or 8 feet in the air, maybe he realized he wasn't the actual Son as he was crying out for help.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

The Biblical account shows that Pilot had no idea who He was until brought before Him to decide on His fate.

This may be a stupid question, but how would anyone have come by the knowledge of how Pilate reacted to Jesus? Did someone do some investigative reporting and interview whoever else was in the room? Did Jesus tell someone as he was carrying his cross or as he was on the cross?Serious question.

He had a very bad relationship with the Jewish population, that's been written in great detail. He started 2 separate insurrections by the Jewish people for not respecting their customs...this pops up again when they ask Pilate to honor their traditions and release Barrabas.

 

[Chairshot]

I've always wondered how much money is tied up in the Church. For protestants, lutherans, catholics, baptists, etc. All of Christianity pooled together, just pure profit margins. Are there stats for that? It's gotta be a pretty big time industry I would say. Here's a photo of Southland Christian Church, I pass it by every now and then.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Southland_Christian_Church.jpg

Don't know anything about how denominational churches work, but I can tell you that there is no such thing as "profit" in your typical American nondenominational church. And church budgets are given out to church members. They know exactly where their money is going.

Really? All churches function in this way? I'd be curious to know the salary for the average pastor. At what point is his salary defined as "nonprofit?" Isn't that kind of a slippery slope?

Every church I've been a part of as a member or a staff person functioned that way. I'm an associate pastor with a Masters degree and 8 years in full-time ministry. I make $43k and have no healthcare (covered under my wife). Does that sound like I'm overpaid? Should pastors not make a wage for the services they provide?

Personally, no, I don't think they should receive a salary. Granted, I don't believe that someone making $43K is attempting to fleece the flock, but what services are you providing that warrant a salary?

 

[Spartans Rule]

I'm an atheist, but pastors absolutely deserve their salary.

Even if you think there's no God and the services they provide are worthless, people still pay for the church to provide them.

And I don't believe those services are worthless. When I went to church growing up, the pastor had a very visible positive influence in a lot of lives. Lots of teaching, counseling, community outreach... even looking back and not believing in God, he was still contributing to society in a positive way.

 

[ren hoek]

I've always wondered how much money is tied up in the Church. For protestants, lutherans, catholics, baptists, etc. All of Christianity pooled together, just pure profit margins. Are there stats for that? It's gotta be a pretty big time industry I would say. Here's a photo of Southland Christian Church, I pass it by every now and then.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Southland_Christian_Church.jpg

Don't know anything about how denominational churches work, but I can tell you that there is no such thing as "profit" in your typical American nondenominational church. And church budgets are given out to church members. They know exactly where their money is going.

Really? All churches function in this way? I'd be curious to know the salary for the average pastor. At what point is his salary defined as "nonprofit?" Isn't that kind of a slippery slope?

Every church I've been a part of as a member or a staff person functioned that way. I'm an associate pastor with a Masters degree and 8 years in full-time ministry. I make $43k and have no healthcare (covered under my wife). Does that sound like I'm overpaid? Should pastors not make a wage for the services they provide?

I don't think you can say there's no "profit" in the typical American church when a pastor depends on it for his livelihood. Not to say you don't deserve what you're making but that certainly doesn't seem nonprofit. I also don't understand why churches are tax exempt. Some of these guys make big time money.

 

[Connections]

Great stuff in HERE, if you've got 55 minutes. The first 15 - 20 minutes are particularly interesting.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

He was crucified like a common thief,

Common thieves were not crucified. The two guys next to him were "rebels" not robbers.

doubtful Pontious Pilate truly thought twice about him...

Which is likely true. But this creates issues with the gospels apologizing for Pilate while shifting the blame to the common Jewish guy partying in the streets.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...we know the disciples wrote, we have John's version and he was present according to scripture.

What do we know?

We are talking about a couple hundred years between Jesus and Constantine but there was a huge outcry and push...that had to come from somewhere.

It came from Paul. Who never met Jesus other than via visions.

 

[CrossEyed]

I've always wondered how much money is tied up in the Church. For protestants, lutherans, catholics, baptists, etc. All of Christianity pooled together, just pure profit margins. Are there stats for that? It's gotta be a pretty big time industry I would say.

Here's a photo of Southland Christian Church, I pass it by every now and then.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Southland_Christian_Church.jpg

Don't know anything about how denominational churches work, but I can tell you that there is no such thing as "profit" in your typical American nondenominational church. And church budgets are given out to church members. They know exactly where their money is going.

Really? All churches function in this way? I'd be curious to know the salary for the average pastor. At what point is his salary defined as "nonprofit?" Isn't that kind of a slippery slope?

Every church I've been a part of as a member or a staff person functioned that way. I'm an associate pastor with a Masters degree and 8 years in full-time ministry. I make $43k and have no healthcare (covered under my wife). Does that sound like I'm overpaid? Should pastors not make a wage for the services they provide?

Personally, no, I don't think they should receive a salary. Granted, I don't believe that someone making $43K is attempting to fleece the flock, but what services are you providing that warrant a salary?

Teaching, preaching, counseling, hospital visitation, weddings, funerals, etc., most of which require a fair amount of preparation. And those services are being provided to people who find value in those services, or they wouldn't be involved in a church.