So have you read the texts from ancient rome and greece which detail the nature of these myths? No. So what do you know about them? And by the way, the dying and ressurecting Mithras is post-jesus.
-
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 exist?
- Thread starter waitasec
- Start date
So have you read the texts from ancient rome and greece which detail the nature of these myths? No. So what do you know about them? And by the way, the dying and ressurecting Mithras is post-jesus.
Translation: You haven't read any scholarship devoted to these issue.
And for you apparently. You can't cite the scholarship you read (because you haven't read any) and more importantly this goes rather over your head as you can't read greek. So even if you had read the arguments you couldn't evaluate them. Which means you are perfectly happy to jump on the bandwagon when it suits you.
1) So you can access online lists. Congratulations. But what you fail to realize is the vast gulf between the information you are being presented with and how these figures were actually described in the primary sources. This goes back to the "context" we discussed earlier.
2) The legends of Mithra and Apollonius are post Jesus. You might want to read a little more appearing to be completely ignorant.
3) The rest of the information is WOEFULLY inaccurate. Buddha did not have 12 disciples. Osiris did not "rise from the grave" he was pieced together, except for his penis. The information about krishna is laughable. And so on.
This is exactly why yes, you DO need to read more scholarship in order to come to an accurate conclusions. Because you are relying on bunk.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
What different does it make if they're post gospel Jesus? They tell us what kind of writing was popular back then. They tells us that people enjoyed fiction back then just as much as you do now.
1) Still waiting for your citations
2) Still waiting for you to explain why it's ok to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to Q and the relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
3) Apollonius was probably a historical figure as well
4) The writing about mithras had nothing in common with the gospels. But you don't read primary sources, do you?
outhouse
Atheistically
it is clear that Christianity adopted an aspect of Mithraism - the celebration of the birth of Christ on December 25, a tradition that began in the 4th century. A Christian writer admitted this in 320 AD, explaining:
We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of him who made it
You realize that there is nothing in the NT about december 25th? And again, the hellenestic mithras dates from the beginning of the 2nd century.
You really would be better served if you read scholarship about these cults and about the Jesus movement and the other relevant issues. Than you wouldn't be forced to merely regurgitate inaccurate data you found on a website.
It is clear that, given your only recourse is to copy and paste from websites and you don't know enough about ancient history to know that the information is largely inaccurate and when it isn't it is misleading, you are hardly in a position to determine that Jesus is a myth rather than a historical figure.
Who cares? This thread is about the historical Jesus. It doesn't matter if christmas was borrowed from paganism or certain dates in later christianity were. The fact is you just showed the extent of your knowledge, and the basis for you incorrect position, comes from bad websites.
HAHAHAHA!
"Jan Bremmer has noted how, from the second century onwards, apparently new mystery religions appeared, devoted to gods who die and resurrect, such as Atis, or act as personal saviours, such as Mithras." Professor Ronald Hutton
It is well known among scholars today that the later hellenistic cults borrowed from christianity in a number of ways. If you had actually read any scholarship, you would know with what "scholars agree" rather than just making it up.
Actually it does. Because they are radically different. The problem is you haven't read any primary texts which describe how the figures you are talking about were acutally understood. All you do is find some summaries on the internet and assume they are correct because they reinforce your view. Open mind indeed. This would be a great plan, except these online sources misrepresent the myths, cults, and figures they are pretendingto portray.
You really need to read a lot more historical studies by HISTORIANS and rely less on what you can find by amateurs: "the Mithraic mysteries are a Roman phenomenon that flourished in the Roman empire from the second century C.E. on." Professor Marvin Meyer.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
There's nothing in the NT or Acts about James the Just being the brother of Jesus or becoming a church leader either but let's not let facts get in the way of your fantasy.
1) Still waiting for your citations
2) Still waiting for you to explain why it's ok to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to Q and the relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
3) Apollonius was probably a historical figure as well
4) The writing about mithras had nothing in common with the gospels. But you don't read primary sources, do you?
5) There is something in the NT about James being the brother of Jesus. Both in Paul and in the gospels. And Josephus also states that James was Jesus' brother.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
He says it, you believe it, that settles it.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
You see the same name and jump to conclusions, and then you ask me what scholarship I've read.
What I see is all the sources identifying a James as the brother of Jesus.