Jesus story isn't original

[fallingblood]

Is it probable that the story of jesus is exaggerated like those of Horus and Heracles because of the similarities?

Yes, the life of Jesus was exaggerated; however, if you look at the lives of Heracles and Horus, the information predating Christianity, there are few similarities. Nothing to really question.

 

[ninerbuff]

Yes, the life of Jesus was exaggerated; however, if you look at the lives of Heracles and Horus, the information predating Christianity, there are few similarities. Nothing to really question.

But the main ones being:
1. Father was a god
2. They took on a human form
3. They were heralded as saviors (in the sense that they would save the world)
4. Died
5. Were resurrected and now are gods.

And the same with jesus. Yes?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But the main ones being:
1. Father was a god
2. They took on a human form
3. They were heralded as saviors (in the sense that they would save the world)
4. Died
5. Were resurrected and now are gods.

And the same with jesus. Yes?

There are limits to his ability to reason, fallingblood.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But the main ones being:
1. Father was a god
2. They took on a human form
3. They were heralded as saviors (in the sense that they would save the world)
4. Died
5. Were resurrected and now are gods.

And the same with jesus. Yes?

This stuff is spammed on the internet so much that I half expect to see it scribbled on a bathroom wall somewhere.

 

[fallingblood]

But the main ones being:
1. Father was a god
2. They took on a human form
3. They were heralded as saviors (in the sense that they would save the world)
4. Died
5. Were resurrected and now are gods.

And the same with jesus. Yes?

1) The main defense of Jesus being the actual biological son of God is in Matthew and Luke. There are other verses that Christians use to support the idea that Jesus is the son of God, but those are shaky at best.

The birth narratives though were added at a later time. This is very much like the birth stories of Buddha, Augustus, and Alexander the Great. Each one of those historical individuals had miraculous birth stories attributed to them later on.

We can be relatively sure that the birth narratives were added later on for a couple of reasons. The first being that the first Gospel we know of, the Gospel of Mark, did not contain a birth narrative. More so though, the first record we have of Jesus, Paul, never mentions the birth story of Jesus. It is not until Matthew and Luke that we see the birth story, suggesting it was a later addition. More so, looking at the defense that Matthew uses, that it was predicted that Jesus would be born of a virgin, suggests that there was more than just a historical motivation to adding the story.

That is the big difference. The virgin story of Jesus is more similar to that of Augustus, Buddha, and Alexander the Great. It was a later addition. It was used to show an important beginning to an important life. The stories of the figures you are talking about are very different.

By itself, since we know that other historical people claimed to be the sons of a god, or had a miraculous birth, it really leads us no where unless you want to discredit all who had that claim.

2) The Gospels do not state outright that Jesus is God or the incarnate of God. The Gospels, as well as Paul, do label Jesus as a human. Only John really adds a good defense of the idea that Jesus was God in human form.

Mark, Matthew, and Luke may show that Jesus was divine, which Buddha, Alexander the Great, and Augustus were also considered, but there isn't much evidence they believed him to be God. Even in John, the evidence is shaky.

3) Jesus was only labeled as the savior after the fact. However, few of those other individuals were labeled as saviors of human kind.

4) Everyone dies. Not a good argument.

5) Jesus didn't resurrect to become a God. He resurrected in the same sense that everyone was suppose to resurrect later on in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. The resurrection itself fits well within the Jewish idea at that time.

More so, how many of those individuals actually were resurrected?

What you are doing here is taking the lives of multiple god-men and assuming that it was true for all of them. If you do an actual search on the life of those god-men, the stories that predated Jesus, you would see that few of them actually had more than one or two similarities with Jesus. The fact is, they would have those same similarities with various other humans at that time (or at least what was told about them).

 

[fallingblood]

There are limits to his ability to reason, fallingblood.

Very true.

 

[logician]

Yeah, we know, the Jesus story was true and original, the rest are made up phoney baloney.

Please try somethng else, this is getting tiresome.

 

[ninerbuff]

There are limits to his ability to reason, fallingblood.

Unless you want to really reason, save the insults. Thanks.

 

[ninerbuff]

1) The main defense of Jesus being the actual biological son of God is in Matthew and Luke. There are other verses that Christians use to support the idea that Jesus is the son of God, but those are shaky at best.

The birth narratives though were added at a later time. This is very much like the birth stories of Buddha, Augustus, and Alexander the Great. Each one of those historical individuals had miraculous birth stories attributed to them later on.

