• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

joelr

Well-Known Member
If we believe that is true and not fabricated,
Why would all scholarship, all of them fabricate this huge lie, the entire world of historians agree somehow on this lie, and the peer-review panel always also passes the lie to fool the world. That is your idea? The alternate is your story is a mythology with borrowed stories. That is extremely likely. You are going to ridiculous lengths now to save your beliefs.

You can believe whatever you want. I am interested in what is actually true. All scholars agreeing on this is a good sign that it is correct.




the next question is, who wrote them? Could it be that they were written by ancestors of Jews?
No, the Jewish people formed around 1200 BCE. There is several lines of evidence, plus DNA that they came down from Canaanite cities.
The ancestors are Canaanite who worshipped El. That is it. When the Jews began writing their stories around 600 they used older stories and updated them for Yahweh. Abraham is a mythical person from the past. A very common myth in all these religions, a first man to form a nation. His name even means "father of a multitude" in Hebrew. In fiction/myth, a characters name will be his function.


If you want to know, Joel Baden is one of the top Hebrew Bible scholars, he explains this:

Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus




Prof. Joel Baden

1:20 DNA shows close relationship between Israelites and Canaanites. Israelites ARE Canaanites who moved to a different place.


6:10 Consensus. Biblical story of Exodus and people coming from Egypt and taking over through battle is not true. With slight variations here and there basically everyone will tell you they gradually came from the coastlands into the highlands. Canaanites moved away to the highlands and slowly became a unified nation after first splitting into tribes.

No Israelites until after 1000 BCE.


18:18 Isaiah 1 is 8th century. Ch 40 is suddenly different. Cyrus shows up, enter end times, Persian influence. Messianic concepts.

The only reason one would not see this is if committed to the idea that it’s not written in separate parts.






So, if there are two stories about similar matters, does it confirm that things could have gone as told in the writings?

If the Bible is true and things went as told in the Bible, all nations should have similar stories, because they come from the same people. Similar stories doesn't necessary mean they copied, they just heard the stories from their grandparents that are off the same origin.
All nations do not have similar stories. Not even close. The nations that do are the nations the Israelite kings were exiled to and Israel.

Later the Persians and Israel are similar after the Persians occupied them for centuries, same with the Greeks. Only the nations the Greeks occupied had mystery religions.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
And yet the Bible tells God is spirit. So, the Greek idea is very different.
So you are wrong on so many levels, it's hard to even know where to start.

1) You are responding to -
"Yahweh is the same as older Greek gods. Anthropormorphic, dynamic, colorful, emotional, vivid, changeable, masculine, real body parts. In "God: An Anatomy" Francesca explains the Hebrew text is very explicit in this."

if you bother to listen to the clip, she is talking about the first 5 books, Yahweh is a typical Mesopotamian deity. He walks with people, wrestles people. has a fform and body. Every body part is described in the original Hebrew, which Fransesca details in her book. She gives examples of the same stories that early Yahweh does like fight the Leviathan, it's all exactly the same.

So what is your response? To ignore old Hebrew stories and go right to ...................JOHN?????? WHAT????? You go right to the Hellenistic stuff, and then think I'm wrong about the Hebrew stuff? How can you possibly mess this up this bad?


God as spirit was NOT A HEBREW IDEA. It was a Greek idea and that is why the NT changes Yahweh.


How many times have I posted the list from Smith about Hellenistic changes in theology, which includes.............."

-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme"








Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity). The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan.














