Jesus made to resemble Horus et. al.

[tigrers2019]

It is often said that there was no historical Jesus and that Jesus is merely a copy of earlier figures, such as Horus and Mithras, on account to there being many similarities.

But… what if this is deliberate, on the part of God? Perhaps God wanted Jesus to be similar to the mythological figures of the time and so made him resemble Horus et. al. so as to make the concept of him more familiar to the people of his time and place?

The enemies of Jesus wrote of Him, so yes he was a historical person. The ancient Jewish leaders claimed that he was a false teacher who led much of Israel astray and that His miracle working was of Satan. This information is not just within the New Testament, but in these ancient secular Jewish writings.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is often said that there was no historical Jesus and that Jesus is merely a copy of earlier figures, such as Horus and Mithras, on account to there being many similarities.

But… what if this is deliberate, on the part of God? Perhaps God wanted Jesus to be similar to the mythological figures of the time and so made him resemble Horus et. al. so as to make the concept of him more familiar to the people of his time and place?

This is the sort of thing I find silly.
1. There was a historical Jew named Yeshua who went around teaching Torah, who got crucified by the Romans. He did not start a new religion but his followers did.
2. The core of Christianity is Jewish. What little is pagan was added later by Gentile converts. So-called pagan influences are most often imagined, coincidental, and exaggerated by people trying to disparage a faith that started out as a Jewish sect.

 

[Hildeburh]

This is the sort of thing I find silly.
1. There was a historical Jew named Yeshua who went around teaching Torah, who got crucified by the Romans. He did not start a new religion but his followers did.
2. The core of Christianity is Jewish. What little is pagan was added later by Gentile converts. So-called pagan influences are most often imagined, coincidental, and exaggerated by people trying to disparage a faith that started out as a Jewish sect.

The discussion was the mythos of Jesus not the entire Christian faith.

 

[9-18-1]

Jesus and Horus are the same symbol - born of the virgin Mary/ISIS. Jesus and Horus are both (caricatures of) the sun.

Jesus is a Greek idol worshiped by idol worshipers.

 

[Hildeburh]

The enemies of Jesus wrote of Him, so yes he was a historical person. The ancient Jewish leaders claimed that he was a false teacher who led much of Israel astray and that His miracle working was of Satan. This information is not just within the New Testament, but in these ancient secular Jewish writings.

Who, for example? Making this claim does not make it true.

There is a classic book published a while ago by John E. Remsburg, The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, Remsburg surveyed the works of writers/historians contemporary with or a century or so after Jesus and did not find a single mention of him.

NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF JESUS

If you make claims that Jesus was an historical person then the burden of proof rests on you and vague references to 'Jewish leaders' and the New Testament does not constitute proof that Jesus was real rather that a myth.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Remsberg, according to Wikipedia was a 19th century school teacher with no higher education. But even if he was a modern scholar, he'd be of no use to you, for he wrote "Jesus of Nazareth … is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

The ancients made a great many criticisms of Christianity, but none of them ever said "this Jesus of your never existed". Josephus refers to Jesus as a faith healer and preacher, crucified, whose followers considered him to be the Jewish Messiah. In other words, Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus Christ of Bethlehem.

 

[The Anointed]

Remsberg, according to Wikipedia was a 19th century school teacher with no higher education. But even if he was a modern scholar, he'd be of no use to you, for he wrote "Jesus of Nazareth … is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

The ancients made a great many criticisms of Christianity, but none of them ever said "this Jesus of your never existed". Josephus refers to Jesus as a faith healer and preacher, crucified, whose followers considered him to be the Jewish Messiah. In other words, Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus Christ of Bethlehem.

The only connection that Jesus of Nazareth had to Bethlehem of Judaea, is in the fact that he was born in Bethlehem, and 41 days later was take to Jerusalem where his mother performed the ceremony of purification, after which, the family retuned their home in Nazareth.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It is often said that there was no historical Jesus and that Jesus is merely a copy of earlier figures, such as Horus and Mithras, on account to there being many similarities.

But… what if this is deliberate, on the part of God? Perhaps God wanted Jesus to be similar to the mythological figures of the time and so made him resemble Horus et. al. so as to make the concept of him more familiar to the people of his time and place?

