Is the Bible Really True?

[outhouse]

Ouroboros, brother if you could fix your tags I could reply. I cannot when quoted like that.

I can say I was not taking you out of context as much as adding what I thought was valuable. I know where you stand.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

However, to say that the evidence that he existed is as good as that for Pythagoras or Confucius means little. That is no proof of his existence. I'm not sure how the fact that no one questions the existence of Pythagoras or Confucius relates to whether or not Jesus was a man.

It means that those historians (as opposed to journalists) who dismiss the myth theory are applying the normal historical method.

You say that in Antiquity, none of the critics of Christianity ever said "the Jesus you worship never existed." That may or may not be true. However, I do know that the early Christians burned books as well as people who disagreed with them, particularly after Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.

We have plenty of surviving evidence, often quoted by those Christians who tried to combat it, and not of them had to counter a "Jesus myth" theory.

And the one reference to Jesus in Josephus' many books has been found to be a forgery. Quoting from "The Laughing Jesus" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, "In a single paragraph in him many works he (Josephus) makes what at first sight seems to be a glowing reference to Jesus "the Messiah". But over two hundred years ago the great scholar Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire dismissed that passage as a 'vulgar forgery'. He demonstrated that the passage was not to be found in Josephus at the beginning of the third century and must have been inserted into the text early in the early fourth century, after Christianity had been made the religion of the Roman Empire".

Instead of quoting two more popularisers (widely ridiculed by academics) and an historian from the 18th century, you might look at the currently accepted text of Josephus. There are two references to Jesus. One has a couple of interpolated clauses, easy to spot if you have any experience with textual criticism, but the rest is sound. One refers to the James who was killed as "brother of that Jesus who was called the messiah" (not "who was") and the other expresses mild surprise that Jesus still has followers years after his execution. Hardly the stuff of a Christian forger, who would have take a more positive tome and referred to the resurrection.

 

[Ouroboros]

What I would say on this, is show me examples in the gospels that demonstrate pagan influences.

The story about the fishes, 153, or whatever it was. And how it relates to the fish symbol and Pythagoras. The pythagoreans were mystics (if I remember right).

Logos, it's a term the old Greek philosophers used a lot, and the use in John is very similar.

No scholar with credibility would ever state pagan influence did not take place later as the movement defined itself in time.

I believe it took place as soon as it hit the "roman market", so to speak. It would be a miracle if people's past didn't influence their new religion.

But we are dealing with the origin of the movement, not the evolution of the movement correct?

I'm dealing with the absolute qualifiers that people use to describe other people and views, like all or nothing. Terms that we should try to avoid.

When I studied argumentation, we learned about the Toulmin model, and our teacher recommended us to never use "all" or "none" as our qualifiers, because there's always some exception, and people come of as fundamentalists if they use these terms, on either side of the fence.

 

[Ouroboros]

And to show you some of the pagan beliefs, we could start with "son of god" as that was first the Emperors title before Jesus.

The star at birth is probably a pagan concept, speaking in front of large crowds mirrors the pagan Emperors actions.

There are many different examples, but not one effects the foundation in Hellenistic Judaism. They are all built and used around this historical core.

That I agree to. Now we're talking middle ground.

To state these people did not worship Jesus and God first and foremost through Judaism, that used mythology and rhetoric to adapt the new religion to the Hellenist in the Diaspora by slowly adopting pagan concepts over centuries to make this movement appealing to all, simple has no credibility.

Except, I think it went faster than centuries. I think it only took decades. Just look at all the heretic cults within 100 years. And the only reason why they were considered "heretic" was because some majority was establishing an orthodoxy to their own liking. Which parts the orthodoxy was jewish or non-jewish we can't really say. It was whatever they liked, the hellenistic christians instead of jewish. I wonder what would've happened if the founding church in Jerusalem had had a chance to be the authority of the orthodoxy? I'm sure it would've looked quite different, and probably only been considered a cult or heresy of Judaism, and not it's own religion. It was the hybridization that made Christianity unique.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ouroboros, brother if you could fix your tags I could reply. I cannot when quoted like that.