As Dr Tabor points out,


The New Testament comes out of a wholly different milieu. First, it is part and parcel of the broad changes in religious thought that we know as "Hellenization."It is characterized by a vast and expanded dualistic cosmos, an emphasis on immortality and personal salvation,i.e.,one scaping this world fo ra better heavenly life. At the same time, and to be more specific,it is absolutely and completely dominated by an apocalyptic world view of things, whereby all will be soon resolved by the decisive intervention of God, the End of the Age, the last greatJudgment, and the eternalKingdom of God. In addition, the Christology that develops, even in the first century, is thoroughly"Hellenistic," with Jesus the human transformed into the pre-existent, divine, Son of God, who sits at the right hand of God and is Lord of the cosmos.The whole complex of ideas about multiple levels of heavens, fate, angels, demons, miracles and magic abound.It is as if all the questions that the HebrewBible only begins to explore - questions about theodicy, justice, human purpose, history, death, sin - are all suddenly answered with a loud and resounding " Yes ! " There is little, if any struggle left . There are few haunting questions, and no genuine tragedy or meaningless suffering.All is guaranteed it will shortly be worked out.


Of course, various attempts are made to reinterpret this early Christianity for our time. usually in terms of ethics or some exis -


tential core of truth . But early Christianity rests on two essential points, both of which resist easy demythologozation: it is a religious movement built on apoctalyptic view of history and an evaluation of Jesus as a Hellenistic deity, i.e., a pre-existent divine Savior God in whom all ultimate meaning rests. If thes eare unacceptable in the modem world, or incompatible with the fundamental Hebrew view of things, then the whole system becomes difficult, if not superfluous.


James Tabor


Reflections on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament



God as a spirit IS A GREEK IDEA, John is in the NT which is a Hellenistic document in form and content.
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24
He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8
We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

Thank you for answering a point about early Hebrew Yahweh with the latest NT gospel???????????????????????







NOT A SPIRIT IN THE OT, each chapter in Fransesca's book goes over original Hebrew passages in they Bible about descriptions of Yahweh's body.
The Greek ideas of god was of a spirit, beyond this realm.



Yahweh[a] was an ancient Levantine deity, and national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[4] Though no consensus exists regarding the deity's origins,[5] scholars generally contend that Yahweh is associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman,[6] and later with Canaan. The origins of his worship reach at least to the early Iron Age, and likely to the Late Bronze Age, if not somewhat earlier.[7]

In the oldest biblical literature, he possesses attributes typically ascribed to weather and war deities, fructifying the land and leading the heavenly army against Israel's enemies.[8] The early Israelites were polytheistic and worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal.[9]

In later centuries, El and Yahweh became conflated and El-linked epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone.[10] But some scholars believe El and Yahweh were always conflated.[11][12][13] Characteristics of other gods, such as Asherah and Baal, were also selectively "absorbed" in conceptions of Yahweh.[14][15][16]
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
For example, what has Osiris ever said?
What did Jesus say? His words are just repeats of Rabbi Hillell who died in 10 AD.



What matters is that he was a dying/rising savior and got salvation for followers. We don't have Osirus wisdom text that I know of. We don't have proof that Jesus said any of those words either. They are nothing that Hillel didn't already say?




"And indeed, carved on the walls of the pyramids centuries before Christianity began were the declarations of the goddess Isis (or Horus, or their agents), “I have come to thee…that I may revivify thee, that I may assemble for thee thy bones, that I may collect for thee thy flesh, that I may assemble for thee thy dismembered limbs…raise thyself up, king, [as for] Osiris; thou livest!” (Pyramid Texts 1684a-1685a and 1700, = Utterance 606; cf. Utterance 670); “Raise thyself up; shake off thy dust; remove the dirt which is on thy face; loose thy bandages!” (Pyramid Texts 1363a-b, = Utterance 553); “[As for] Osiris, collect thy bones; arrange thy limbs; shake off thy dust; untie thy bandages; the tomb is open for thee; the double doors of the coffin are undone for thee; the double doors of heaven are open for thee…thy soul is in thy body…raise thyself up!” (Pyramid Texts 207b-209a and 2010b-2011a, = Utterance 676). That sure sounds like a physical resurrection of Osiris’s body to me. (As even confirmed by the most recent translation of James P. Allen, cf. pp. 190, 224-25, 272. The spells he clarifies are sung to and about the resident Pharaoh, but in the role of Osiris, receiving the same resurrection as Osiris, e.g. “there has been done for me what was done for my father Osiris on the day of tying bones together, of making functional the feet,” “do for him that which you did for his brother Osiris on the day,” etc.)


