Jesus was Mithra Re-Hashed?

[Popeyesays]

Really?

Despite any problems with logician's list, there are a crazy number of similarities between Jesus and characters in earlier religious stories... enough that, IMO, the chances that a person literally existed who actually matched them are so slim as to be effectively zero.

Jesus was not the ONLY itinerant Rabbi in Palestine at the time, there were apparently a number of them. That one existed who was named Yehoshua and was born in nazareth is not so terribly surprising whatever the similarities might be to other religious avatars from earlier times--or later times for that matter.

There is a great deal MORE reason to doubt the existence of an historical Osiris, since Osiris is more hagiographical than an itinerant Jewish Rabbi in first century AD Palestine.

In other words Osiris is far more "myth based" than Jesus.

regards,
Scott

 

[Smoke]

Despite any problems with logician's list, there are a crazy number of similarities between Jesus and characters in earlier religious stories... enough that, IMO, the chances that a person literally existed who actually matched them are so slim as to be effectively zero.

There's not really any serious doubt that Jesus existed. There's also no serious doubt the the gospels embellished his story with mythological elements. There's no reason to believe the cherry tree story, but we don't conclude from that that George Washington never existed. At the same time, we don't conclude that since George Washington existed, the cherry tree story must be true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus was not the ONLY itinerant Rabbi in Palestine at the time, there were apparently a number of them. That one existed who was named Yehoshua and was born in nazareth is not so terribly surprising whatever the similarities might be to other religious avatars from earlier times--or later times for that matter.

There may have been many Rabbis in the right area at the right time. There may have even been a few who were sons of carpenters and were named Yehoshua, Yeshua, or whatever other name you pick, It doesn't logically follow, though, that the Bible was based on any of them.

There is a great deal MORE reason to doubt the existence of an historical Osiris, since Osiris is more hagiographical than an itinerant Jewish Rabbi in first century AD Palestine.

In other words Osiris is far more "myth based" than Jesus.

Though if Jesus is Osiris-based (as Tom Harpur has suggested), then where does that get you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's not really any serious doubt that Jesus existed. There's also no serious doubt the the gospels embellished his story with mythological elements. There's no reason to believe the cherry tree story, but we don't conclude from that that George Washington never existed. At the same time, we don't conclude that since George Washington existed, the cherry tree story must be true.

With George Washington, you have plenty of other evidence. With Jesus, the only evidence is the one account: the Bible.

If the only hint we had that George Washington existed was the cherry tree story, and the story was thought to be false, would it still be reasonable to believe he necessarily existed?

 

[Popeyesays]

There may have been many Rabbis in the right area at the right time. There may have even been a few who were sons of carpenters and were named Yehoshua, Yeshua, or whatever other name you pick, It doesn't logically follow, though, that the Bible was based on any of them.


Though if Jesus is Osiris-based (as Tom Harpur has suggested), then where does that get you?

That Tom Harpur has advanced an interesting theory that does not stand up to rational examination.

Scholars postulate lots of things, many of those postulations crumble under examination--this is one of those.

Regards,
Scott

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Scholars postulate lots of things, many of those postulations crumble under examination--this is one of those.

I read The Pagan Christ and didn't see any obvious problems with his conclusions. In what way does his hypothesis "crumble"?

 

[Smoke]

With George Washington, you have plenty of other evidence. With Jesus, the only evidence is the one account: the Bible.

If the only hint we had that George Washington existed was the cherry tree story, and the story was thought to be false, would it still be reasonable to believe he necessarily existed?

Well, the cherry tree story comes from Parson Weems, who -- like the authors of the gospels -- mixed fact with fiction. The task of the scholar is to sort them out.

We don't have any contemporary evidence for Jesus' existence, but that's true of more ancient historical figures than you might think. The evidence that exists for Jesus is pretty near contemporary, much more so than for many other people. At the time Mark was written, for instance, there would have been people who remembered Jesus quite well who were no older than I am now. We also know that there was a Jesus community at Jerusalem from a very early date.

We also know that Paul did exist, and while there's no evidence that Paul knew Jesus personally, he does set himself in opposition to people whom he admits did know Jesus. He even refers to his nemesis, James, as "the Lord's brother." If James were not in fact Jesus' brother, and known to be so, why would Paul characterize him that way? It just lends credibility to his enemy. The reasonable conclusion is that James was in fact Jesus' brother, and was known to be so at the time Paul was active.

 

[Popeyesays]

It just isn't reasonable to look at the effect the Christ religion has had throughout history and assume it is based on the teachings of someone who never really existed at all.

Sure, there is a huuuuuuuge amount of myth involved in "Jesus". To think it is 100% myth is not reasonable.

Regards,
Scott

 

[logician]

It just isn't reasonable to look at the effect the Christ religion has had throughout history and assume it is based on the teachings of someone who never really existed at all.

Regards,
Scott

This "bandwagon" theory is simply false and has no support. Just because a myth is perpetrated well doesn't turn it into the truth.

 

[Popeyesays]

This "bandwagon" theory is simply false and has no support. Just because a myth is perpetrated well doesn't turn it into the truth.

