|
|
|
|
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/30/2008 5:21:38 PM | Did the Jesus of the Gospels even exist? That's the question this documentary asks. I've only seen a small portion of it. Anyone seen the whole thing?
Here's a small selection of the arguments made:
The divine Jesus was based on older, mythic "savior figures" such as Thor, Balder, Deva tat, Dionysus, Mithras, Bacchus and Horus, arguing that these figures shared most of a set of key characteristics with Jesus, including being born of a virgin on December 25, being killed on a cross or tree, being visited by Magi from the East, riding donkeys into the city, being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, etc. Flemming accuses Christian leaders of being reluctant to teach early church history because it supports, rather than debunks, the idea that Jesus was a mythic figure rather than a historic personage.
Christianity's global success is based on its claim to historical accuracy, as compared to most other mythologies, which exist in the realm of metaphor and moral parable, such as those of the ancient Greeks, who did not claim that Zeus walked the earth thousands of years ago, or the followers of Mithras or Osiris, who never claimed to have documentary proof of the physical existence of their gods. Flemming argues that Christianity bases its claim to moral authority on the assertion that God placed his own essence on Earth at a particular time and place, which can be documented, and that the evidence typically offered for this does not withstand close scrutiny.
The letters of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, which were written before the Gospels, omit most of the events from the traditional life of Jesus, which Flemming argues Paul would never have omitted from his arguments unless he had never heard of them. Flemming asserts that Paul mentions only the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension, and presents them as having occurred in a mythic realm, rather than an Earthly one.
Jesus's life as a living person can be disproven by the fact that Paul seemed unaware of Jesus's life despite writing shortly after Jesus was supposed to have died, with Jesus's biography first provided by the Gospels of Mark, John, Matthew, and Luke, written around the end of the first century A.D. The film suggests that modern Christians aren't taught about early history of their religion because doing so would call the historicity of Jesus into question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn't_There
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enCA241CA241&q=the%20god%20who%20wasn't%20there%20&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#
| |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/30/2008 6:57:36 PM | great question i was meaning to start a thread on this though i wished to phrase it differently, 'Can there be any doubt that a historical jesus didnt exist?'
Firstly we must consider that the New Testament us not uniform but a collection of 27 documents written in the period 40 to 150c.e, ALL of these documents are predicate on the historical personage of Jesus. His first biography(s?) are written after a remarkably short time 30-40 years by contrast the next most influential figure of antiquity Alexander the great had to wait four hundred years for Arrian and Plutarch to produce his biography.
Paul does indeed atest to the existance of jesus, but the key point here is that he is not particularly interested in the events of his life! For Paul it is Jesus's death on the cross that is of importance. Wisdom traditions of Jesus did exist (as evidenced in The Gospel of Thomas) and in fact probly represent an earlier strarum of christianity. Pauls lack of concern for Jesus's teaching (which must have been more in line with the Jewish Christian model that Jesus's brother James adopts) is probably one factor that appears to get him in trouble at the Jerusalem Council.
The problems people have therfore in accepting the existence of the historical person Jesus is the meaning that goes with it. To be fair i include myself in this bracket.
Crutially however Paul relays an early christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15, it shows that within a short time of Jesus' death, large communities are forming Creeds around him, this would seem most improbable if they knew jesus was not a historical person. Corinthians attests that there were still people living when this document was composed who had personally known Jesus thus given the short time elapse they would be in an excellent position to judge the truth of this statment.
Most people would have no trouble accepting that a jewish teacher/miricle worker lived and was cruccified around 30ce problems arise when we import (albet neccecary) theology onto this. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/30/2008 10:34:02 PM | | The Bible is written over a span of thousands of years, I would like to see you coordinate a worldwide conspiracy with someone who will not be born for another 2 thousand years that has just as many believers as nonbelievers. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/30/2008 10:36:17 PM | "The divine Jesus was based on older, mythic "savior figures" such as Thor, Balder, Deva tat, Dionysus, Mithras, Bacchus and Horus,"
So the argument goes. However it has not been proven that He was based on anything other than Himself. I'll start out by saying that the people shown in the video automatically reject the idea that Satan planted these false things in History to confuse what was going to happen. If you reject the idea that the God of the Bible exists, then obviously they wouldn't believe in Satan. Since they treat that argument that Satan "planted" these things as wretchedly absurd, not even giving reasons why, it is obvious they don't believe in the existence of the accuser, and possibly though I feel likely the God of the Bible, but are simply out to disprove things.