Plutarch goes on to explicitly state that this resurrection on earth (set in actual earth history) in the same body he died in (reassembled and restored to life) was the popular belief, promoted in allegorical tales by the priesthood—as was also the god’s later descent to rule Hades. But the secret “true” belief taught among the initiated priesthood was that Osiris becomes incarnate, dies, and rises back to life every year in a secret cosmic battle in the sublunar heavens."


Another similar myth, Romulus, older than Christianity,


Romulus


1- The hero son of god


2 - His death is accompanied by prodigies


3 - The land is covered in darkness


4- The heroes corpse goes missing


5 - The hero receives a new immortal body, superior to the one he had


6 - His resurrection body has on occasion a bright shining appearance


7 - After his resurrection he meets with a follower on the road to the city


8 - A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending


9 - An inspired message of resurrection or “translation to heaven” is delivered to witnesses


10 - There is a great commission )an instruction to future followers)


11- The hero physically ascends to heaven in his divine new body


12 - He is taken up into a cloud


13 - There is an explicit role given to eyewitness testimony (even naming the witnesses)


14 - Witnesses are frightened by his appearance and or disappearance


15 - Some witnesses flee


16 - Claims are made of dubious alternative accounts


17 - All of this occurs outside of a nearby but central city


18 - His followers are initially in sorrow over his death


19 - But his post-resurrection story leads to eventual belief, homage and rejoicing


20 - The hero is deified and cult subsequently paid to him (in the same manner as a God)

What did he say? Whatever Roman wisdom was, like Jesus, was written into stories as if he said it. That is how myth works. In the NT Hillite type wisdom was put to the character of the demigod Jesus. Neither were real supernatural deities.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
What did Jesus say? His words are just repeats of Rabbi Hillell who died in 10 AD.
If that is true, why he was not treated like Jesus?
What matters is that he was a dying/rising savior and got salvation for followers.
To me such a claim is irrelevant. You could as well claim that your dad did the same.
We don't have Osiris wisdom text that I know of.
So, why think he was something great?
Romulus

1- The hero son of god
2 - His death is accompanied by prodigies
3 - The land is covered in darkness
4- The heroes corpse goes missing
5 - The hero receives a new immortal body, superior to the one he had
6 - His resurrection body has on occasion a bright shining appearance
7 - After his resurrection he meets with a follower on the road to the city
8 - A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending
9 - An inspired message of resurrection or “translation to heaven” is delivered to witnesses
10 - There is a great commission )an instruction to future followers)
11- The hero physically ascends to heaven in his divine new body
12 - He is taken up into a cloud
13 - There is an explicit role given to eyewitness testimony (even naming the witnesses)
14 - Witnesses are frightened by his appearance and or disappearance
15 - Some witnesses flee
16 - Claims are made of dubious alternative accounts
17 - All of this occurs outside of a nearby but central city
18 - His followers are initially in sorrow over his death
19 - But his post-resurrection story leads to eventual belief, homage and rejoicing
20 - The hero is deified and cult subsequently paid to him (in the same manner as a God)
But had noting said that people would have thought worth recording. Not very impressive. But, it is interesting why do you believe that is not just later fabrication to make him look like Jesus?
 

1213

Well-Known Member
So you are wrong on so many levels, it's hard to even know where to start.

1) You are responding to -
"Yahweh is the same as older Greek gods. Anthropormorphic, dynamic, colorful, emotional, vivid, changeable, masculine, real body parts. In "God: An Anatomy" Francesca explains the Hebrew text is very explicit in this."

if you bother to listen to the clip, she is talking about the first 5 books, ...
It seems then that the OT is greatly misunderstood, as it says no on can see God and stay alive. People who claim to have really seen the God, would be dead, and as it is said, dead men tell no tales.