It's not important. I'll fix them, but there's no rush or need to respond. The topic isn't that critical. LOL!

I can say I was not taking you out of context as much as adding what I thought was valuable. I know where you stand.

OOoooh. Sorry! My dumb head. Sometimes I'm slow to correctly see what's going on. Speed blindness, I'd say. It's common in discussions, getting stuck on one way of thinking and failing to realize what the other one is truly doing or saying. Again, sorry.

I have to blame my dogs. I'm sure one of them hacked into my computer. The little one. The rascal.

 

[outhouse]

I believe it took place as soon as it hit the "roman market", so to speak. It would be a miracle if people's past didn't influence their new religion.

Except for one problem, the movement for the first hundreds years was Judaism.

We are talking about an evolution here away from Judaism. It is obvious the further we get away from it, the more influences were adopted.

No credible scholar argues this.

I'm dealing with the absolute qualifiers that people use to describe other people and views, like all or nothing. Terms that we should try to avoid.

I agree with you there.

But if all of their work has been trash, doesn't hat sort of work as a qualifier?

Not that their work is 100% trash, but that their conclusions so far have been 100% trash.

 

[outhouse]

Except, I think it went faster than centuries. I think it only took decades.

We don't see it.

We see them being known as Jews the first hundred years

Just look at all the heretic cults within 100 years.

But one problem, in the first hundred years, there was no orthodoxy, and thus no heretics either during this period.

And the only reason why they were considered "heretic" was because some majority was establishing an orthodoxy to their own liking.

Was no majority for a few hundred years though.

Marcion was viewed that way, he took so many of the other popular gospels out of his teachings. He was large and popular despite this.

Later people looked at him as a heretic more so then during his time, but even during is time, he took heat. "Shame on Marcion's Eraser" was a known saying from this time period.

Which parts the orthodoxy was jewish or non-jewish we can't really say

It took a while for orthodoxy to set in.

Judaism had no orthodox views at this time. They had as much if not more diversity then early Christians.

It was whatever they liked, the hellenistic christians instead of jewish

The whole thing here is Judaism was a free for all. Thus, the Christians were also in a free for all early on.

But these pagan aspects you talk about, may were still under Hellenistic Judaism that carried over to Christianity.

Doesn't change the foundation of Judaism the movement started under.

. I wonder what would've happened if the founding church in Jerusalem had had a chance to be the authority of the orthodoxy?

The church in Jerusalem was not the founding church. There was no one church. We had Pater familias all over the Diaspora that took hold.

That's why we have no writing at all from Israel. They founded nothing. We don't even really know their relationship to any real follower of Jesus. As far as my personal opinion goes, they were a Hellenistic sect who followed Hellenistic Judaism more closely then those in the Diaspora.

Paul wrote rhetorically and wanted to align himself with real members to build his authority. The gospel accounts portray the real followers as cowards who ran at arrest, denied him, and betrayed him. These were Aramaic pious Jews who disliked Hellenism.

 

[Ouroboros]

Except for one problem, the movement for the first hundreds years was Judaism.

I thought Christianity spread out in the Roman empire beginning with Paul. Converting people, Jews and pagans alike, which was before 100 AD, and Paul already introduced that they didn't have to obey the Jewish dietary laws. He was a Hellenize Jew with education in Greek philosophy (considering that he brought up at least one reference to a Greek philosopher).

We are talking about an evolution here away from Judaism. It is obvious the further we get away from it, the more influences were adopted.

Yes. I agree with this.

No credible scholar argues this.

The point here is that there's a multitude of variations and shades of gray (at least 50, ) of the views by the scholars. The whole-cloth mythics are definitely on the very fringe, but some of the names I found connected to the mythics do consider some kind historical Jesus, but that the stories were heavily influenced afterwards.

