Jesus story isn't original

[dogsgod]

One of the earliest Christ types is Zoroaster. Even Baal had G-d as his father and a mortal mother. The idea of the birth of a demig-d is not new even to the era of Jesus. We can speculate forever about legends and if there is any connection to actual events. The main point I would like to make is that the concept of the Son of G-d coming to live on earth transcends through much of antiquity and is even found prevalent in ancient America.

Perhaps many dismiss the concept without realization of the effect that such a doctrine had in the development of civilization. No one should doubt the importance of the idea. Perhaps dismissing the idea as unneeded and unbeneficial will not have the results many proponents of such a dismissal think.

Zadok

The Jesus story may be nothing more than an unoriginal dying and rising god savior myth at best, but I wouldn't dismiss the effect this Jesus character has on it's adherents. There is lots to question though, such as the importance and benefits of the story.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Just look at Horus story, or even Heracles of mythology. Man-gods with fathers who were gods. Both suffered or were put to tests. Both died and were resurrected to be gods or be with their fathers. And all this was written before the bible. Great copy catting by the selected authors of the bible.

You might look for the origins of Heracles in Baal. The origin of Baal in Marduk. The origin of Marduk in Enki.
They may (all or in part) stem from a root historical personage, such as Gilgamesh or Enmerkar or some, now unknown, earlier person.
　
But how did the concept translate to Africa, the Americas, to Australia and the Islands?
It's as though humanity (in its entirety) had been programmed to accept this concept, epitomised in the Bible phrase 'the seed of the woman'.
　
If so, then programmed by whom? To what purpose? seem more apposite questions to me.
　
The general concensus that more research is needed seems sound to me.
This is, afterall, a fundamental component of humanity's psychological expression.
　

 

[Atomist]

And we have a detailed historical record for Jesus. You simply dismiss it because you would rather believe shoddy research. We have four writing detailing the ministry of a Jewish peasant. We have Josephus mentioning this same peasant. Then we have Paul, mentioning this same peasant. Key points here, Jesus was a Jewish peasant, someone who meant very little in that world.

mmmm thats weird I've heard plenty of people that seemed to say the exact opposite. I've heard that the earliest accounts of jesus were written decades after he died and there were no miracles written near the time of the performance of said miracles. Same with his death. And this was a time where they kept records.

I'm interested on this "historical record for jesus"

 

[fallingblood]

mmmm thats weird I've heard plenty of people that seemed to say the exact opposite. I've heard that the earliest accounts of jesus were written decades after he died and there were no miracles written near the time of the performance of said miracles. Same with his death. And this was a time where they kept records.

I'm interested on this "historical record for jesus"

The four Gospels, when compared together, give a very good historical record for Jesus. Actually, as Bart D Ehrman says, we have more information about Jesus than all but a handful of other ancient figures.

We are talking about a oral culture though with a literacy rate around 1-3%. Literacy was reserved for the elites. Even still though, within about 20 years, we have someone writing about this Jewish peasant. And then another 20 years, we have the first Gospel. Considering the time period, and who was written about, it is very surprising.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The four Gospels, when compared together, give a very good historical record for Jesus. Actually, as Bart D Ehrman says, we have more information about Jesus than all but a handful of other ancient figures.

We are talking about a oral culture though with a literacy rate around 1-3%. Literacy was reserved for the elites. Even still though, within about 20 years, we have someone writing about this Jewish peasant. And then another 20 years, we have the first Gospel. Considering the time period, and who was written about, it is very surprising.

I wonder if Ehrman is talking about the NT itself, but all the copies of it throughout the centuries. There is quite a bit of evidence for scores of ancient persons.

We have reliable information for scores of people in the writings of Plutarch alone, then also Strabo, Tacitus, Diogenes Laertius, and Athenateus (to name a few). See also a selection of ancient writers from which we can deduce some of their biography - Greek and Roman Materials.

And that's just writings. From ancient inscriptions we can trace the political careers of Romans and their relationships with other notables and cities.

I hate to say it, but Ehrman seems to be perpetuating a common myth.

 

[ninerbuff]

It looks to me like you've answered your own question.