And he said, You are not able to see My face; for no man can see Me and live.
Ex. 33:20
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Also, the time is too short for legends to develop. Historians agree it takes about two generations, or eighty years, for legendary accounts to establish themselves.
Two generations? Ha! There are a bunch of legends that were conceived of and took hold in less far less than a decade:
  • Area 51
  • Elvis sightings
  • Gray alien abductions
  • 9/11 conspiracy theories
  • Dungeons and Dragons being Satanic
  • Autism being caused by vaccines
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If that is true, why he was not treated like Jesus?


We don't know how Jesus was treated? Mark, a highly educated writer took his character and wrote a Hellenistic savior demigod myth about him. Obviously he's going to include a passion and people reacting to him and so on, it's a story, exciting things have to take place. We can see the models he used, Moses, Elijah, Romulus, Hellenism, Hellenistic Judaism (which dies out and this may be the pre-cursor).

Hillel wasn't mythicized to have demigod powers. But he was well known and respected. If you write a story about a savior demigod, obviously people are going to treat him like a savior demigod in the story?


To me such a claim is irrelevant. You could as well claim that your dad did the same.

So you don't think he was a savior who resurrected?

My dad didn't make that claim. An educated writer who wrote historical fiction and used all the markers of that style, did make that claim. As did many other Hellenistic savior sons/daughters of a supreme god.

When someone makes a claim 2000 years ago, and we look and see that it was a literary/religious trend, and we see the origins, and the story is written in fictive language, re-writes older stories, it's probably just a story.



So, why think he was something great?
I don't think Osirus was great. I think he was the savior in a Hellenistic religion. Like Jesus was the savior in a Jewish version of the same type of religion. I don't think Jesus was great either, the story is fiction.





But had noting said that people would have thought worth recording.


Are you kidding me? He was the founder and savior of Rome? They had writings about Romulus everywhere. The religion didn't go past Rome.
Christianity purposely goes to other nations and tells people "no this one is the actual true one", and people will buy into that . Also Rome made it law to be Christian later on. It spread by force in many cases.





Not very impressive. But, it is interesting why do you believe that is not just later fabrication to make him look like Jesus?
It's not supposed to be impressive. But it clearly is similar to Jesus and clearly Mark used some elements to write the Jesus tale.


Romulus was written in 4 BCE. It was set in actual form in 3 BCE. All experts agree. Writings from that century speak of Romulus, Rome was founded on this story and Rome did not form after Jesus.
Your question doesn't even consider some basic and obvious questions. You are just throwing mud at the wall hoping something would stick. The truth has been left far behind, anything to make the story work.

You ask me why I don't believe Romulus was copying Jesus? That is like asking was George Washington just copying John Kennedy? The answer is because I care about what is actually true. Entire fields of experts are not wrong because the evidence they present is uncomfortable for me. That is the opposite of finding out what is true. I accept the evidence and move on from there.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Greek historian,
cites, among others, the histories of Pictor, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, Cato the Elder, Lucius Cincius Alimentus.
The first book of Dionysius' twenty-volume history of Rome does not mention Remus until page 235 (chapter 71). After spending another 8 chapters discussing the background of their birth in Alba, he dedicates a total of 9 chapters to the tale (79–87). Most of that is spent discussing the conflict with Amulius.

He goes on to discuss the various accounts of the city's founding by others, and the lineage and parentage of the twins for another 8 chapters until arriving at the tale of their abandonment by the Tiber. He spends the better part of the chapter 79 discussing the survival in the wild. Then the end of 79 through 84 on the account of their struggle with Amulius. 84 with the non-fantastical account of their survival 294. Finally 295 is the augury 85–86, 87–88 the fratricide.




Plutarch relates the legend in chapters 2–10 of the Life of Romulus. He dedicates the most attention, nearly half the entire account, to conflict with Amulius.