According to wikipedia, the earliest known writings about Thor were in the 10th century. However whatever they believed was practiced before that time. Who's to say when exactly the Thor myth was created? Obviously I don't know. I have only heard about these other stories recently. Given that the people in the video are so readily easy to assume that Thor came before Jesus, with the only evidence existing 1000 years after Christ's death, why are they so quick to dismiss something with more evidence? Again, they are simply looking for things to discredit the existence of Christ. And worst off displaying it as some irreducible truth.
Same for Balder. I did not look up the other ones listed in the quoted post or the video because my internet shut off, then turned on an hour later, and now I am tired. So I have to go to sleep in a few minutes.
"Flemming accuses Christian leaders of being reluctant to teach early church history because it supports, rather than debunks, the idea that Jesus was a mythic figure rather than a historic personage."
Do people readily die for mythic figures? Sure, perhaps once they are well established, over hundreds or thousands of years. Which would be tantamount to some type of cultural conditioning. Yet why were so many early followers willing to die for a "myth" that happened only a few years before?
* Saint Stephen, Protomartyr, was stoned c. 34 A.D.
* James the Great (Son of Zebedee) was beheaded in 44 A.D.
* Philip the Apostle was crucified in 54 A.D.
* Matthew the Evangelist killed by a halberd in 60 A.D.
* James the Just, beaten to death by a club after being crucified and stoned.
* Matthias was stoned and beheaded.
* Saint Andrew, St. Peter's brother, was crucified.
* Mark was beaten to death.
* Saint Peter, crucified upside-down.
* Apostle Paul, beheaded in Rome.
* Saint Jude was crucified.
* Saint Bartholomew flayed alive and crucified.
* Thomas the Apostle was killed by a spear.
* Luke the Evangelist was hung.
* Simon the Zealot was crucified in 74 A.D.
Obviously they truly believed. And obviously there is a counter argument, and I wrote a counter-counter argument but we don't really need to go there. Just ignore this.
"Flemming argues that Christianity bases its claim to moral authority on the assertion that God placed his own essence on Earth at a particular time and place, which can be documented, and that the evidence typically offered for this does not withstand close scrutiny."
What does "withstand close scrutiny" mean exactly? Like, hey there might be 6 other dimensions we can't see but some scientists believe it because math is really cool but they can't possibly test it scrutiny? Or more like, hey I can make an internet video that throws random HOTLY DEBATED* facts together, put some reputable sounding names under some faces from some reputable sounding groups (The Jesus Seminars) , have cool graphics, and the internet goes wild scrutiny? *The makers of the video approach the issue as if all experts agree on what it says, this stuff has been debated for a while now, ze Germans began looking at the Gospels “with scrutiny” (Higher Criticism) almost 200 years ago and we still don't know with certainty when Mark was written. (Which is believed to be anywhere from 50ish-ad to 70ish-ad, and this all depends on the critics inherent values and beliefs concerning the nature of the Bible) Approaching it as some solved problem as the video does, leads me to believe that they are not being as honest as they present themselves to be, which leads to doubt about what they say. In other words, they are jumping the gun.
“Jesus's life as a living person can be disproven by the fact that Paul seemed unaware of Jesus's life despite writing shortly after Jesus was supposed to have died, with Jesus's biography first provided by the Gospels of Mark, John, Matthew, and Luke, written around the end of the first century A.D. The film suggests that modern Christians aren't taught about early history of their religion because doing so would call the historicity of Jesus into question.”
The man above me answered it better than I ever could have, and much more logically; I have only really read Corinthians and Galatians. And none of the criticism of the history behind Paul.