There ARE certain recurring tropes throughout pretty much ALL religions. That said, a lot of the "hey look at these similarities between Jesus/Horus/Mithras/whoever" lists that get passed around on Facebook are historically inaccurate, if not outright fabrications.

Take the description of Horus as seen above, when in fact we know Horus was one of the twenty Primarchs created by the Emperor in the earliest days of the Imperium, just after the end of the Age of Strife. Like the other Primarchs, Horus was sucked from Terra by the Gods of Chaos and was placed on a far-away world in an attempt to prevent the coming of the Age of the Imperium. Horus was the first Primarch to be rediscovered, fighting alongside his father in the Great Crusade. Becoming the favored son of the Emperor and beloved by most of his brother Primarchs, Horus eventually rose to become Warmaster of the Great Crusade and was seen as second only to the Emperor himself in power and prestige. But in spite of all of this, he was eventually corrupted by the powers of Chaos and initiated the Horus Heresy against the very Imperium he helped create.

When Horus was scattered, his pod landed on the world of Cthonia, a planet close to the Sol System. While he spent some time being among the techno-barbarian Hive gangs of the barbaric planet, he was quickly rediscovered by the Emperor early in the Great Crusade and spent his formative years at his father's side. This account however is sometimes disputed, with others claiming Horus returned to Terra itself.

Because of this early discovery, Horus grew to be the most powerful among the Primarchs as he had grown up from a child to an adult at the side of the Emperor. For thirty years he was the only Primarch to have been discovered. Friendship between the Emperor and Horus grew rapidly and the Emperor eventually trusted him enough to give him command of the entire force of the Imperium. The Emperor had saved Horus's life at the Siege of Reillis as they fought back to back. At another battle, Horus repaid this debt when he hacked the arm off a frenzied Ork as it tried to choke the life out of the Emperor on the planet of Gorro.

 

[Hildeburh]

Remsberg, according to Wikipedia was a 19th century school teacher with no higher education. But even if he was a modern scholar, he'd be of no use to you, for he wrote "Jesus of Nazareth … is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

Which is why I said the book was a classic and written some time ago and gave a link to a site that discussed the evidence. A possible character that might have existed is not a ringing endorsement.

The ancients made a great many criticisms of Christianity, but none of them ever said "this Jesus of your never existed". Josephus refers to Jesus as a faith healer and preacher, crucified, whose followers considered him to be the Jewish Messiah. In other words, Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus Christ of Bethlehem.

Which ancients? Refuting Remsburg's survey of early writers/historians by claiming that Jesus must have existed because they dont say he didnt existed is faulty logic.

Josephus was an orthodox Jew and historian his testimony on Jesus is often sited by Christians, but there are two well discussed problems with using Josephus as proof of Jesus Christ as an historical person. Firstly, Josephus passages on Jesus were altered by later Christian scribes and not mentioned by many early church fathers as evidence. Secondly, the passage on Jesus is minimal and there is contention in regards to which Jesus Josephus refers to, Jesus or Yeshua being a common name, it has been suggested that it was Jesus, son of Damneus.

Remsburg summed up the opinion of the Christian scholarly community on Josephus, saying:

“Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: “If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too” (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).” (8)

The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says:

“Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery..(Christian Records, p. 30).” (9)

The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says:

“This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl . A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl . A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl . A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl . A.D. 193), and Origen (fl . A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i).” (10)

Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding Christ. He says:

“The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of Christianity, though he wrote aft er the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history of that period in which Christ and his Apostles lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance” (Kneeland’s Review, p. 169). (11)

The following, from Dr. Farrar’s pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica:

“That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.”

Josephus & The Jesus Forgeries

 

[lukethethird]

Jesus made to resemble Horus et. al.


Yes, but Jesus really existed unlike those other pretenders.

 

[Hildeburh]

There ARE certain recurring tropes throughout pretty much ALL religions. That said, a lot of the "hey look at these similarities between Jesus/Horus/Mithras/whoever" lists that get passed around on Facebook are historically inaccurate, if not outright fabrications.

There are many factually accurate sources on this much discussed topic, I am wondering why you would choose to such an obviously flawed source.

We are not discussing general recurring tropes in ALL religions we were disussing the specific mythos of the Christian Jesus. If you can find even a couple of the elements in the mythos of Jesus that is not found in the mythos of the god/goddesses of the pagan mystery religions that predate him I would be surprised.