Now, I wonder, when and why did Christians start celebrating the birth of Christ on Dec 25? Or perhaps the winter solstice?

They were already celebrating winter solstice. The birth of jesus was just added to on as another celebration by christians so that could part take in Pagan rituals. It was just a way of justifying the celebration.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

They were already celebrating winter solstice. The birth of jesus was just added to on as another celebration by christians so that could part take in Pagan rituals. It was just a way of justifying the celebration.

OK, you think this. Do you have a reason why?

Have you found in the Christian Scriptures that they were celebrating the winter solstice? Have you found in other early Christian writers (aka Church Fathers) documenting that they celebrated the birth of Christ at this time?

It seems to me that you're throwing out a religion that developed and spread AFTER Christianity began and concluding that the later religion influenced the earlier one, and then saying that a much later Christian practice was adopted because of a religion that had long died out.

You are baselessly asserting a connection when you haven't established one.

 

[ninerbuff]

First, I'm just going to cite an article. The article shows the idea that the majority of scholars hold; actually all critical scholars hold this. Historicity of the canonical Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact is, there are no critical scholars who believe that the people accredited to writing the Gospels actually did. They were all circulated at first without any author's attachments. They were added later on. This is agreed upon by the vast majority of all scholars.

Agreed. But this is what is believed by people who follow the bible. It doesn't make sense that a book that is revered by many denominations of the christian religion should have any flaws to it if it is the spoken word of god and passed on down to the authors. Which then brings in Mystery Religions.

 

[ninerbuff]

Lets start dismantling this. Can you find a single verse in the Bible that says Jesus was born on December 25th? No, because there is none. If you look at the history of why his birth is celebrated on that date you will see that it was centuries later and done more for a consolidation of power. There is no reason to believe that Jesus was born on December 25th. Strike one.

As for the story of the virgin, look at Augustus. Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus, who was considered the son of a god. He supposedly was born or a virgin by a miraculous birth, where his mother was impregnated by a god. Would you consider Augustus to be fictional then? Not at all. More so, if we look at the verse in Matthew that was used to prove that the Messiah needed to be born of a virgin, you will see one glaring error. The word used in Isaiah meant young woman. Using the LXX, there was a mistranslation into Greek, and that is the reason the word virgin was seen. As the writers of the Gospels have been seen to do, they went through the scripture and tried to find prophecies that Jesus could fulfill. It just so happened this one was a mistake.

Going on with that, there is a logical reason for the story besides that. It was considered in ancient times that if someone had an important life, their birth should also reflect that. That is why Augustus, Alexander the Great, even Buddha all had these miraculous stories created about their birth. We see those as myths later attributed to a real person, and thus, the same should be done with Jesus.

And even further, the earliest Gospel that we have starts where it logical should, at the part of the life of Jesus that was considered important. It is logical to assume that the virgin birth stories, which contradict each other, arose after the fact and were attached to the life of Jesus in the same manner that the birth story of Augustus was attached to his. Strike two.

Finally, the thing you said about Bethlehem is just really stretching it. The reason Jesus was said to be born in Bethlehem is because it was supposed to be the home town of David, probably the greatest King of Israel according to the Jews. It was to show that Jesus was of royal lineage. It was probably made up for that reason. There is every reason to assume that Jesus was born in Nazareth. Strike three.

As for your Hercules comment earlier on, it really is moot. I never said that Jesus existed before Hercules. Honestly, when it comes down to it though, you need to do some more research.

Don't feel it's a stretch for the naming of Bethlehem as the birth of jesus.