Many other historians of the time mention the Romulus story from the 3rd century.


Why would I ever be like "yeah they are all wrong" just to re-arrange history to make an already implausible story work?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
It seems then that the OT is greatly misunderstood, as it says no on can see God and stay alive. People who claim to have really seen the God, would be dead, and as it is said, dead men tell no tales.

And he said, You are not able to see My face; for no man can see Me and live.
Ex. 33:20
Uh, the word isn't "misunderstood", it's "contradiction" because you already know Yahweh wrestled with Jacob and made other appearances.

Yahweh walks in camp, Deut 23 12-14
Moses talks to him face to face as one would a friend. Exodus 24.9-10; 33.11
Abraham walks along side him. Isaiah and Ezekial each see god sitting on his throne, Amos sees him standing in one of his temples.

Jesus says he has seen god and sat beside him.

Isaiah 6.1-4
Ezekial 1.1-28
Amos 9.1
Mark 16.19
John 6.46
acts 7.54-56
Revelation 4.1-5.14

Written into the Torah, the command to see Yahweh's face was a formalized reflection of the deity's long held desire to be seen. "Seek my face!" he called to his worshippers.

In one Psalm worshippers who ascend the hill of Yahweh will receive blessings as they behold the deity's face.
Psalm 24. 3-6

Because John and 1 Timothy changed the myth to reflect modern gods, Hellenistic ideas about an unseen god beyond what we can see and our dimension, doesn't change the fact that the early myths had Yahweh a typical god of that time. Myths change with the times as new ideas are adopted into the culture.

There are many more instances of people seeing Yahweh.


Origen (using Plato's One) said God was-

A perfect unity, indivisible, incorporeal, transcending all things material. The Logos (Christ) is the creative principle that permeates the created universe.

The One and the Logos are from Plato,

Theologians were all based on Plato - Jesus, Agustine, Boethius Anslem, Aquinas


"In some sense Christianity is taking Greco-Roman moral philosophy and theology and delivering it to the masses, even though they are unaware"


Plato and Christianity




The real question is why would you say "the Bible says" and quote one or two places, meanwhile there are many many more instances where this is shown to be clearly untrue? Are you the person who says what is to be taken serious in scripture and what is to be ignored? Contradictions are expected, it's a made up story.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Uh, the word isn't "misunderstood", it's "contradiction" because you already know Yahweh wrestled with Jacob and made other appearances.
It is not a contradiction, if you read the texts and understand them correctly. For example in the case of Jacob, the Bible tells it was a man who wrestled with Jacob.

When he saw that he didn't prevail against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was strained, as he wrestled. The man said, "Let me go, for the day breaks." Jacob said, "I won't let you go, unless you bless me."
Genesis 32:25-26
Yahweh walks in camp, Deut 23 12-14
Doesn't mean people saw him.
Moses talks to him face to face as one would a friend. Exodus 24.9-10; 33.11
"Face to face" can mean directly, not necessary that one has seen ones face directly.
....Hellenistic ideas about an unseen god ...
So, the Ex. 33:20 comes from Greeks? :D
 

1213

Well-Known Member
We don't know how Jesus was treated? ....

Hillel wasn't mythicized to have demigod powers. But he was well known and respected....
I mean, Jesus is still held as heretic by many Jews. Why is Hillel not held as heretic, if he spoke the same things?
My dad didn't make that claim. An educated writer who wrote historical fiction
Interesting, you also seem to write historical fiction.
I don't think Osirus was great. I think he was the savior in a Hellenistic religion.
Egyptian religion is Hellenistic?
It's not supposed to be impressive. But it clearly is similar to Jesus and clearly Mark used some elements to write the Jesus tale.
:D
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
It is not a contradiction, if you read the texts and understand them correctly. For example in the case of Jacob, the Bible tells it was a man who wrestled with Jacob.