Put it this way, just as the whole-cloth-mythic idea is wrong, the whole-cloth-mythicist-historians is also wrong. We can't put them all in one and only one bucket.

But if all of their work has been trash, doesn't hat sort of work as a qualifier?

Not that their work is 100% trash, but that their conclusions so far have been 100% trash.

Sure. Their conclusions can be trash. And there's a lot of flawed arguments and even false claims of the pagan beliefs, but it's not 100% wrong. Some of the correlations they seen or argued have been somewhat right. It doesn't mean everything they say is either right or everything wrong.

 

[outhouse]

OOoooh. Sorry! My dumb head. Sometimes I'm slow to correctly see what's going on. Speed blindness, I'd say. It's common in discussions, getting stuck on one way of thinking and failing to realize what the other one is truly doing or saying. Again, sorry.

I have to blame my dogs. I'm sure one of them hacked into my computer. The little one. The rascal.

I have zero problems with you brother. Your Aces in my book, always have been.

 

[Ouroboros]

We don't see it.

We see them being known as Jews the first hundred years

So Paul didn't get the commission to preach to the gentiles?

But one problem, in the first hundred years, there was no orthodoxy, and thus no heretics either during this period.

But these variations did exist. Call them unorthodox or heretic or variations, it doesn't matter, they did exist, the pagan influenced Christians within the first 100 years. Paul even wrote (supposedly) about the Gnostics. Was the Gnostic faith a pure Jewish faith?

Was no majority for a few hundred years though.

Majority or not, the pagan influenced Christians did exist within the lifetime of Paul.

The whole thing here is Judaism was a free for all. Thus, the Christians were also in a free for all early on.

Of course, and that's why the outcome of the Christian faith when they did make an orthodoxy of it was already tainted.

But these pagan aspects you talk about, may were still under Hellenistic Judaism that carried over to Christianity.

Sure. Paul is an example of a person who was already educated in philosophy and Greek culture.

Doesn't change the foundation of Judaism the movement started under.

Of course not, but we're looking at Christianity as it is today. Lot of pagan influence. Not 100%, but quite a bit.

The church in Jerusalem was not the founding church. There was no one church. We had Pater familias all over the Diaspora that took hold.

Didn't Paul visit the Apostles in Jerusalem?

That's why we have no writing at all from Israel. They founded nothing. We don't even really know their relationship to any real follower of Jesus. As far as my personal opinion goes, they were a Hellenistic sect who followed Hellenistic Judaism more closely then those in the Diaspora.

Paul wrote rhetorically and wanted to align himself with real members to build his authority. The gospel accounts portray the real followers as cowards who ran at arrest, denied him, and betrayed him. These were Aramaic pious Jews who disliked Hellenism.

And as a result, the mix of all the different cultures and beliefs became a paganized jewish religion.

 

[outhouse]

I thought Christianity spread out in the Roman empire beginning with Paul. Converting people, Jews and pagans alike, which was before 100 AD

This is important.

The answer is no he did not found the movement. Nor originate it. Paul tells us himself he was teaching with many other teachers, and his houses he taught were being influenced in other directions, and he was trying to correct those other teachings.

It is also important and most people don't know this, but these epistles were not just Paul writing alone. His epistles were almost all co authored from a community he belonged to. His epistles tell you how many people were involved in each.

That's why his letters can be perceived as having different theology, because we cannot separate individuals who helped write these text.


The movement spread all through the diaspora from the beginning. People at Passover took home this mythology and theology to the far corners of the Empire. Then every year this theology grew and people shared information through oral tradition at Passover, and then took new information back home, all through the Diaspora/Empire. Once the temple fell, it probably increased the need for written gospels as they no longer were able to share this good news with similar minded people.

 

[outhouse]

So Paul didn't get the commission to preach to the gentiles?

Oh hell no.

He did all this on his own, and he tells us this. He did not have a damascus road experience as claimed in Acts, he tells us he had a feeling within himself a change of heart.

But these variations did exist.

They were huge. The diversity most people today cannot even understand.

the pagan influenced Christians did exist within the lifetime of Paul.