And what's with interviewing people on that website? They said people will mistake fiction for fact over time? Then the videomakers “proved” it. C'mon man. This is like watching computer-animated teeth being scrubbed clean in commercials as “proof” that the teeth become sparkly white. Proof by some weak association is not proof. In my case or in theirs.
In summa, these guys are rabble-rousing, and are merely attempting to crucify one whom was already crucified 1975 years ago. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/31/2008 5:09:18 AM |
The Bible is written over a span of thousands of years, I would like to see you coordinate a worldwide conspiracy with someone who will not be born for another 2 thousand years that has just as many believers as nonbelievers.
I have an idea of what you are trying to say, but could you clarify your point? | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/31/2008 5:15:59 AM |
Do people readily die for mythic figures? Sure, perhaps once they are well established, over hundreds or thousands of years. Which would be tantamount to some type of cultural conditioning. Yet why were so many early followers willing to die for a "myth" that happened only a few years before
People have died for many different beliefs over the centuries. That doesn't mean that they are true.
Your long response presents no evidence that the historical Jesus existed. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/31/2008 2:42:53 PM | | It wasn't intended to for the most part, merely to cast doubt on the credibility of the videomakers. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/31/2008 2:59:07 PM | Did you get "The God Who Wasn't There" free by participating in the Blasphemy challenge?
Just curious. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/31/2008 3:13:47 PM | It's an old theory, rehashed and dressed up in prettier clothes than previous, probably to make a buck and try to impress some with its "accuracy". The one failure I see whenever these "documentaries" are produced is the lack of any actual evidence and the constantly repeated claims that have become "gospel" simply by repetition (what was it Goebbels said about repeating a lie long enough?). For example,
let the OP produce actual proof that all these gods "shared most of a set of key characteristics with Jesus, including being born of a virgin on December 25, being killed on a cross or tree, being visited by Magi from the East, riding donkeys into the city, being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver". I mean it's quite simple:
1) make a list of all the events
2) create a column for each god
3) Check the intersection and cite the source for each god for each event
4) If most of the intersecting points are filled then the above statement is true. If not, it's false.
There. That's "Logic" and "Proof" for you. Now go to it! | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/31/2008 5:53:20 PM |
I mean it's quite simple:
1) make a list of all the events
2) create a column for each god
3) Check the intersection and cite the source for each god for each event
4) If most of the intersecting points are filled then the above statement is true. If not, it's false.
There. That's "Logic" and "Proof" for you. Now go to it!
This has been done many times before.
I'm still waiting for one piece of evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels existed or that he performed any of the "miracles" or that he said any of the things that he supposedly said.
A previous poster admitted that his long-winded post was not designed to present any evidence of a historical Jesus. That is because he can't. It doesn't exist. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/31/2008 6:26:29 PM | | RedTory i'm pretty sure i posted a well informed post which offered reasons, beoyond probable doubt ( i think undisputable proof is a little ambitious dont you?), that a historical Jesus existed. I have plenty more...in the same vien as your last post i might ask why you have not taken issue with these....to quote you, is that because you cant? | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 5/31/2008 6:40:39 PM | "I'm still waiting for one piece of evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels existed or that he performed any of the "miracles" or that he said any of the things that he supposedly said."
Give me one piece of evidence that Shakespeare existed. Obviously you can't, we can only go by sources deemed reliable.
"A previous poster admitted that his long-winded post was not designed to present any evidence of a historical Jesus. That is because he can't. It doesn't exist."
Or rather I have not even researched the history behind the Gospels. To say things without evidence would just be dishonest. I only began the search last night, because the video bothered me. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/1/2008 3:30:01 AM |
'Can there be any doubt that a historical jesus didnt exist?'
Indeed there can,
Firstly we must consider that the New Testament us not uniform but a collection of 27 documents written in the period 40 to 150c.e,
There is a lot of good evidence to support this, but-
His first biography(s?) are written after a remarkably short time 30-40 years by contrast the next most influential figure of antiquity Alexander the great had to wait four hundred years for Arrian and Plutarch to produce his biography.
Firstly, we are talking about "biographies" that had zero factual input.