When he saw that he didn't prevail against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was strained, as he wrestled. The man said, "Let me go, for the day breaks." Jacob said, "I won't let you go, unless you bless me."
Genesis 32:25-26

Doesn't mean people saw him.

"Face to face" can mean directly, not necessary that one has seen ones face directly.

Moses is repeatedly said to have face-to-face encounters with the deity: Yahweh would speak to Moses face to face, as one who speaks to a friend, Ex, 33.11


"With him I speak mouth to mouth - an appearance, not in riddles, and he gazes at the form of Yahweh. Numbers 12.8

Moses does not simply see Yahweh, but looks at him; he talks to him, he listens to him and engages with him,Having spent 40 days and nights with Yahweh on Sinai, it is the corporeal, visual intensity of this social bond with the deity which is understood to transfigure Moses' face in the book of Exodus. Exodus 34.29-35

Other worshippers also feel the visceral transformative power of seeing their god. "My throat thirsta for you, my flesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary land where there is no water" ......"so I looked upon you in the sanctuary, beholding your strength and glory....my throat is sated with fat and fatness". Psalm63.1-5


"Three times a year all your males shall see the face of Yahweh your god at the cult-place that he shall choose"..."they shall not see the face of Yahweh empty handed; all shall give as they are able.
Deuteronomy 16.16-17
Following a pious emendation in antiquity, modern Bibles translate these verses slightly differently, distorting the instruction to "see" the face of the deity into the command to "appear" before the deity. Biblical scholars are widely agreed that the former is the original sense of the Hebrew.

Looking at the face of god was the purpose of teh temple, as Yahweh makes clear in the ancient Greek translation of the book of Exodus; "You shall make me a sancuary and I shall be seen among you"
Exodus 25.8 Septuagint

Written into the Torah, the command to see Yahweh's face was a formalized reflection of the deity's long held desire to be seen "seek my face" he called to his worshippers.
1 Chronicles 16.11; 2 Chronicles 7.14; Hosea5.15; Psalms 27.8;


In one Psalm worshippers ascend the hill of Yahweh and stand in his sacred standing place will receive blessings as they behold the deity's face.
Psalm 24.3-6


"I have seen god face to face, and my life is preserved"
Genesis 32.22-32; Exodus4.24-26


Fransesca Stavrakopoulou, God, An Anatomy. 1 page of the chapter about Yahwehs face. She is an expert in reading the original Hebrew.








So, the Ex. 33:20 comes from Greeks? :D

No Genesis is a re-writing of Mesopotamian stories and probably some original stories as well.


The Hebrew text states that it is a "man" (אִישׁ, LXX ἄνθρωπος, Vulgate vir) with whom Jacob wrestles, but later this "man" is identified with God (Elohim) by Jacob.[6]
(6)
Meir Gertner, Vetus Testamentum, International Organization of Old Testament Scholars, International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament 1960. Volume 10, p. 277: "In Genesis it is a 'man' with whom Jacob wrestled. Later in the story this 'man' appears to be identified with God (Gen. xxxii 29, 31).


The Masoretic Text reads as follows:


On that night, he arose and took his two wives, his two maidservants, and his eleven sons, and he crossed over the Jabbok ford.
He took them and sent them over the river, and he sent over that which was his.
Jacob was left to his lonesome. A man wrestled with him until the break of dawn.
He saw that he was powerless against him. He struck the socket of his thigh, and the socket of Jacob's thigh was dislocated in his struggle with him.
He said, "Release me, for dawn is broken!" He said, "I will not release you, except if you bless me!"
He said to him, "What is your name?" He said, "Jacob."
He said, "Jacob will not be said as your name anymore, but Israel, for you struggled with God and with men, and you are capable!"
Jacob asked, and said, "Now, reveal your name!" He said, "Why is this, you ask for my name?" He blessed him there.
Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, "for I have seen God face-to-face, and my soul survives."
The sun shone on him when he passed Penuel, and he was limping over his thigh.
Verily, to this day the Israelites do not eat the 'forgotten sinew', which is over the socket of the thigh, for he struck in the socket of Jacob's thigh, in the forgotten sinew.