Yes but these existed in Hellenism, and in Hellenistic Judaism that evolved into Christianity.

 

[outhouse]

Didn't Paul visit the Apostles in Jerusalem?

I don't think it was the real Aramaic followers, Paul really cannot be trusted on this matter. He was trained to build his authority more so then follow the truth.

He was trained to write in rhetorical prose, from Aristotle's rhetorical teachings. This gave them unlimited artistic freedom as a foundation for all these text.

And as a result, the mix of all the different cultures and beliefs became a paganized jewish religion.

Yes but we need to be careful even using the term pagan, because Judaism started from Pagan religions, and the diversity so wide and varied, each case needs to be addressed independently for proper context of usage.

 

[outhouse]

Paul already introduced that they didn't have to obey the Jewish dietary laws.

Before Paul these were already being debated.

Hellenistic Judaism was so wide and diverse, in some Hellenistic circles pagans could simply swear off pagan deities, and be considered Jewish.

Now that would not fly in Aramaic villages were they were known to be more pious. But it would in say Sepphoris.

There were steep socioeconomic divides between Hellenism, and Aramaic Jews that represent oppressed Jews. Hellenist did not represent oppressed Jews.

 

[outhouse]

To understand Judaism in the first century, is a requirement to understand the small steps the movement took as it evolved away from Judaism.

As the evolution away from Judaism was taking place before Jesus was even born.


Jesus martyrdom was just the match that lit the fire, the wood had been stacked for hundreds of years. That is why it spread so fast.

Judaism had spread all through the Empire in these Hellenistic communities.

As Jews had been perceived as trouble makers and rebels, these Hellenist found an increasing need to divorce cultural Judaism.

Two events sealed the deal. The martyrdom of the Galilean and the theology that developed in mythology. And the temple being destroyed around 70 CE ish

 

[leibowde84]

I've always found the Bible to be scientifically accurate. But you are correct, the churches made it a capital punishment to disagree with their interpretation of scripture. They were ever so dogmatic once they stopped learning like little children. (Luke 9:48) And violent once they attached themselves to the governments.

How do you explain the creation story and the Garden of Eden? I've heard many literalists (I apologize if I am wrong about this designation) try to shape the Genesis story around new scientific discoveries, such as changing the meaning of words like "day", "lght", "created" etc. For example, I heard one literalist say that all you have to do is stretch out the length of days to millions of years, and the creation story provides an accurate order of creation events. I had to come back at him with "are you joking?!" That is so clearly trying to stretch the story to fit the facts of scientific discovery instead of objectively allowing the facts to lead us to our conclusion. But, I am very interested to hear your explanation.

 

[nazz]

Here is the answer to the question about sources that I posted above but I'll repeat it here for you.

Further, with regards to the Harper's article, the Biblical Archaeological Review, in responding to the article had to agree with much of what it said. This magazine is solidly Christian but they had difficulty refuting the article as it was written.

I'll direct you to another current day scholar, Rev. John Shelby Spong, the Episcopal bishop of Newark, NJ from 1979 to 2000. He has done thorough research and has come to the same conclusion as Harpur, the author of The Pagan Christ, the book I originally spoke of.

I think those are some excellent places to start if you would like to find more information on the topic.

sorry I missed the earlier response as I thought it was directed to someone else as I pointed out.

Not sure what the issue of camels has to do with any suggested parallels between Jesus and Horus?

Do you have a link to the Biblical Archaeological Review article?

I did some looking into the names you mentioned but let' start with Harpur himself. I won't include the Christian responses since you reject those as automatically biased.

Ron Leprohon, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto, has demonstrated that Harpur and his mentor, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, were wrong on at least one point. Harpur and Kuhn's claim that the Egyptian deity Horus and Jesus are the same deity is based on faulty syntax. 'In any event, the name 'Iusa' simply does not exist in Egyptian.'[21]

In 2009, author Robert M. Price wrote a website review which raised a number of concerns about Harpur's premise and evidence. Of interesting note, Price, like Harpur, is a New Testament theologian, writer and former minister who also subscribes to the Christ myth theory.

