Jesus story isn't original

[dogsgod]

“in the first century of the common era, there appeared at the eastern end of the mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one god and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts, but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of god though he called himself the son of man. Accused of sedition against rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended into heaven. Who was this teacher and wonder worker?”

“his name was apollonius of tyana. He died about 98 c.e. And his story may be read in flavius philostratus’s “life of apollonius.”

​

“readers who too hastily assumed that the preceding described apollonious’s earlier contemporary, jesus of nazareth, may be forgiven their error if they reflect how readily the human imagination embroiders the careers of figures of the past with common mythical and fictional embellishments.”

 

[Requia]

Ok, I've started reading it. The thing is a giant Lo5. They redefine Gnostics as Pagan in order to get a pagan/christian hybrid. Really, what definition of paganism does Gnosticism fit? It's not Polytheistic (any more than regular Christianity at least), nor was it ever a peasant religion.

Then they bring up Greek virgin birth myths even after using Gnosticism as their hybrid (Gnostic texts deny that the virgin birth happened), they also jump to the conclusion that a lack of interest in the historical Jesus means that Gnostics don't think Jesus ever existed (modern groups, while not exactly following the traditions of the early Gnostics, or necessarily having any idea what those are, do provide a counter example where you can find the Historical Jesus's existence or non existence irrelevant, but still think he existed).

It's possible I'm biased though, calling Gnostics pagan tends to get me riled up.

 

[dogsgod]

Ok, I've started reading it. The thing is a giant Lo5. They redefine Gnostics as Pagan in order to get a pagan/christian hybrid. Really, what definition of paganism does Gnosticism fit? It's not Polytheistic (any more than regular Christianity at least), nor was it ever a peasant religion.

Then they bring up Greek virgin birth myths even after using Gnosticism as their hybrid (Gnostic texts deny that the virgin birth happened), they also jump to the conclusion that a lack of interest in the historical Jesus means that Gnostics don't think Jesus ever existed (modern groups, while not exactly following the traditions of the early Gnostics, or necessarily having any idea what those are, do provide a counter example where you can find the Historical Jesus's existence or non existence irrelevant, but still think he existed).

It's possible I'm biased though, calling Gnostics pagan tends to get me riled up.

I don't care either way, I just like to argue.

 

[Requia]

Fair enough, I came here for that too.

 

[dogsgod]

Fair enough, I came here for that too.

I was thinking of switching sides for a little while.

 

[Requia]

No fair, I did that first

 

[dogsgod]

I used to argue for an historical Jesus so it wouldn't be the first time for me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I haven't read the book either and so I'm not defending it. The book review I linked to a few posts back offered criticism where it was weak or downright omitted information that should have been presented but praised it in other areas. That sounds like just about any book on the subject, so to simply dismiss the entire works because of a dislike of anything that suggests Jesus is not really historical is childish.

I dislike the book because it's a farce. There aren't that many historians who believe that Jesus didn't exist, but they certainly don't come to that conclusion using arguments even remotely related to the Jesus Mysteries -- because if they did, it would be an insult to their discipline and no one in academia would respect the rest of their work. The Jesus Mysteries are the product of two people who know nothing about ancient history getting a bit too excited about perceived similarities between "Jesus" and other ancient religions.

There is a movement within biblical scholarship that portrays early Christianity as a mystery cult - Helmut Koester, I believe, in his Introduction to the New Testament makes that case (I don't recall if he thinks that Jesus was an historical person). But whether or not Jesus existed has no bearing at all on Christianity as a mystery cult, because as historians know, religions can have little if any relationship to its claimed founder.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm not defending the book. I think the historical Jesus is a farce but I don't do drive by shootings on these boards and dismiss books out of hand because I don't agree with all of its conclusions.

David Allan Dodson, a reviewer for CNN, found the book to be interesting, he stated that "while the authors discuss many examples of elements of Osiris/Dionysus in the Jesus story, they virtually ignore the more direct ties to Jewish tradition and prophecy. This oversight undermines the credibility of many of their arguments, and could have the tendency to mislead the novice reader in this subject".[7] However, while Dodson wasn't fully convinced by the authors that Jesus was completely fictional, he did end his review with the following supportive remarks: "The Jesus Mysteries left this reviewer more convinced than ever that the life of Jesus as we know it is filled with mythological, political, and even polemical elements. Freke and Gandy succeed in bringing some important points about Christianity to the public in a readable, compelling book. Perhaps their willingness to state 'the unthinkable thought' will lead to more objective thinking about religion and tolerance. If so, The Jesus Mysteries is a worthy effort indeed". wiki


At least it appears that he actually read the book.

 

[Politesse]

There is a movement within biblical scholarship that portrays early Christianity as a mystery cult - Helmut Koester, I believe, in his Introduction to the New Testament makes that case (I don't recall if he thinks that Jesus was an historical person). But whether or not Jesus existed has no bearing at all on Christianity as a mystery cult, because as historians know, religions can have little if any relationship to its claimed founder.