We can be relatively sure that the birth narratives were added later on for a couple of reasons. The first being that the first Gospel we know of, the Gospel of Mark, did not contain a birth narrative. More so though, the first record we have of Jesus, Paul, never mentions the birth story of Jesus. It is not until Matthew and Luke that we see the birth story, suggesting it was a later addition. More so, looking at the defense that Matthew uses, that it was predicted that Jesus would be born of a virgin, suggests that there was more than just a historical motivation to adding the story.

That is the big difference. The virgin story of Jesus is more similar to that of Augustus, Buddha, and Alexander the Great. It was a later addition. It was used to show an important beginning to an important life. The stories of the figures you are talking about are very different.

By itself, since we know that other historical people claimed to be the sons of a god, or had a miraculous birth, it really leads us no where unless you want to discredit all who had that claim.

If the question was posed to the average christian that doesn't possess your knowledge, "Who was jesus father?" I would bet more than 90% would say god. It's what they know from the story.

2) The Gospels do not state outright that Jesus is God or the incarnate of God. The Gospels, as well as Paul, do label Jesus as a human. Only John really adds a good defense of the idea that Jesus was God in human form.

Mark, Matthew, and Luke may show that Jesus was divine, which Buddha, Alexander the Great, and Augustus were also considered, but there isn't much evidence they believed him to be God. Even in John, the evidence is shaky.

The belief was jesus dwelt among men as a human. That was the only point I was inferring here.

3) Jesus was only labeled as the savior after the fact. However, few of those other individuals were labeled as saviors of human kind.

But still the story states that jesus was a savior.

4) Everyone dies. Not a good argument.

Yes everyone dies. My bad. I should have added that jesus, like some of the others died a death to help save mankind.

5) Jesus didn't resurrect to become a God. He resurrected in the same sense that everyone was suppose to resurrect later on in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. The resurrection itself fits well within the Jewish idea at that time.

The trinity is well known amongst christians and refers to jesus being one of the 3 persons in one god. I hear ya on the Jewish idea, but it's christianity that deems him a god.
http://www.bible-knowledge.com/trinity-god-jesus-holy-spirit/

More so, how many of those individuals actually were resurrected?

What you are doing here is taking the lives of multiple god-men and assuming that it was true for all of them. If you do an actual search on the life of those god-men, the stories that predated Jesus, you would see that few of them actually had more than one or two similarities with Jesus. The fact is, they would have those same similarities with various other humans at that time (or at least what was told about them).

I don't think I was out of line saying that jesus story isn't original since stories that predate his birth/life have similarities. Success from ideas or concepts are copied because they succeeded.

 

[fallingblood]

If the question was posed to the average christian that doesn't possess your knowledge, "Who was jesus father?" I would bet more than 90% would say god. It's what they know from the story.

If you asked the average layman how Harry Houdini died, you would probably get that he died doing one of his tricks. Not many people actually know the cause of his death. Does that really matter though? Ignorance does not prove anything.

The belief was jesus dwelt among men as a human. That was the only point I was inferring here.

I understand, but the point doesn't prove anything. The reason being that we also see Augustus, who was literally called a son of a god, dwelt here among men as human as well. Even Julius Caesar, who would later be deified, dwelt among men as a human. Jesus was not special in this regard when compared to other historical figures around that time. The main difference is that Jesus was a Jewish peasant.

But still the story states that jesus was a savior.

Does Jesus ever say he is the savior? Are you aware of how many historical people are considered saviors? There are quite a few. And are you aware how many of those god-men were considered saviors? Not many. Especially not saviors in the regard of Jesus; a worldly savior.

Yes everyone dies. My bad. I should have added that jesus, like some of the others died a death to help save mankind.

That's not why Jesus died. He died because he was a criminal.

The trinity is well known amongst christians and refers to jesus being one of the 3 persons in one god. I hear ya on the Jewish idea, but it's christianity that deems him a god.
http://www.bible-knowledge.com/trinity-god-jesus-holy-spirit/

Can you point to the Bible where it talks about the Trinity? Honestly, it's not in there. It wasn't until 3 or 4 generations after Jesus that the idea of the Trinity was really created. That was much later tradition. And actually, there were many Christians who did not think of Jesus as God. L. Michael White's book From Jesus to Christianity is a great source on this subject.

