Jesus was Mithra Re-Hashed?

[David_2010]

Certainly untrue if respected contemporary historians, or scribes wrote down their history, and if they also were authors themselves.

I know this is very old, but, I just found it in the archives, and wanted to reply to it, as I've seen other people take a similar position, and it kind of annoys me (either they'll deny the existence of Jesus or another religious founder). All that we know of Alexander the Great was written down by people centuries later, by people who never knew him, I've got a biography of him by Robin Lane Fox (which I recommend), who said something similar, and that doesn't make historians doubt the existence of Alexander the Great, nor do historians doubt the existence of the Buddha, even though some of the discourses attributed to him are of a later date, and, the fact that only Plato talks about Socrates doesn't mean Socrates wasn't real either.

All the people who do attempt to deny the existence of Jesus (or Buddha, or Krishna or whoever) usually have some kind of axe to grind, either they come from an Atheistic position and want to debunk anything to do with religion, and, also, in an attempt, to try win people over to their position (kind of like how some Christian fundamentalists will try and debunk other peoples faiths or positions in order to win them over), or they use psuedo-history, which is why, usually, you'll only see their books sold on the same bookshelves, where David Icke's books, or "aliens built the pyramids" type book are sold.

 

[outhouse]

I know this is very old, but, I just found it in the archives, and wanted to reply to it, as I've seen other people take a similar position, and it kind of annoys me (either they'll deny the existence of Jesus or another religious founder). All that we know of Alexander the Great was written down by people centuries later, by people who never knew him, I've got a biography of him by Robin Lane Fox (which I recommend), who said something similar, and that doesn't make historians doubt the existence of Alexander the Great, nor do historians doubt the existence of the Buddha, even though some of the discourses attributed to him are of a later date, and, the fact that only Plato talks about Socrates doesn't mean Socrates wasn't real either.

All the people who do attempt to deny the existence of Jesus (or Buddha, or Krishna or whoever) usually have some kind of axe to grind, either they come from an Atheistic position and want to debunk anything to do with religion, and, also, in an attempt, to try win people over to their position (kind of like how some Christian fundamentalists will try and debunk other peoples faiths or positions in order to win them over), or they use psuedo-history, which is why, usually, you'll only see their books sold on the same bookshelves, where David Icke's books, or "aliens built the pyramids" type book are sold.

I play both sides of the field on this one.

your all wrong in your assumption

first its hard to say with certainty there was a real jesus

BUT

when one does enough historical work and look at what scholars have come up with you can put a little more weight into the fact there may have been a historical jesus.

you also cant blame the other side, this is not clear cut. I think you fail to realize that scholars are pulling non fiction from fiction. Add the fact of translation errors It raises my red flags on all sides of this debate.

I want to believe, and then I didnt years after based on my ignorance. I learned here in the forums and now im sitting at %60 for and %40 against.

All the people who do attempt to deny the existence of Jesus

FALSE

they dont have a ax to grind they just see the fiction or have done enough historical work to realize god didnt have a hand in creating the bible.

when you see how the bible was created in that time period it should give every christian dought about jesus