Jesus Story IS NOT Original.....

[logician]

So, from all this, it would appear that the most logical conclusion would be that we can't make any definitive conclusions about whether or not a historical Jesus existed, and doing so would be illogical, because there appears to be credible arguments either way.

Funny how nobody's talking about the OP's claim.

If you're talking about the thread starter, I agree, the Jesus story was very much plagurized from other religious and philosophical myth, nothing occurs in a vaccum. It wasn't dreamed up out of thin air.

 

[Riverwolf]

If you're talking about the thread starter, I agree, the Jesus story was very much plagurized from other religious and philosophical myth

I've seen no evidence to suggest that. I've already demonstrated that the Jesus story has very little in common with the stories of Krishna and Buddha, and I've received no refutations. I know virtually nothing about the Horus story, I've never heard the story of Jesus being related to that of Zoroaster, and I've never heard of the two other stories cited.

Therefore, I have no reason to accept that the Jesus story was ripped from others.

Oh, and of course it wasn't dreamed out of thin air; that's not how stories work. We all have the same psyche; therefore, our stories are going to be similar even if we've never heard of other versions.

 

[dogsgod]

The point is that the Mythic Hero Archetype did not originate with the gospels. Many of the details of the gospel story are original, but the framework of a savior figure, a redeemer of mankind did not originate with Christ.



LORD RAGLANS SCALE

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin
2. His father is a king and
3. often a near relative of the mother, but
4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. he is also reputed to be the son of a god
6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster-parents in a far country
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king and or giant, dragon, or wild beast
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
13. becomes king
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
15. Prescribes laws but
16. later loses favor with the gods and or his people and
17. Is driven from from the throne and the city after which
18. He meets with a mysterious death
19. often at the top of a hill.
20. his children, if any, do not succeed him.
21. his body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. he has one or more holy sepulchres.

Undoubtedly historical personages always score lower than six, although Alexander the Great might be said to exceed that figure with a possible score of seven, depending on how one interprets some aspects of his life history. Here is how some other people you might have heard of scored.

• How Some Heros Scored
• Oedipus scores 21
• Theseus scores 20
• Moses scores 20
• Dionysus scores 19
• Jesus scores 19
• Romulus scores 18
• Perseus scores 18
• Hercules scores 17
• Llew Llaw Gyffes scores 17
• Bellerophon scores 16
• Jason scores 15
• Mwindo scores 14
• Robin Hood scores 13
• Pelops scores 13
• Apollo scores 11
• Sigurd scores 11.

LORD RAGLAN's SCALE (The ladder to eternal success)

 

[Riverwolf]

The point is that the Mythic Hero Archetype did not originate with the gospels.

1. Was it supposed to?
2. Anyone who's read Joseph Campbell knows that.

Many of the details of the gospel story are original, but the framework of a savior figure, a redeemer of mankind did not originate with Christ.

Again, was it supposed to?

LORD RAGLANS SCALE

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin
2. His father is a king and
3. often a near relative of the mother, but
4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. he is also reputed to be the son of a god
6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster-parents in a far country
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king and or giant, dragon, or wild beast
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
13. becomes king
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
15. Prescribes laws but
16. later loses favor with the gods and or his people and
17. Is driven from from the throne and the city after which
18. He meets with a mysterious death
19. often at the top of a hill.
20. his children, if any, do not succeed him.
21. his body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. he has one or more holy sepulchres.

Undoubtedly historical personages always score lower than six, although Alexander the Great might be said to exceed that figure with a possible score of seven, depending on how one interprets some aspects of his life history. Here is how some other people you might have heard of scored.

• How Some Heros Scored
• Oedipus scores 21
• Theseus scores 20
• Moses scores 20
• Dionysus scores 19
• Jesus scores 19
• Romulus scores 18
• Perseus scores 18
• Hercules scores 17
• Llew Llaw Gyffes scores 17
• Bellerophon scores 16
• Jason scores 15
• Mwindo scores 14
• Robin Hood scores 13
• Pelops scores 13
• Apollo scores 11
• Sigurd scores 11.

LORD RAGLAN's SCALE (The ladder to eternal success)

I'd like something more substantial than a score-count scale, if you don't mind. These are good, but seeing as I've only heard of the Greek characters (and Robin Hood, Moses, Jesus, and Romulus), and I know little about them, it'd be great to actually know their stories and not what numbers they get, so I can make my own judgment.

 

[fallingblood]

Whether I made a mistake and read into your almost vehement defense of a historical Jesus and the works claimed to prove him or not, what I stated still stands.

Basing said research on the flawed source of the bible and later writings by followers of that bible is simply bad science.