— Genesis 32:22–32
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I mean, Jesus is still held as heretic by many Jews. Why is Hillel not held as heretic, if he spoke the same things?
Just a little common sense here, maybe? Jesus was not held as a heritic for speaking common Jewish wisdom, he was held as a heretic because he claimed to be the Messiah and many Jews did not believe him. At least in the story. In fiction you need more than one protagonist.

But there are theological issues, Judaism doesn't have sons of God. Hellenism has that. They rejected the stories because they probably knew it was just a trending myth and now a Jewish version emerged.

But the whole myth of a coming Messiah isn't in the OT until after the Persian occupation. The John Colins videos go over the places we see the direct Persian influence and a coming messiah is one of the ideas they adopted. So even that is just a syncretic myth.


remember:


Messianism is the belief in the advent of a messiah who acts as the savior of a group of people. Messianism originated as a Zoroastrian religious belief and followed to Abrahamic religions,[3] but other religions also have messianism-related concepts. Religions with a messiah concept include Judaism (Mashiach), Christianity (Christ), Islam (Isa Masih), Druze faith (Jesus and Hamza ibn Ali),[4][5] Zoroastrianism (Saoshyant), Buddhism (Maitreya), Taoism (Li Hong), and Bábism (He whom God shall make manifest).


In Judaism, the messiah will be a future Jewish king from the line of David and redeemer of the Jewish people and humanity.[1][6] In Christianity, Jesus is the messiah,[note 1] the savior, the redeemer, and God.[1][3] In Islam, Jesus was a prophet and the messiah of the Jewish people who will return in the end times.[3]


originated as a Persian belief and followed to abrahamic religions. Huh.










Interesting, you also seem to write historical fiction.
And you seen to believe historical fiction is actually real.


The difference is I'm going by the field of Biblical scholarship and following that majority opinions on what is true, based on all types of evidence. Literary, comparative, analysis, older cultures, archaeology, and more.

Buying into a story because you were told about it by non-experts doesn't make it true. No different than Muslims buying into the Quran and insisting it's true. I am interested in what is actually true. Not confirmation bias.

So if you say they are all wrong provide some evidence.
So far you are challenging Old Testament writings based on revised and changed English versions, written centuries later to be exactly the deity the writers wanted it to be. Where scholars are studying the original text and original meaning.

So you have nothing so far. Hold whatever false beliefs you like. Until you can demonstrate why one should believe them it's no different than a Mormon, Muslim or Hindu claiming they have the real story.





Egyptian religion is Hellenistic?

:D
Maybe before you laugh you might check some actual history? No, because then you might actually finally say something correct. That would be something unique.

Egypt was also Hellenized. In case you haven't heard Alexander the Great got around and after his death Hellenism really began spreading.



Elusinian Mysteries = Mycenaean + Hellenistic


Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic


Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic


With his death marking the start of the Hellenistic period, Alexander's legacy includes the cultural diffusion and syncretism that his conquests engendered, such as Greco-Buddhism and Hellenistic Judaism. He founded more than twenty cities, with the most prominent being the city of Alexandria in Egypt. Alexander's settlement of Greek colonists and the resulting spread of Greek culture led to the overwhelming dominance of Hellenistic civilization and influence as far east as the Indian subcontinent. The Hellenistic period developed through the Roman Empire into modern Western culture; the Greek language became the lingua franca of the region and was the predominant language of the Byzantine Empire until its collapse in the mid-15th century AD.


Hellenistic religion

The apotheosis of rulers also brought the idea of divinity down to earth.

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.

