Why the Jesus Myth is illogical.

[MW0082]

Glycon;


In the middle of the 100s AD, out along the south coast of the Black Sea, Glycon was the son of the God Apollo, who: came to Earth through a miraculous birth, was the Earthly manifestation of divinity, came to earth in fulfillment of divine prophecy, gave his chief believer the power of prophecy, gave believers the power to speak in tongues, performed miracles, healed the sick, and raised the dead.

 

[MW0082]

Zoroaster/Zarathustra;

Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.” He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.” He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a eucharist. He was the “Word made flesh.” Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 AD and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

 

[MW0082]

Attis of Phrygia;

Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected.

 

[MW0082]

Horus;

Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

 

[MW0082]

There are ten messiahs/prophets that all pre-date Jesus Christ, and these are all facts, no matter how you try to twist it.

 

[Quagmire]

There are ten messiahs/prophets that all pre-date Jesus Christ, and these are all facts, no matter how you try to twist it.

I love it when someone bombards a thread with a lot of off-topic, cut&paste crappalloa in response to an OP that they obviously don't even understand.

MW0082? Here's the deal:

Fallingblood isn't trying to argue that myths don't exist,

...or that there aren't myths surrounding the Jesus character,

...or that any of these myths are true or even original.

What he's arguing against is the idea that the character of Jesus is strictly mythical, with no historical basis.

Please take a moment to try and understand what a thread is about before posting in it. And while we're at it, do us all a favor: please stop with the cut&paste crap. If any of us wanted to read any of the stuff in your posts there are 60 other places on the web where it's already posted verbatim.

This forum is for telling us what you think about any given topic, not what came up when you googled it.

 

[MW0082]

I love it when someone bombards a thread with a lot of off-topic, cut&paste crappalloa in response to an OP that they obviously don't even understand.

MW0082? Here's the deal:

Fallingblood isn't trying to argue that myths don't exist,

...or that there aren't myths surrounding the Jesus character,

...or that any of these myths are true or even original.

What he's arguing against is the idea that the character of Jesus is strictly mythical, with no historical basis.

Please take a moment to try and understand what a thread is about before posting in it. And while we're at it, do us all a favor: please stop with the cut&paste crap. If any of us wanted to read any of the stuff in your posts there are 60 other places on the web where it's already posted verbatim.

This forum is for telling us what you think about any given topic, not what came up when you googled it.

I am sorry you felt that is what I was doing.I was answering Fallingblood about another thread, which this thread originated from and is also now closed. I should have maybe pm'd them or not hijacked the thread. I apologize......

 

[Quagmire]

I am sorry you felt that is what I was doing.I was answering Fallingblood about another thread, which this thread originated from and is also now closed. I should have maybe pm'd them or not hijacked the thread. I apologize......

Accepted. And I apologize if I went overboard with the reprimand (which I'm thinking I did at this point).

 

[dogsgod]

I love it when someone bombards a thread with a lot of off-topic, cut&paste crappalloa in response to an OP that they obviously don't even understand.

MW0082? Here's the deal:

Fallingblood isn't trying to argue that myths don't exist,

...or that there aren't myths surrounding the Jesus character,

...or that any of these myths are true or even original.

What he's arguing against is the idea that the character of Jesus is strictly mythical, with no historical basis.

Please take a moment to try and understand what a thread is about before posting in it. And while we're at it, do us all a favor: please stop with the cut&paste crap. If any of us wanted to read any of the stuff in your posts there are 60 other places on the web where it's already posted verbatim.

This forum is for telling us what you think about any given topic, not what came up when you googled it.

Yes he is trying to argue that myths don't exist, particularly this one. In fact he and Oberon are trying to tell us that the gospels are histories much the same as what we have for Augustus Caesar. If they can't make a distinction between the type of historical information and the sources we have for Augustus Caesar and that of Jesus Christ then there is no wonder that they see an historical Christ and always will.

 

[Quagmire]

Yes he is trying to argue that myths don't exist,

No, he isn't. If that's what you got out of the OP, you either need glasses or a reading comprehension class.

 

[dogsgod]

No, he isn't. If that's what you got out of the OP, you either need glasses or a reading comprehension class.

fallingblood and Oberon believe that the gospels are historical account of actual events, events that have been exaggerated, but historical non the less, and those that don't see it that way don't, in their words, understand how histories are written.

 

[dogsgod]

No, he isn't. If that's what you got out of the OP, you either need glasses or a reading comprehension class.

The following is what Oberon states and fallingblood would no doubt agree:


Writing about a mythical person is nothing special. However, when one considers this work while looking at other works of the time, all the sudden things change. We do have evidence that biographies of real people could contain miracles and myths, even when the person being documented was alive only a (relatively) short while ago. What we don't have is evidence of a type biographical or even allegorical historical fiction. To assert that Mark somehow invented Jesus or set a mythical character into what would have been considered to be a historical text is to assert that Mark was something of a literary genius. Not only is this an a priori unlikelihood, studies of ancient genres show that the gospels have a great deal more in common with ancient biographies than with mythic texts. Of course, in order to understand this, one would have to
1) not already have made up their minds to the point of being determined not to review evidence contradicting one's theory
2) actually look at scholarship
3) maybe even read some primary texts

A lot to ask for, I know.



That is so far out to the furthest edges of the extreme that I don't even see the point in providing a counter argument. I say at this point, let them believe what they will, because they will anyways.

 

[waitasec]

Recently, we have had a few threads sprout up about whether or not Jesus existed. A few members on this forum have argued that Jesus is nothing more than a myth. The basis of that idea though, as we will see, is completely illogical.