Many ancient sources are flawed. You can't dismiss them just because of that. What needs to be done is to have a closer examination of them.

Also, you are over simplifying Jesus research. Really though, it would be much better to address the points instead of trying to find a way to just dismiss the whole thing by a flawed thinking.

Oh, and the research of history really isn't a science.

And neither have you.

Actually, I've provided evidence supporting my position. I've explained that evidence as well. You've simply tried to dismiss these resources and what I've stated.

 

[fallingblood]

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin-Nope, Mary was not Royalty
2. His father is a king andPossible, but God wasn't King.
3. often a near relative of the mother, butNope, not related at all
4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, andTrue 1
5. he is also reputed to be the son of a godtrue 2
6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, butSomewhat true 3
7. He is spirited away, andTrue 4
8. Reared by foster-parents in a far countryNope, reared by his families, in a nearby country
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, butSomewhat true, we do have a little information 5
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom. Not really, He doesn't return to his future kingdom at manhood. We are told that he did when he was still young. More so, he never actually had a kingdom
11. After a victory over the king and or giant, dragon, or wild beast Nope
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor andnopre
13. becomes kingnope. May be called King, but it was in mock
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully andnope
15. Prescribes laws butnope, he only repeats the OT laws
16. later loses favor with the gods and or his people andWith some of the people, so we will say okay6
17. Is driven from from the throne and the city after whichnope
18. He meets with a mysterious deathnope
19. often at the top of a hill.not really, he was crucified where everyone else was
20. his children, if any, do not succeed him.nope
21. his body is not buried, but neverthelessHe is suppose to be buried
22. he has one or more holy sepulchres. After the fact, so no

Jesus scores six, generously. I guess he is must be historical.

 

[fallingblood]

The above I believe to be one of the most damning testimonials. The mere fact that people contemporary to Josephus, or for centuries after, who knew intimately his works, make to mention of the passage in question.

I'm going to, for the sake of this debate, leave the longer passage out of the quotient. It does have problems. There was some tampering with it.

However, the quotes you gave do not deal, as far as I can see, with the shorter passage. The shorter passage which states that Jesus is the brother of James.

The passage is short: brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others.

Just looking at it, it states very little. It is just an offhand comment about Jesus. A key idea here though is the wording, who was called Christ. This is expected of Jesus. It is an unChristian like comment. The reason being that a Christian would said something along the lines of: Jesus, who was Christ.

Josephus is simply telling others the title that some people use to refer to Jesus. It is what would be expected.

It is no surprise that this reference is never mentioned though. It adds nothing about Jesus. It only tells us what already is known, Jesus had a brother named James. I personally can't think of a reason why any ancient character would even need to use this reference. Remember, it wasn't until recently that the historicity of Jesus came into play.

If even half of the "miracles" listed in the bible had occurred, they would be spread all over the known world before the man was said to have been crucified. Historians who lived at the time ascribed to Jesus make note of persons far and wide, from Celtic warrior queens to the exploits of Viking Norse. I find it utterly unfathomable that no legitimate mentions are made of said Christ figure in any historians writings, Roman records, nothing.

The only remaining record of the Jewish revolt, from my understanding, is the work of Josephus. The Roman records are gone. More so, how many ancient miracle workers do you know of? Jesus was not original in this sense. Honi the Circle Drawer, a Jew from the first century B.C.E., was mentioned in Josephus, and Jewish writings. Another good example is Apollonius of Tyana, a contemporary of Jesus. Little is known for sure about him, as the historians of the time didn't seem to care.

There were possibly hundreds of miracle workers during that time. The fact is though, they just weren't news.

We can even do a modern day example. There are a plethora of so called gods and miracle workers in parts of India and Asia. The majority of people have never heard of this.

 

[fallingblood]

Quoting known locations of the time proves nothing, as questionable as these findings are.

I could write a rather compelling story on Civil War era Atlanta. Doesn't mean I was there or that my narrative was accurate.

It is a common tactic of the very best fictional writers to include some measure of thruth within their works to lend their fiction some credibility to capture the audience.

The Harry Potter series mentions many towns in England that exist. Does this make it true?

You are missing the point here. I'm not using the idea that Nazareth existed, so Jesus must have. As you pointed out, that is illogical.

My point, as I supported (the books do the best job of this, but since they are not available to everyone, the links are just easier), was that during the first century, Nazareth existed. This is not debated by critical scholars, for one reason, we have archeological evidence dating back to the first century of Nazareth.

The only defense that those who claim that Nazareth did not exist is that it wasn't mentioned in any literature. However, that is not a logical defense. The reason being that we've even found cities or villages never mentioned in any literature.