The decline of Hellenistic Judaism started in the 2nd century AD, and its causes are still not fully understood. It may be that it was eventually marginalized by, partially absorbed into or became progressively the Koiné-speaking core of Early Christianity centered on Antioch and its traditions, such as the Melkite Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Antioch on the Orontes

The city was also the main center of Hellenistic Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period. Antioch was part of the pentarchy and was called "the cradle of Christianity" as a result of its longevity and the pivotal role that it played in the emergence of early Christianity.[5] The Christian New Testament asserts that the name "Christian" first emerged in Antioch.[6]

[5] "The mixture of Roman, Greek, and Jewish elements admirably adapted Antioch for the great part it played in the early history of Christianity. The city was the cradle of the church." — "Antioch," Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. I, p. 186
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
Yet almost all scholars agreeing that a human Jesus existed is not a good sign that it is correct?
Of course it is. I don't see a problem with a human Jesus who was later mythicized into a Greek savior deity.

But Carrier and Lataster both have peer-reviewed works that challenge the assumptions. There are only a few and they are not based on as solid foundations that was originally believed.

There are over 30 scholars who now say that mythicism is possible after looking into the debate, there is a list here
;




Now almost all historical scholars saying the Jesus who did/did not exist was not the Gospel Jesus, by the same logic would be a very good sign that the Gospel Jesus is a myth.


But mythicism isn't new.


Steve Mason is an expert on Josephus and a scholar on Biblical era history:



Dr. Steve Mason addresses Jesus Mythicism



39:40 Just because you haven’t heard about mythicism in church doesn’t mean scholars don’t know. This is not news, it’s been well known since the 19th century. There is a whole direction of scholarship from the 19th century in Germany, many huge names in critical scholarship.

These scholars deeply investigated the Mystery religions and showed Paul to be a Hellenistic fusion of the Mystery cults theology and philosophy.

One popular explanation was Jesus was a fusion of the Hellenistic savior, dying/rising, deity where initiates go through baptism and so on.
The people who had a problem with this was the church leaders and politicians. Many of these scholars lost their teaching license. They often had to publish anonymously or posthumously.

Bruno Bowers and other scholars.

Masons point here is that Jesus being a syncretic savior from Mystery religions influenced by Helleinsm is not new but goes back centuries. They were shut down by church leaders.

Modern people are seeing these YouTube lectures and think it’s new but scholars have known this for a long time.

Steve Mason doesn’t agree with mythicism but believes the Gospel Jesus is a myth projected onto a real man.

46:15 “the guy lived but they projected all this stuff onto him (Greek myth)”
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
Interesting, you also seem to write historical fiction.



:D
As well as every historical scholar who studies the evidence. Yet another, Steve Mason:


39:40 Just because you haven’t heard about mythicism in church doesn’t mean scholars don’t know. This is not news, it’s been well known since the 19th century. There is a whole direction of scholarship from the 19th century in Germany, many huge names in critical scholarship.

These scholars deeply investigated the Mystery religions and showed Paul to be a Hellenistic fusion of the Mystery cults theology and philosophy.

One popular explanation was Jesus was a fusion of the Hellenistic savior, dying/rising, deity where initiates go through baptism and so on.
The people who had a problem with this was the church leaders and politicians. Many of these scholars lost their teaching license. They often had to publish anonymously or posthumously.

Bruno Bowers and other scholars.

Masons point here is that Jesus being a syncretic savior from Mystery religions influenced by Helleinsm is not new but goes back centuries. They were shut down by church leaders.

Modern people are seeing these YouTube lectures and think it’s new but scholars have known this for a long time.

Steve Mason doesn’t agree with mythicism but believes the Gospel Jesus is a myth projected onto a real man.

46:15 “the guy lived but they projected all this stuff onto him (Greek myth)”






Wow, look at that, it's almost like I know what I'm talking about????? - "a Hellenistic fusion of the Mystery cults theology and philosophy."

“the guy lived but they projected all this stuff onto him (Greek myth)"


Scholars knew this centuries ago abut Church leaders and politicians would ruin their careers. What a surprise.
 
Top