 

[Hildeburh]

Jesus made to resemble Horus et. al.


Yes, but Jesus really existed unlike those other pretenders.

A typical statement by a Christian. And your proof is ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is often said that there was no historical Jesus and that Jesus is merely a copy of earlier figures, such as Horus and Mithras, on account to there being many similarities.

But… what if this is deliberate, on the part of God? Perhaps God wanted Jesus to be similar to the mythological figures of the time and so made him resemble Horus et. al. so as to make the concept of him more familiar to the people of his time and place?

Jesus is way more similar to any randomly picked tribal shaman than any deity that came before him. And not a couple things of coincidence (perhaps because we haven't been very creative in producing religious symbols and we see the same ones in multiple religions), but down to the ways he healed, how he taught, the story of casting the demon into a pig, it's all very shaman-like.

 

[lukethethird]

A typical statement by a Christian. And your proof is ?

Of course I have no proof, who does? This is one of those arguments that never ends, it's like arguing about the existence of God.

 

[lukethethird]

Jesus is way more similar to any randomly picked tribal shaman than any deity that came before him. And not a couple things of coincidence (perhaps because we haven't been very creative in producing religious symbols and we see the same ones in multiple religions), but down to the ways he healed, how he taught, the story of casting the demon into a pig, it's all very shaman-like.

How many shamans caused the heavens to part and how many shamans rose from the dead? Jesus is similar to other gods.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How many shamans caused the heavens to part and how many shamans rose from the dead? Jesus is similar to other gods.

No one has rose from the dead. No one can "part the heavens." Of course there are many exaggerations and impossible acts in the Gospels, but anyone with even a shard of knowledge in religious anthropology can easily spot the similarities between Jesus and a shaman.

 

[lukethethird]

No one has rose from the dead. No one can "part the heavens." Of course there are many exaggerations and impossible acts in the Gospels, but anyone with even a shard of knowledge in religious anthropology can easily spot the similarities between Jesus and a shaman.

The heavens parting and Jesus rising from the dead are key elements of the gospel story, they can't be discarded as exaggerations. All of Jesus's movements that include miracles, preaching and travel are well choreographed and repeat themselves exposing patterns for theological purposes, unlike the actions of ordinary shamans.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The heavens parting and Jesus rising from the dead are key elements of the gospel story, they can't be discarded as exaggerations.

I can, and do, dismiss it as easily as I do a story about a sleep spell that can only be broken by a kiss.

All of Jesus's movements that include miracles, preaching and travel are well choreographed and repeat themselves exposing patterns for theological purposes, unlike the actions of ordinary shamans.

Shamans also have choreographed rituals and repeat themselves and teach for theological purposes. The similarities are remarkable enough that the story of Jesus exorcising a demon that he placed into a pig is very similar to how a shaman would perform an exorcism. And much like Jesus, Shamans are also known for doing things like spitting during a healing ritual.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There are many factually accurate sources on this much discussed topic, I am wondering why you would choose to such an obviously flawed source.

We are not discussing general recurring tropes in ALL religions we were disussing the specific mythos of the Christian Jesus. If you can find even a couple of the elements in the mythos of Jesus that is not found in the mythos of the god/goddesses of the pagan mystery religions that predate him I would be surprised.

That was the LEAST flawed infographic of the type I could find!

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Josephus passages on Jesus were altered by later Christian scribes and not mentioned by many early church fathers as evidence.

As ever, all the books you quote are by 19th century writers, long obsolete. If you want to study such matters, get yourself some reliable modern sources!

Of course the second passage in Josephus is corrupted by the incorporation of two glosses into the text. Anyone with any experience of textual criticism can see that. But the complete passage cannot have been written by a Christian, who would hardly fail to mention the resurrection and would not express surprise that Jesus's followers hadn't been discouraged by his death. The other passage, referring to James, Bishop of Jerusalem, as being the brother of that Jesus whom they called the messiah, obviously refers to Jesus of Nazareth.

Church Fathers were not going to quote Josephus: why should they? As I said, no one was questioning the validity of the Gospel narratives. Celsus and Julian made formidable attacks on Christian beliefs: if there had been any doubt about the historicity of Jesus, would they have ignored it?