Well, your theory is simply false and has no more support than mine. So, "Nonny-nonny-boo-boo".

Regards,
Scott

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It just isn't reasonable to look at the effect the Christ religion has had throughout history and assume it is based on the teachings of someone who never really existed at all.

Why?

Religions have borrowed concepts, characters and beliefs from older faiths for all of human history. What's special about Christianity that would make it immune to this?

 

[Popeyesays]

Why?

Religions have borrowed concepts, characters and beliefs from older faiths for all of human history. What's special about Christianity that would make it immune to this?

Christianity only exists because the Apostles of Christ put forth effort to bring the Cause of Christ to the people of the day and age.

What you postulate is that the Twelve created Christianity out of whole cloth and perpetrated it on the world in some kind of conspiracy.

That is not reasonable. Why put forth effort to create a religion in someone else's name?

Occam's Razor refuses to shave your argument.

Regards,
Scott

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christianity only exists because the Apostles of Christ put forth effort to bring the Cause of Christ to the people of the day and age.

What you postulate is that the Twelve created Christianity out of whole cloth and perpetrated it on the world in some kind of conspiracy.

Not the Twelve, the One: the Christianity we have today comes only from Paul.

And not out of whole cloth, but borrowing heavily from previous religions.

That is not reasonable. Why put forth effort to create a religion in someone else's name?

I don't know. Personal glory? Delusion? There could be lots of reasons.

Occam's Razor refuses to shave your argument.

On the contrary - I think Occam's Razor favours the explanation that only requires one dishonest, misguided or misunderstood person over the one that requires the incarnation of a deity, or that a living person match up so cleanly with previous mythology.

 

[Popeyesays]

Not the Twelve, the One: the Christianity we have today comes only from Paul.

And not out of whole cloth, but borrowing heavily from previous religions.


I don't know. Personal glory? Delusion? There could be lots of reasons.


On the contrary - I think Occam's Razor favours the explanation that only requires one dishonest, misguided or misunderstood person over the one that requires the incarnation of a deity, or that a living person match up so cleanly with previous mythology.

Nonsaense. Peter is as large a contributor to Christianity as Paul, and has at least a shred of authority to claim. The Roman church is based on the authority of Paul. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have far greater influence upon Christianity than Paul. Paul is merely a commentator.

I do not accept Paul as authoritative, but a guidance? Of course, I do.

Tell me what "glory" does Paul create for himself? Peter? Matthew? Mark? Luke? John?

It was the faith of Christ that was carried beyond the reach of the destruction of Jerusalem, not the faith of Paul.

Regards,
Scott

 

[logician]

"Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have far greater influence upon Christianity than Paul"

Except Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did ont write the gospels, unkown authors did much after the supposed time of Christ. The disciples, just like Jesus, were made up personages.

 

[Popeyesays]

"Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have far greater influence upon Christianity than Paul"

Except Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did ont write the gospels, unkown authors did much after the supposed time of Christ. The disciples, just like Jesus, were made up personages.

Let's see, the best contemporary study of Napoleon at war is the book by con Clausewitz. Are you going to suggest he doesn't exist? Napoleon does not exist because he did not write his own book.

Did Homer exist? Dante? Plato, Aristotle? Muhammed?

You can only stretch a ridiculous argument so far . . . . . SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You can only stretch a ridiculous argument so far . . . . . SNAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That evaluation of the preceding comment is either ignorant or dishonest. Nobody is suggesting that the quality of NT authorship proves it to be inaccurate. What people are saying is that the NT makes extraordinary claims that lack credibility, and that the quality of NT authorship is far from sufficient to bridge this credibility gap. To accept the virgin birth narrative because of 'Matthew' wrote it is ludicrous.

 

[Popeyesays]

That evaluation of the preceding comment is either ignorant or dishonest. Nobody is suggesting that the quality of NT authorship proves it to be inaccurate. What people are saying is that the NT makes extraordinary claims that lack credibility, and that the quality of NT authorship is far from sufficient to bridge this credibility gap. To accept the virgin birth narrative because of 'Matthew' wrote it is ludicrous.

Personally, the Virgin Birth does not bother me at all. I have outside corroboration that it is true--the Qur'an and the Baha`i Writings.

That God could will a woman to bear a child without the interference of spermatazoa is not ludicrous.

To me it is the Will of God that caused all of Creation.

To you it is not.

That we don't agree is not a big deal. Either we will come to knowledge of the Truth in the next life or we will be snuffed out upon death to never ask a question again.

What the real outcome will be is not something we can conclusively debate.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Personally, the Virgin Birth does not bother me at all. I have outside corroboration that it is true--the Qur'an and the Baha`i Writings.

That pretty much says it all.

 

[Popeyesays]

That pretty much says it all.

To repeat myselof without snippage:

"That God could will a woman to bear a child without the interference of spermatazoa is not ludicrous.

To me it is the Will of God that caused all of Creation.

To you it is not.

That we don't agree is not a big deal. Either we will come to knowledge of the Truth in the next life or we will be snuffed out upon death to never ask a question again.

What the real outcome will be is not something we can conclusively debate.

Regards,
Scott"