 

[dogsgod]

“But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea....But the younger Ananus who, as we have already said, had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition....Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrin and brought before them the brother of Jesus, (the one)21 called Christ[ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou],James by name, together with some others and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned. But those in the city who seemed most moderate and skilled in the law were very angry at this, and sent secretly to the king, requesting him to order Ananus to cease such proceedings. . . And the king, Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him of the high priesthood, which he had held three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of Damneus.”


A Christian Phrase The phrase itself, tou legomenou Christou, called Christ, is suspicious. It is essentially identical to the one which concludes Matthew 1:16: ho legomenos Christos. The same phrase appears in John 4:25, and here we get the impression that the term itself may have been taken over by Christians from traditional parlance. The Samaritan woman at the well says to Jesus: “I know that Messiah [Messias] is coming, he who is called Christ [ho legomenos Christos]; when he comes, he will explain everything to us.” Here the phrase “he who is called Christ” is redundant, since the Messiah has already been referred to. (And a Samaritan woman, presumably Aramaic-speaking, would only have had a single word to use for both references; “Christ” is entirely Greek.) Its insertion by John suggests that the phrase had some currency in his circles, leading him to include it in his artificial dialogue.

Curiously, the phrase is also placed by Matthew in the mouth of Pilate (27:17 and 22): “Whom do you want me to release to you: Barabbas or Jesus, called Christ?”—even though his source, Mark, had Pilate refer to Jesus as “the king of the Jews.” It would seem that the phrase had a special appeal to the author of Matthew. These appearances in early Christian writings identify the phrase as one in use by Christians. Thus it could have been chosen by a Christian copyist inserting a phrase into Josephus, especially under the influence of its appearance in Matthew, the most popular Gospel from the mid-second century on. It is also at that time that we encounter another occurrence of it in Justin: “the one called Christ among us” (ton par’ hēmin legomenon Christon) in his First Apology 30. It would seem to have been a thoroughly Christian phrase.

The frequent translation of “tou legomenou Christou” as “the so-called Christ,” with its skeptical and derogatory overtone, is in no way necessary, and is in fact belied by the usage of the phrase in those Christian writings just looked at, where it obviously cannot have such a connotation. The word legomenos is found in many other places in the New Testament without any implied derogation. Those using the term in their translations of Josephus betray a preconceived bias in favor of his authorship.
Josephus On the Rocks

 

[AxisMundi]

Many ancient sources are flawed. You can't dismiss them just because of that. What needs to be done is to have a closer examination of them.

Also, you are over simplifying Jesus research. Really though, it would be much better to address the points instead of trying to find a way to just dismiss the whole thing by a flawed thinking.

Oh, and the research of history really isn't a science.

Yes, you can dismiss any flawed data, quite readily as well. The only source claimed to be contemporary to your Christ figure is easily disproved, as I and others have shown. Said paragraphs are quite easily dismissed as anything but later forgeries inserted into said writings by people desperate to have their religion validated.

Al other sources date from well after, and are mere hearsay and do not provide any substantiation.

Actually, I've provided evidence supporting my position. I've explained that evidence as well. You've simply tried to dismiss these resources and what I've stated.

9/11 conspiracy theorists can make quite compelling arguments too, until you closely examine their argument. That is when one sees the inherent flaws that dismantles their arguments.

 

[AxisMundi]

You are missing the point here. I'm not using the idea that Nazareth existed, so Jesus must have. As you pointed out, that is illogical.

My point, as I supported (the books do the best job of this, but since they are not available to everyone, the links are just easier), was that during the first century, Nazareth existed. This is not debated by critical scholars, for one reason, we have archeological evidence dating back to the first century of Nazareth.

The only defense that those who claim that Nazareth did not exist is that it wasn't mentioned in any literature. However, that is not a logical defense. The reason being that we've even found cities or villages never mentioned in any literature.

There is some controversy surrounding said findings.

They are not widely accepted among the scientitific community.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is some controversy surrounding said findings.

They are not widely accepted among the scientitific community.

You're wasting your time.

 

[AxisMundi]

I'm going to, for the sake of this debate, leave the longer passage out of the quotient. It does have problems. There was some tampering with it.

However, the quotes you gave do not deal, as far as I can see, with the shorter passage. The shorter passage which states that Jesus is the brother of James.

The passage is short: brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others.

Just looking at it, it states very little. It is just an offhand comment about Jesus. A key idea here though is the wording, who was called Christ. This is expected of Jesus. It is an unChristian like comment. The reason being that a Christian would said something along the lines of: Jesus, who was Christ.