Bart D. Ehrman is a former fundamentalist Christian turned sceptical agnostic and his books are often critical of the inconsistencies and questionable authorship of the New Testament, but he nonetheless believes in a historical Jesus.[25] On his ehrmanblog in 2012 and in his book published the same year, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Ehrman lists Harpur along with other "mythicists" such as Price, but does not specifically criticize the details in The Pagan Christ. Again, interestingly, Harpur reportedly believes in a divine Christ, but is doubtful Jesus was historical, while Ehrman reportedly believes in a historical Jesus, but is doubtful Christ is divine.​

Regarding sme of the others you named I found this:

Christian theologian W. Ward Gasque, a Ph.D. from Harvard and Manchester University, sent emails to twenty Egyptologists that he considered leaders of the field – including Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool and Ron Leprohan of the University of Toronto – in Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia, Germany and Austria to verify academic support for some of these assertions. His primary targets were Tom Harpur, Alvin Boyd Kuhn and the Christ myth theory, and only indirectly Massey. Ten out of twenty responded, but most were not named. According to Gasque, Massey's work, which draws comparisons between the Judeo-Christian religion and the Egyptian religion, is not considered significant in the field of modern Egyptology and is not mentioned in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt or similar reference works of modern Egyptology.[8][unreliable source?] Gasque reports that those who responded were unanimous in dismissing the proposed etymologies for Jesus and Christ, and one unspecified Egyptologist referred to Alvin Boyd Kuhn's comparison as "fringe nonsense."[8][unreliable source?]​

Admittedly there is some questioning of the reliability of this source. Still food for thought.

What I would really like to see is a short article quoting ancient sources that back up these claims. That is something I would take seriously. Again, the article I cited does give these in contradiction to these claims.

And again, I am still trying to figure out how this all relates to people with axes to grind with Christianity

Because often times people making these claims have an anti-Christian bias. I am just pointing that out.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have zero problems with you brother. Your Aces in my book, always have been.

Likewise.

I'm glad we can discuss tiny differences without killing each other. LOL!

It's all good.

 

[maggie2]

sorry I missed the earlier response as I thought it was directed to someone else as I pointed out.

Not sure what the issue of camels has to do with any suggested parallels between Jesus and Horus?

Do you have a link to the Biblical Archaeological Review article?

I did some looking into the names you mentioned but let' start with Harpur himself. I won't include the Christian responses since you reject those as automatically biased.

Ron Leprohon, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Toronto, has demonstrated that Harpur and his mentor, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, were wrong on at least one point. Harpur and Kuhn's claim that the Egyptian deity Horus and Jesus are the same deity is based on faulty syntax. 'In any event, the name 'Iusa' simply does not exist in Egyptian.'[21]

In 2009, author Robert M. Price wrote a website review which raised a number of concerns about Harpur's premise and evidence. Of interesting note, Price, like Harpur, is a New Testament theologian, writer and former minister who also subscribes to the Christ myth theory.

Bart D. Ehrman is a former fundamentalist Christian turned sceptical agnostic and his books are often critical of the inconsistencies and questionable authorship of the New Testament, but he nonetheless believes in a historical Jesus.[25] On his ehrmanblog in 2012 and in his book published the same year, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Ehrman lists Harpur along with other "mythicists" such as Price, but does not specifically criticize the details in The Pagan Christ. Again, interestingly, Harpur reportedly believes in a divine Christ, but is doubtful Jesus was historical, while Ehrman reportedly believes in a historical Jesus, but is doubtful Christ is divine.​

Regarding sme of the others you named I found this:

Christian theologian W. Ward Gasque, a Ph.D. from Harvard and Manchester University, sent emails to twenty Egyptologists that he considered leaders of the field – including Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool and Ron Leprohan of the University of Toronto – in Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia, Germany and Austria to verify academic support for some of these assertions. His primary targets were Tom Harpur, Alvin Boyd Kuhn and the Christ myth theory, and only indirectly Massey. Ten out of twenty responded, but most were not named. According to Gasque, Massey's work, which draws comparisons between the Judeo-Christian religion and the Egyptian religion, is not considered significant in the field of modern Egyptology and is not mentioned in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt or similar reference works of modern Egyptology.[8][unreliable source?] Gasque reports that those who responded were unanimous in dismissing the proposed etymologies for Jesus and Christ, and one unspecified Egyptologist referred to Alvin Boyd Kuhn's comparison as "fringe nonsense."[8][unreliable source?]​

Admittedly there is some questioning of the reliability of this source. Still food for thought.

What I would really like to see is a short article quoting ancient sources that back up these claims. That is something I would take seriously. Again, the article I cited does give these in contradiction to these claims.


Because often times people making these claims have an anti-Christian bias. I am just pointing that out.

Unfortunately I do not have a link to the BAR article. Wish I could help you there.

As to the names you checked out:

Ron Leprohon: I would say that this particular name provides little criticism of Harpur from what you have written. You say he found one faulty syntax. That doesn't seem much from a whole book so I won't take his word too seriously.

Robert M. Price: I went and found his review on the Internet and read it. He certainly has a lot of negative things to say about Harpur. His beliefs seem to be very similar to Harpur's but he seems to think Harpur somehow misses the mark. It's interesting to read this criticism. Food for thought. I'll go back and re-read it again and see if I can get more out of it.

Bart D. Ehrman: He seems to have had nothing negative to say about "The Pagan Christ" so I'm not sure why you included him in your list.

W. Ward Gasque: I actually went and found his review of "The Pagan Christ" and read it also. It's interesting that he spends most of his time discrediting Harpur's sources rather than discussing the book itself. I note that while he says he contacted twenty Egyptologists and got responses from ten he does not name any of those ten and does not quote from any of them except to say that they dismissed the thesis. Not much proof there.

Actually, in that same paragraph I found the following: He, meaning Gasque, minimizes Kuhn by labelling him a high school teacher, but fails to mention that Kuhn left teaching after receiving his PhD from Columbia University at age 51, and over the next 30 years, made nearly 2,000 public lectures and wrote over 150 books and articles. That seems to me to indicate some bias on his part.

Also in that same paragraph two additional Egyptologists are mentioned: Erik Horning and Thomas L. Thompson. Both these experts seem to have the same belief in a mythical Christ as Harpur presents. Their expert views seem to support Harpur's thesis.

All in all I think the names you have presented do not present a strong case against Harpur's thesis. Of them all probably the one I would give the most weight to is Price. As I said, I'll go back and re-read his review.

As to finding a short article quoting ancient sources that back up these claims, if you were to read "The Pagan Christ", you would see where Harpur provides several references to Egyptian texts and hyroglyphics found in ancient Egyptian tombs that discuss Horus and these certainly appear to be very similar to the story of Jesus. If I ever do find such an article I will bring it to your attention.

I appreciate the time and effort you have put into your last post and it's a pleasure to discuss this with you. Now, back to re-read Price.

 

[outhouse]

Harpur provides several references to Egyptian texts and hyroglyphics found in ancient Egyptian tombs that discuss Horus and these certainly appear to be very similar to the story of Jesus

And how many of those compare to Judaism in general?

How much of the Horus mythology Is common in all religions?


When you get down to the credible details, they have almost nothing in common. By cherry picking a few small claims that apply to all or most religions, does not make a credible similarity.


One example is a Dec 25 birthday. Well that was not added to jesus for a long time, and has nothing to do with early Christianity or its origins.

Same goes for the virgin birth. Why didn't Mark the first gospel use this? because it was not core or even part of the mythology used.

Matthew made the claim but it is also a Greek faulty interpretation that doesn't make it clear. Had this been core doctrine early on, it would have been much more clear