Plenty of mainstream theologians discuss early Christianity as a mystery cult, there's an obvious connection between early Christian society and the paradigm that had already been set by other mystery cults. This is, however, a far cry from accusing Jesus of not existing. Koester is certainly no mythicist. I know of no serious Biblical scholars who are, in fact, though some might confess agnosticism on the matter. He does have some interesting perspectives, though, being the discoverer of the "Secret" Gospel of Mark and publisher of all manner of interesting research on Gnostic thought.

 

[dogsgod]

Plenty of mainstream theologians discuss early Christianity as a mystery cult, there's an obvious connection between early Christian society and the paradigm that had already been set by other mystery cults. This is, however, a far cry from accusing Jesus of not existing. Koester is certainly no mythicist. I know of no serious Biblical scholars who are, in fact, though some might confess agnosticism on the matter. He does have some interesting perspectives, though, being the discoverer of the "Secret" Gospel of Mark and publisher of all manner of interesting research on Gnostic thought.

Seriously? What is to be taken seriously from those claiming Jesus is historical? That the gospels stories are exaggerations, otherwise believable? What makes them otherwise believable anymore than any other story of a resurrected savior, the fact that most "serious" biblical scholars believe there is an historical figure behind this story of a messiah figure? Because so many believe therefore the story should be taken seriously? We have nothing from a contemporary of Jesus which is consistent with mythologies but are we to take seriously the excuses for why no one cared to notice and write of this man that supposedly drew large crowds wherever he went? Why should excuses and faulty logic be taken seriously?

 

[Politesse]

Seriously? What is to be taken seriously from those claiming Jesus is historical? That the gospels stories are exaggerations, otherwise believable? What makes them otherwise believable anymore than any other story of a resurrected savior, the fact that most "serious" biblical scholars believe there is an historical figure behind this story of a messiah figure? Because so many believe therefore the story should be taken seriously? We have nothing from a contemporary of Jesus which is consistent with mythologies but are we to take seriously the excuses for why no one cared to notice and write of this man that supposedly drew large crowds wherever he went? Why should excuses and faulty logic be taken seriously?

It's just that there's no reason to assume the existence of some kind of conspiracy if there's no actual evidence for one.

 

[dogsgod]

It's just that there's no reason to assume the existence of some kind of conspiracy if there's no actual evidence for one.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[tomato1236]

So, if Jesus wasn't original, what does that mean, you're going to revoke his copyright?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, if Jesus wasn't original, what does that mean, you're going to revoke his copyright?

:biglaugh:

 

[fallingblood]

“in the first century of the common era, there appeared at the eastern end of the mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one god and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts, but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of god though he called himself the son of man. Accused of sedition against rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended into heaven. Who was this teacher and wonder worker?”

“his name was apollonius of tyana. He died about 98 c.e. And his story may be read in flavius philostratus’s “life of apollonius.”

​

“readers who too hastily assumed that the preceding described apollonious’s earlier contemporary, jesus of nazareth, may be forgiven their error if they reflect how readily the human imagination embroiders the careers of figures of the past with common mythical and fictional embellishments.”

You make a very good point; however, one I'm sure you're not trying to. This Apollonius of Tyana was a historical figure, who had a close similarity with the figure of Jesus.

So, if Apollonius of Tyana actually existed, and still had all of these "common mythical and fictional embellishments" attached to him, is it not logical that the same could be true for Jesus? The answer is a resounding yes.

 

[fallingblood]

What is that supposed to mean?

It means, there is no reason for a individuals to actually create the story of Jesus. I cover this idea more thoroughly in another thread: Why The Jesus Myth is Illogical

 

[dogsgod]

You make a very good point; however, one I'm sure you're not trying to. This Apollonius of Tyana was a historical figure, who had a close similarity with the figure of Jesus.

So, if Apollonius of Tyana actually existed, and still had all of these "common mythical and fictional embellishments" attached to him, is it not logical that the same could be true for Jesus? The answer is a resounding yes.

I see your logic. A black man is caught stealing a loaf of bread, therefore all black people are thieves.

 

[fallingblood]

I see your logic. A black man is caught stealing a loaf of bread, therefore all black people are thieves.

Do you think before you actually type something? Did you even read what I stated? I'm sure taking crack shots though is so much easier then dealing with the topic at hand, and the plethora of information that simply shows that your belief holds no water.

But just so you get the point that I was stating. You were being hypocritical. There is this Apollonius character, who, by your own admission, was similar to Jesus yet this Apollonius yet existed. This proves that a character that has mythical qualities attributed to his life, can in fact exist. Meaning, your defense the Jesus didn't exist, is baseless.

 

[dogsgod]

Do you think before you actually type something? Did you even read what I stated? I'm sure taking crack shots though is so much easier then dealing with the topic at hand, and the plethora of information that simply shows that your belief holds no water.

But just so you get the point that I was stating. You were being hypocritical. There is this Apollonius character, who, by your own admission, was similar to Jesus yet this Apollonius yet existed. This proves that a character that has mythical qualities attributed to his life, can in fact exist. Meaning, your defense the Jesus didn't exist, is baseless.

Your argument is fallacious, just as my example demonstrated the same type of fallacy. It doesn't prove that Jesus was not historical, it simply demonstrates that mythological characters are not necessarily based on historical characters just because one can provide an example of one that might very well be.