There is a little background that is needed. First, Jesus was a Jew. The earliest writer we have that mentions him, Paul, was a Jew. The Gospel writers, with the exception of Luke, were Jews. Throughout the Gospels, we see Jesus within Judaism. More so, he is in Israel, the Jewish homeland. Jesus is firmly in Judaism. That is important.

Now, if we are to believe that Jesus was simply created, we have to ask why. Is there a logical reason for any Jew to create Jesus? I would have to say there isn't.

The reason is quite simple. When we look at Jesus, a couple of things pop out. Jesus was being portrayed as the Messiah and Jesus died on the cross. Here is the problem. As soon as Jesus died, according to Judaism, Jesus was a failed Messiah. Not a very logical story for a group trying to prove a Messiah.

At the same time though, there was no lack of supposed Messiahs, or failed Messiahs. There was no reason to create another figure who was a failed Messiah and was not anything wholly unique. His message was the same message others were preaching. He was just one more faith healer. And he was just one more supposed Messiah who was crucified.

There are a couple of other illogical reasons to assume it is made up. First, the story is flawed. Early Christians were trying to claim that Jesus was sinless, perfect. Yet, at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, we see Jesus being baptized by John. There would be no reason for this if Jesus was perfect. It's an embarrassing story, which would have been better left out.

Another is that Jesus was from Nazareth. Some Jesus mythers claim that Nazareth didn't even exist during that time so the idea is that the creators of Jesus also created a city to fit him. The problem is that we know Nazareth existed in the first century. We have archeological records from that time showing that Nazareth was a village in the first century. However, it was a village that was of little importance. It was of such little importance it wasn't mentioned in literature until well after Jesus died. It had no religious significance, no political significance, really no significance at all. Instead though, we see Matthew and Luke going through work just to show that this Jesus of Nazareth actually was born in Bethlehem. If Jesus was created, one would assume they would just have had him from Bethlehem instead of putting him in an obscure village and then creating a story how he had to go to Bethlehem to be born.

The most embarrassing aspect of the life of Jesus though is that he died. When he died, he was proven to be a failed messiah. There is no logical reason that the Jews would have created a story about a failed messiah who died such a humiliating death.


One final thing though. Many of the Jesus mythers claim that Jesus was copied from other god men. But lets look at Augustus quickly. He was considered to be the son of a god. He was considered to be a god, at least in Egypt. He was considered the savior, redeemer of the world. I mention that because he has the same similarities with Jesus as other claim that these god men do, yet no one doubts that Augustus lived.

The idea that Jesus was simply a myth is illogical.

are you saying that jesus actually performed miracles, and resurrected from the dead?

 

[Quagmire]

fallingblood and Oberon believe that the gospels are historical account of actual events,

They are: the ministry of John the Baptist, the reign of Herod, Roman oppression of Judea...I know this is just going to bounce off like it always does.

You just don't seem to be able to get it through your head (although I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is an act) that you don't have to pick between " I believe the gospels are 100% true and accurate" and "The Gospels are entirely fiction and completely worthless as history".

In fact, IMO anyone who holds either of those opinions never gave any of it any serious thought.

events that have been exaggerated, but historical non the less, and those that don't see it that way don't, in their words, understand how histories are written.

And they're right.

 

[Quagmire]

The following is what Oberon states and fallingblood would no doubt agree:


Writing about a mythical person is nothing special. However, when one considers this work while looking at other works of the time, all the sudden things change. We do have evidence that biographies of real people could contain miracles and myths, even when the person being documented was alive only a (relatively) short while ago. What we don't have is evidence of a type biographical or even allegorical historical fiction. To assert that Mark somehow invented Jesus or set a mythical character into what would have been considered to be a historical text is to assert that Mark was something of a literary genius. Not only is this an a priori unlikelihood, studies of ancient genres show that the gospels have a great deal more in common with ancient biographies than with mythic texts. Of course, in order to understand this, one would have to
1) not already have made up their minds to the point of being determined not to review evidence contradicting one's theory
2) actually look at scholarship
3) maybe even read some primary texts

A lot to ask for, I know.



That is so far out to the furthest edges of the extreme that I don't even see the point in providing a counter argument. I say at this point, let them believe what they will, because they will anyways.

You obviously have no clue at all what Oberon is saying here.

 

[dogsgod]

You obviously have no clue at all what Oberon is saying here.

If you say so.

 

[Quagmire]

If you say so.

That fact speaks for itself.

 

[MW0082]

That fact speaks for itself.

what does that proof?

you get it or you don't.....? I would think a guy as miraculous as Jesus would make sure we would all get it.... And where is it 100% proven that Jesus Christ existed? I have yet to see this untouchable and undeniable evidence of such a man?

Oh it's a myth and that's where we base our faith.... I call that bullocks. Give me REAL proof this guy existed, not brainwashed inaccurate astrological allegories and tell me to have 'faith".

 

[fallingblood]

are you saying that jesus actually performed miracles, and resurrected from the dead?

Not at all. I don't believe in the supernatural aspect of Jesus, such as a virgin birth, resurrection, or the outlandish miracles.

I believe that Jesus was a "miracle worker" in the same way that there were other so called "miracle workers" running around during the same time. I would not say that the miracles that Jesus performed had any supernatural backing though. They were simply determined to be miracles as his audience knew no better.

 

[MW0082]

Accepted. And I apologize if I went overboard with the reprimand (which I'm thinking I did at this point).

It's cool....