The word "Bethlehem" is literally "House of Bread." Without knowing this one may be tempted to take out a map and search for a town called Bethlehem. However, one should actually be looking for a place known as the "House of Bread" in the sky. This may seem impossible at first to one who has read the gospels "literally" his whole life but just hold on. In searching the sky for the "house of bread" is a great first step towards exposing the "Jesus Story" as an allegory, for you see, there has always been a place known as the "House of Bread," except it's not a place on Earth, it's a time of the year!
Answer for yourself: Does the Sun in its path through the sky and a particular House of the Zodiac at a particular time of the year serve as the origin for this "House of Bread"? It sure does.
The "House of Bread" is a reference to August, which is harvest time. It's a great time of year ancient civilizations all looked forward to with great anticipation. The term "house" refers to one of the 12 houses of the Zodiac, which is like a big calendar in the stars. You can tell what time of year it is by observing the stars as they come out just after sunset and then determining where the Sun is in relation to the stars. You determine which constellation or "house" the Sun is in. It's like determining which page of the wall calendar you are turned to. It tells you what month of the year you are in. When the Sun is in the "House of Bread" it's August - it's harvest time! In the "House of Bread" is the constellation Virgo, the virgin. Hence in Bethlehem, the House of Bread, you will find a virgin, the constellation Virgo. Virgo is always depicted as holding either a sheaf of wheat or an ear of corn since she represents harvest time. As the Sun moves through the Zodiac on it's yearly journey, it eventually passes into and out of the House of Bread and moves on to the next house. The Sun moves out of the constellation Virgo, the eternal Virgin, and in so doing figuratively gives birth to the Sun, as the Sun passes out of Virgo the Virgin. Connected in the gospels with this birth of the Sun, or as we are more familiar the "personified Son of the Sun, we see the association of the Virgin, the infant child, the city of the "House of Bread", and the time of the year when the Sun enters Virgo being the time of the harvest. Of course this works only for the Ancients who did not begin their calendars with Virgo but with Capricorn.
Answer for yourself: Is this but a coincidence? We saw in an earlier article on Virgo, the Virgin, the connections between the Sun passing through the

constellation Virgo and the virgin birth myth. We also saw that owing to the time of the year that the Sun passed through Virgo, we found references to the "fall harvest" so it should not surprise us that Virgo is depicted as a woman with stalks of wheat in her hand. Later when we look at the chronological study of the year ministry of Jesus Christ as depicted in the New Testament that it is in this fall of the year that we find Jesus feeding 4000 with 7 loves of bread and a few fish. Here we find more "bread symbolism". We, looking more closely, will at that time notice that there are 5 houses between Virgo and Pisces, and two more when we count Virgo and Pisces; thus totaling 7 loaves of bread. We we get there we will see more hidden symbolism connected to the path of the Sun through Virgo the Virgin. So we should not be take by surprise when we consider the connections between the Virgin, the infant, the star in the east (Sirius), and the House of Bread, Bethlehem, since it all comes from the stars as relating to Virgo, the Virgin.


what you never knew about bethlehem and the virgin

 

[angellous_evangellous]

o boy

 

[sandandfoam]

o boy

You've been listening to too much Willie and not enough Kenny Rogers

You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em

Know when to walk away, know when to run

This was a time to run

 

[dogsgod]

fallingblood, "The four Gospels, when compared together, give a very good historical record for Jesus."

OK, let's see.

How original is the story of Jesus feeding the multitudes?
Here's info from Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark.



Matthew 14

18"Bring them here to me," he said. 19And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Luke 9:14

They answered, "We have only five loaves of bread and two fish—unless we go and buy food for all this crowd." 14(About five thousand men were there.)


And where would the above story of Jesus feeding the multitudes come from?
And look at how the legend grows when Jesus does it.


2 Kings 4


Feeding of a Hundred

42 A man came from Baal Shalishah, bringing the man of God twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain, along with some heads of new grain. "Give it to the people to eat," Elisha said. 43 "How can I set this before a hundred men?" his servant asked.
But Elisha answered, "Give it to the people to eat. For this is what the LORD says: 'They will eat and have some left over.' " 44 Then he set it before them, and they ate and had some left over, according to the word of the LORD.


That's some historical record of Jesus you got there fallingblood, and that's just one example of how "original" this story is, not to mention how "historical" it is. I can offer many more "historical records" of Jesus where that came from if you like.

 

[waitasec]

Really?
The Four Gospels

[SIZE=+1]John[/SIZE] was one of the first twelve disciples of Jesus and therefore an eye-witness (John 19:35)
[SIZE=+1]Matthew[/SIZE] was one of the first twelve disciples of Jesus (Matthew 9:1; 10:1-4) and therefore an eye-witness

pwned

the gospel of john had more than one author, most scholars believe, however that it was completed 95 yrs after jesus died.