I don't think I was out of line saying that jesus story isn't original since stories that predate his birth/life have similarities. Success from ideas or concepts are copied because they succeeded.

I would say that Jesus wasn't original in the same way that no one is completely original. However, the key here is to also see that we know that historical people had the same attributes added to them as well. One great example is Augustus. I keep coming back to him because there is no doubt he existed from the wealth of information we have about him.

 

[fallingblood]

Yeah, we know, the Jesus story was true and original, the rest are made up phoney baloney.

Please try somethng else, this is getting tiresome.

I agree. Your one liners with no substance are getting quite tiresome. Ever thought about actually debating and doing some real research?

 

[dogsgod]

OK MR Research, what's original about the Mediterranean dying and rising god myths of saviors? Is there no evidence for pre-Christian dying and rising gods?

 

[Atomist]

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.

You forget that the Romans took records that were of significance... and walking on water or his Crucifixion or water into wine seems to be of significance... but if you're saying jesus existed but those things didn't necessarily happen... well I don't know what to tell you, but how is that jesus is any meaningful sense.

Edit: fallingblood I think you're arguing a jesus character existed but was just a regular man... I have no problem accepting that... but I feel like it's a strawman since was is being argued is if Jesus of the bible existed, which includes all the miracles and "son of god". The answer is still no, even if there was a Jesus character that the mythology was based on.

 

[ninerbuff]

If you asked the average layman how Harry Houdini died, you would probably get that he died doing one of his tricks. Not many people actually know the cause of his death. Does that really matter though? Ignorance does not prove anything.

I disagree. It proves that being uninformed leads to wrong assumptions.

I understand, but the point doesn't prove anything. The reason being that we also see Augustus, who was literally called a son of a god, dwelt here among men as human as well. Even Julius Caesar, who would later be deified, dwelt among men as a human. Jesus was not special in this regard when compared to other historical figures around that time. The main difference is that Jesus was a Jewish peasant.

It proves the point that being human was also indicated in stories that predate him.

Does Jesus ever say he is the savior? Are you aware of how many historical people are considered saviors? There are quite a few. And are you aware how many of those god-men were considered saviors? Not many. Especially not saviors in the regard of Jesus; a worldly savior.

Though he doesn't say it, the story is that he is considered a savoir in christian belief.

That's not why Jesus died. He died because he was a criminal.

I agree. I'm referring to accepted story that he died to save mankind from sin. This is not refuted by christians.

Can you point to the Bible where it talks about the Trinity? Honestly, it's not in there. It wasn't until 3 or 4 generations after Jesus that the idea of the Trinity was really created. That was much later tradition. And actually, there were many Christians who did not think of Jesus as God. L. Michael White's book From Jesus to Christianity is a great source on this subject.

Again I agree. This is a belief that accepted by many denominations of christianity though.

I would say that Jesus wasn't original in the same way that no one is completely original. However, the key here is to also see that we know that historical people had the same attributes added to them as well. One great example is Augustus. I keep coming back to him because there is no doubt he existed from the wealth of information we have about him.

When I refer to the story of jesus, I base it on "common" knowledge of the average christian. It's obvious you are much more knowledeable with the origin and historical data, but you're looking at it from that view and not that of the average christian.

 

[fallingblood]

You forget that the Romans took records that were of significance... and walking on water or his Crucifixion or water into wine seems to be of significance... but if you're saying jesus existed but those things didn't necessarily happen... well I don't know what to tell you, but how is that jesus is any meaningful sense.

Edit: fallingblood I think you're arguing a jesus character existed but was just a regular man... I have no problem accepting that... but I feel like it's a strawman since was is being argued is if Jesus of the bible existed, which includes all the miracles and "son of god". The answer is still no, even if there was a Jesus character that the mythology was based on.

I do argue that there is a historical being behind the Biblical Jesus, as you said.

I do believe that this figure did perform what could have been called miracles. If we look at different parts of India and the area around that, we still see figures that perform "miracles" and the such that Jesus did. I think over time though, they were exaggerated, as happens in an oral culture, and when finally written down, only contained the gist of what actually happened.

 

[Atomist]

I do argue that there is a historical being behind the Biblical Jesus, as you said.

I do believe that this figure did perform what could have been called miracles. If we look at different parts of India and the area around that, we still see figures that perform "miracles" and the such that Jesus did. I think over time though, they were exaggerated, as happens in an oral culture, and when finally written down, only contained the gist of what actually happened.