Secondly, Alexander the Great lived more than 300 years before Christ, and, there is contemporary evidence that Alexander lived, [archeological from the palace of Persepolis for instance]. More importantly, his conquests left dynasties in his wake. The dynasty of Ptolemy, for instance, continued to rule Egypt up to the time of Cleopatra.
For Jesus, on the other hand, there is no conclusive evidence to back the literal interpretation of the Bible. For instance, the story that after the crucifixion the dead rose up and walked through the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:53) is backed up by no external commentator.
Paul does indeed atest to the existance of jesus, but the key point here is that he is not particularly interested in the events of his life! For Paul it is Jesus's death on the cross that is of importance.
What a great example of human,subjective, interpretation!
The problems people have therfore in accepting the existence of the historical person Jesus is the meaning that goes with it.
Um...
No......
It's the lack of any evidence actually.
To be fair i include myself in this bracket.
An honest statement. But your argument still flounders. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/1/2008 10:58:14 AM |
Did the Jesus of the Gospels even exist?
God said he did.
I believe it.
That settles it. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/1/2008 1:37:51 PM | Well i dont think the argument flounders at all, for the simple reason that i dont beleive your criticisms are valid.
Okay so we have established that there is 'good evidence' within the NT supporting the existance of a historical Jesus by the very fact that we have 20+ early sources predicated on his existance. You have conceeded this much.
The issue that you have really flagged up is the reliability of the Gospels so we'll start here.
You State: 'we are talking about "biographies" that had zero factual input.'
This this is a conclusion it is not an argument. I mean thats a pretty big claim, how do you know, what is your evidence for this? In defence of the Gospels i will state that they are in face excellent sources by the standards of antiquity, firstly the fact that we have 4 gospels, which acts as a series of checks and balances, as we have multiple sources detailing the same events. Secondly whenever it is posible to check the Gospels for outside facts, they prove themselves trustworthy time and again, occasionally aparent ambiguities have been cited as reasons for why the gospels cannot be trusted only for the Gospels to be proved right by archeology! To give you an example of this the existance of Pilate was doubted for a long time... until a tablet was discovered berring his name. Luke in particular, who sets out a disclaimer at the begining of his Gospel, is renouned for being an excellent historian. You cannot assume the Gospels are worthless because they detail the events of a man you 'decided' didnt exist in the first place! This is circluar reasoning, Jesus didnt exist ergo the gospels must be false? Thats just bad history you need to prove why they are false.
I dont particularly want to get bogged down in talk over Alexander, but i would state you would prehaps expect the existance of a little more archeological evidence, for the conqueror of the known world, than a carpenters son. The comparision i was making to his biography is still a remarkable one if we consider the bookish nature of the greeks.
You state: 'For instance, the story that after the crucifixion the dead rose up and walked through the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:53) is backed up by no external commentator.'
You have to be carefull here, what is it exactly we are questioning? That Jesus never existed or that Jesus was never ressurected? There is of course a subtle differnce, if Jesus did not live of course he could not be ressurected, but if he was not resurected that does not mean he did not live! If we deal with external evidence (and we have as yet given no reason why the entire collection of NT evidence should be deemed invalid), then Josephus makes two references to Jesus in one of which he specifically cites the reasurrection. In addition to this the creed relayed in Corinthians shows that belif in the reasurrection was in circlation within 5 years of Jesus's death. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/1/2008 2:25:43 PM |
I have plenty more...in the same vien as your last post i might ask why you have not taken issue with these....to quote you, is that because you cant?
I was referring to another poster. Yes, you did present some arguments. Thank you. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 17 | |
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/1/2008 7:41:14 PM | Personally I think someone might have existed, upon whom the later mythology that sprang up around this figure was based. But I just can't for the life of me believe that whoever this person was, probably just another (there were many at the time) charismatic wandering rabbi down in the province of Judaea, would remotely recognize the type of new religion which later formed. I don't think he'd even have recognized it a hundred years after his death, if he could have seen it. If even one hundred years. Much less being able to recognize it by the time (over 3 centuries) Constantine adopted it and it finally gained real power. Personally I believe what we today know as Christianity is actually a religion that is (possibly) "based" on some real figure who at one time existed (and perhaps died quite young) , but is actually much more the work of Saul / Paul and other "post-Jesus" evangelists.