 

[sojourner]

Oh no, not all this poorly understood and in some cases blatantly wrong stuff again.

Often overheard in fundamentalist discussions of sexuality...

Where have the Kemetics gone recently?

didn't Peter, Paul & Mary do a song about this?...

 

[ninerbuff]

OK, you think this. Do you have a reason why?

Have you found in the Christian Scriptures that they were celebrating the winter solstice? Have you found in other early Christian writers (aka Church Fathers) documenting that they celebrated the birth of Christ at this time?

It seems to me that you're throwing out a religion that developed and spread AFTER Christianity began and concluding that the later religion influenced the earlier one, and then saying that a much later Christian practice was adopted because of a religion that had long died out.

You are baselessly asserting a connection when you haven't established one.

christianity couldn't have been established until jesus' disciples and followers started it after his death. The Pagan rituals, which included sex, were established celebrations long before the bible was written and distributed. Pagan rituals were demanded in the bible not to be observed. Trying to get Pagan's to give up their festivals and celebrations, christian leaders chose the end of Saturnalia's Festival (December 25) as jesus birth.

C. In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]
D. The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday.
E. Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia. As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.” The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated by drinking, sexual indulgence, singing naked in the streets (a precursor of modern caroling), etc.
Origin of Christmas | The Real Story of Christmas | How it Began

As you can see, it's not something I just asserted.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

christianity couldn't have been established until jesus' disciples and followers started it after his death. The Pagan rituals, which included sex, were established celebrations long before the bible was written and distributed. Pagan rituals were demanded in the bible not to be observed. Trying to get Pagan's to give up their festivals and celebrations, christian leaders chose the end of Saturnalia's Festival (December 25) as jesus birth.

As you can see, it's not something I just asserted.

Yes it is. Now you're asserting something different, and mixing your "evidence" into a confused mess. You're going from "established celebrations long before the Bible was written" to three and four hundred years later.

So which celebrations are you talking about? And when?

 

[ninerbuff]

Yes it is. Now you're asserting something different, and mixing your "evidence" into a confused mess. You're going from "established celebrations long before the Bible was written" to three and four hundred years later.

So which celebrations are you talking about? And when?

Let's establish some ground here first. Are pagan rituals and celebrations forbidden by god? YES.
Were the celebrations established before the christianity was? YES (or else they wouldn't have been forbidden).
Was winter soltice, Saturnalia, and other festivals rotating around December 25 long established before christmas? YES.
Was christmas established to compensate "Pagan christians" to still celebrate but clothed it as jesus birth to make it acceptable?YES.

It's not rocket science. Today many denominations of christianity are chosen by there followers because it won't disrupt their lifestyle. Some denominations are too strict, while others are more lenient.

Now just ask yourself: Why do you celebrate christmas? Do you believe that jesus was born on Dec 25?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*sigh*

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now just ask yourself: Why do you celebrate christmas? Do you believe that jesus was born on Dec 25?

OK, you start out by making obviously nonsensical connections between early Christianity and Mithras. And that was your strongest connection to the sinister and possibly hypocritical celebration of Christmas on the winter solstice.

Why should I ask nonsensical questions to myself, inspired by a person who clearly knows nothing about the history of Christianity more than he can copy and paste from idiotic websites. And on top of this, you flatly refuse to think about anything.

 

[fallingblood]

Agreed. But this is what is believed by people who follow the bible. It doesn't make sense that a book that is revered by many denominations of the christian religion should have any flaws to it if it is the spoken word of god and passed on down to the authors. Which then brings in Mystery Religions.

Honestly, I don't follow you. You flip between beliefs too rapidly.

Also, why does the Bible need to be the spoken word of God. There are plenty of Jews and Christians who do not believe that is so. From what I can gather is that the majority of Jews, all besides the most conservative, believe that the Bible is not the literal word of God. We also see Christianity beginning to follow this path as well.

That it has flaws is accepted by many Christians and Jews. Honestly, I think you started an debate, were not very well informed at all, and now are to deep over your head.