Josephus is simply telling others the title that some people use to refer to Jesus. It is what would be expected.

It is no surprise that this reference is never mentioned though. It adds nothing about Jesus. It only tells us what already is known, Jesus had a brother named James. I personally can't think of a reason why any ancient character would even need to use this reference. Remember, it wasn't until recently that the historicity of Jesus came into play.

Others ahve brought the problems with the short passage to the table.

The only remaining record of the Jewish revolt, from my understanding, is the work of Josephus. The Roman records are gone. More so, how many ancient miracle workers do you know of? Jesus was not original in this sense. Honi the Circle Drawer, a Jew from the first century B.C.E., was mentioned in Josephus, and Jewish writings. Another good example is Apollonius of Tyana, a contemporary of Jesus. Little is known for sure about him, as the historians of the time didn't seem to care.

There were possibly hundreds of miracle workers during that time. The fact is though, they just weren't news.

We can even do a modern day example. There are a plethora of so called gods and miracle workers in parts of India and Asia. The majority of people have never heard of this.

While individual literacy was few and far between, written languages can be found far and wide, as can the ltierate who wrote in abundance.

And your examples prove my point. They recieved some mention, why didn't Jesus.

 

[AxisMundi]

You're wasting your time.

No school today and I do homework at school since it's a two hour bus ride.

One of the advantages of returning to school after some 30 years, one tends to "git'er dun" right away.

 

[dogsgod]

Dear believers,

The notion that the first gospel was written within 40 years of Jesus' death and therefore within a reasonable time frame is not a valid argument, rather it is an exercise in circular reasoning.

The unknown author of Mark places his story 40 years prior to the time of his writing. At this point, penmanship is the only support for the author's use of that time and place. To claim that the author is writing within a reasonable time frame after Jesus' supposed death in order to validate the gospel as written within a reasonable frame is in turn using the gospel to validate itself. The logic takes us around in circles.

This argument that the first gospel was written within forty years of the supposed death of Jesus in order to support the validity of the gospel is used time and time again by the Jesus is historical supporters and it's about time it was put to rest. It's making me dizzy, so please stop it.

Sincerely, dogsgod

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't know about the rest of you, but since dogsgod said it, I believe it!

Thanks for settling many important questions that scholars have struggled with for at least the past 300 years.

 

[MW0082]

Dear believers,

The notion that the first gospel was written within 40 years of Jesus' death and therefore within a reasonable time frame is not a valid argument, rather it is an exercise in circular reasoning.

The unknown author of Mark places his story 40 years prior to the time of his writing. At this point, penmanship is the only support for the author's use of that time and place. To claim that the author is writing within a reasonable time frame after Jesus' supposed death in order to validate the gospel as written within a reasonable frame is in turn using the gospel to validate itself. The logic takes us around in circles.

This argument that the first gospel was written within forty years of the supposed death of Jesus in order to support the validity of the gospel is used time and time again by the Jesus is historical supporters and it's about time it was put to rest. It's making me dizzy, so please stop it.

Sincerely, dogsgod

Couldn't agree more.!!!! Outside the gospels there ae absoluitely no findings to suppor Jesus Christ. Only the fact that his story resembles too many before him. The onlt thing illogical is the bible as a whole, it's taken out of context, preached to be true and original. Whch it is none of those at all......

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Dear believers,

The notion that the first gospel was written within 40 years of Jesus' death and therefore within a reasonable time frame is not a valid argument, rather it is an exercise in circular reasoning.

The unknown author of Mark places his story 40 years prior to the time of his writing. At this point, penmanship is the only support for the author's use of that time and place. To claim that the author is writing within a reasonable time frame after Jesus' supposed death in order to validate the gospel as written within a reasonable frame is in turn using the gospel to validate itself. The logic takes us around in circles.

This argument that the first gospel was written within forty years of the supposed death of Jesus in order to support the validity of the gospel is used time and time again by the Jesus is historical supporters and it's about time it was put to rest. It's making me dizzy, so please stop it.

Sincerely, dogsgod

Agreed.

Jesus #1 was a nobody to most and a somebody to some (if he existed at all).

Jesus #2 is the "stuff of legends" as they say. This esoteric, magic wielding god man is all the rave (as their bible tells it)

The unfortunate thing about Jesus #2 is outside of the bible (scrolls) this person was unknown.

 

[eccentricjdo]

see: Jesus vs. Krishna: similarities

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

 

[Tashi]

I am honestly starting to believe you simply have nothing better to do....

Buddha

What? Their lives have virtually nothing in common, well besides the fact they lived on earth. But other then that, I dont see too many, if not any, worthwile similarities.

The others I can see some similarities though.