At what point is the miracle exaggerated vs a normal miracle? Like walking on water vs? or like healing the blind vs? or like turning water into wine vs? I'm confused.

 

[fallingblood]

I disagree. It proves that being uninformed leads to wrong assumptions.

I could agree with that to a point. It was a wrong assumption that Jesus was born of God. However, scholars acknowledge that, and state what most likely happened, Jesus was born of two earthly people in a non-miraculous way.

It proves the point that being human was also indicated in stories that predate him.

I don't see how this really matters if trying to prove that he was similar to those other god-men, many of which were never considered to be fully human.

Though he doesn't say it, the story is that he is considered a savoir in christian belief.

When did that Christian belief originate? I would say Paul didn't believe that in the modern sense of it. I also would say that the authors of Mark, at least, and quite possibly Matthew and Luke did not believe that either. John possibly did. So seeing when that belief originated plays a major importance here.

I agree. I'm referring to accepted story that he died to save mankind from sin. This is not refuted by christians.

I wouldn't put much weight on many of the opinions of Christians. Primarily because their beliefs do not reflect exactly what the Bible teaches.

Again I agree. This is a belief that accepted by many denominations of christianity though.

It may be accepted, but the origin of that belief must be found.

When I refer to the story of jesus, I base it on "common" knowledge of the average christian. It's obvious you are much more knowledeable with the origin and historical data, but you're looking at it from that view and not that of the average christian.

True. I'm also looking at it from a non-Christian perspective. It is also the reason that I believe a Jesus did exist.

The average Christian perspective is uniformed. Being so, it is not a good place to start when searching for a historical Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

At what point is the miracle exaggerated vs a normal miracle? Like walking on water vs? or like healing the blind vs? or like turning water into wine vs? I'm confused.

I will give you an example from my life. I'm a professional entertainer specializing in magic and comedy. In this profession, I've have people come up to me and swear that I levitated three or four feet off the ground, when in reality, it was more like three or four inches. They swear that it was real, when logically, we know that I was simply performing a magic trick.

There was a real trick, but it was exaggerated into something completely new.

We can also see this in some places in India, where there are individuals still worshipped as gods. One of the highly used tricks among these individuals is where they seemingly read the minds, and answer questions that their followers had, even those those questions were never vocally asked. What the followers forget is that before hand, they had written down the questions they wanted answered, and the "god" secretly sneaked a peak. The fact that the question was written down doesn't matter and is forgotten. What is remembered is that the god figure was able to read their minds.

I believe this is very similar to what happened with Jesus. Some of the events were simply made up either for theological reasons, or because followers swore they actually saw those things happen (which is common even today. I mean I even get the same thing, partially because people get confused). Other events happened to a point, something logically possible, but later exaggerated to seem much more impressive.

 

[Watchmen]

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.

Or, maybe God was telling the story from the beginning so people would know what to expect and look for.

 

[dogsgod]

I will give you an example from my life. I'm a professional entertainer specializing in magic and comedy. In this profession, I've have people come up to me and swear that I levitated three or four feet off the ground, when in reality, it was more like three or four inches. They swear that it was real, when logically, we know that I was simply performing a magic trick.

There was a real trick, but it was exaggerated into something completely new.

We can also see this in some places in India, where there are individuals still worshipped as gods. One of the highly used tricks among these individuals is where they seemingly read the minds, and answer questions that their followers had, even those those questions were never vocally asked. What the followers forget is that before hand, they had written down the questions they wanted answered, and the "god" secretly sneaked a peak. The fact that the question was written down doesn't matter and is forgotten. What is remembered is that the god figure was able to read their minds.

I believe this is very similar to what happened with Jesus. Some of the events were simply made up either for theological reasons, or because followers swore they actually saw those things happen (which is common even today. I mean I even get the same thing, partially because people get confused). Other events happened to a point, something logically possible, but later exaggerated to seem much more impressive.

The absurdity here is that the Jesus story follows the classic story line of good vs evil. It begins with a story that sets the plot. Hero fictions are written that way and the gospels follow that template. The story has a beginning that sets the plot, a middle part to define the characters, and then a climax where the hero is as close to death as can be after confronting evil, but in the end triumphs, and lives on, fading into the sunset to continue his work elsewhere, wherever it is needed. Now believers want to believe that there is a real Jesus behind the myth, fine, but please keep it to yourself and stop insulting our intelligence.