Frankly I don't think the man himself (again if one such man indeed existed) would have remotely intended to start a whole new religion that would be anything seperate from his native Judaism. I think (if he existed) he would have been a Jew of his time and place, a devout monotheist who wouldn't believe in "sons" of god, etc, who (probably realistically) wasn't all that crazy about intermingling with non-Jews and who likely preached to his fellow Jews and for them. (And considering the fact that most religious Galilean Jews of his time loathed Rome and all it stood for, again I can't for the life of me believe such a man could possibly have wished for Rome, of all places, to be the center of a powerful new , curiously Empire-like Church based upon worship of him as the literal "son" of god and a mortal woman....).
At least with Muhammad , for example, we know he intended to start a new religion, clearly. And it seems pretty clear someone such as this man (Muhammad) indeed existed and led the Arab tribes towards unity under a (largely Judaic-influenced) monotheistic religion. I just don't feel we can be AS sure with Jesus the Nazarene (barring of course using Biblical quotes and such as "proof" --- but those essentially mean nothing to non-believers anyway, so....there's simply no truly historical proof that can be offered). | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/1/2008 7:42:37 PM |
I challenged one of the OP's claim and said:
Let the OP produce actual proof that all these gods "shared most of a set of key characteristics with Jesus, including being born of a virgin on December 25, being killed on a cross or tree, being visited by Magi from the East, riding donkeys into the city, being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver". I mean it's quite simple:
1) make a list of all the events
2) create a column for each god
3) Check the intersection and cite the source for each god for each event
4) If most of the intersecting points are filled then the above statement is true. If not, it's false.
RedTory said: This has been done many times before. That's it? That's all you've got? "Because I said so!" When you make a positive claim such as you did, and someone asks for proof, you're supposed to provide it not claim it's somewhere out there in the ether or something someone said some time once maybe. And if it's been done so many time before, why can't you find it? No reputable sources? Only in your own imagining? You didn't realise it was False? Hey, everyone makes mistakes. No biggie. So, go get your proof that supports your claim or withdraw the claim.
Nobody will think ill of you. And it will have the benefit of showing that you're intellectually honest, and there's nothing wrong with that. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/2/2008 3:38:55 AM |
Okay so we have established that there is 'good evidence' within the NT supporting the existance of a historical Jesus by the very fact that we have 20+ early sources predicated on his existance. You have conceeded this much.
Unsure why you think I've conceded there is evidence of Christ's existence. My point was that there is no contemporary writings of his existence. None. Zero. Diddly squat.
This this is a conclusion it is not an argument. I mean thats a pretty big claim, how do you know, what is your evidence for this?
My evidence for this is the lack of evidence for the Gospels being a reliable source. They were written at least decades after the supposed death of Christ. Surely you must concede that this fact alone is very telling.
firstly the fact that we have 4 gospels, which acts as a series of checks and balances,as we have multiple sources detailing the same events.
Four fallacies does not a truth make. If Marks original writings were not based on "being there", then all those that follow are not worth anything either.
Secondly whenever it is posible to check the Gospels for outside facts, they prove themselves trustworthy time and again, occasionally aparent ambiguities have been cited as reasons for why the gospels cannot be trusted only for the Gospels to be proved right by archeology!
This is correct. Unfortunately for your argument, the science of archeology has dated said Gospels outside Christ's alleged timeframe.
To give you an example of this the existance of Pilate was doubted for a long time... until a tablet was discovered berring his name.
This is correct, and the tablet has been dated to the correct timeframe. Pilate's existence is entirely probable.
You cannot assume the Gospels are worthless because they detail the events of a man you 'decided' didnt exist in the first place!
I don't.
I assume they are worthless because they occur after the alledged timeframe.
This is circluar reasoning,
No it's not.
It's a logical assumption based on the lack of contemporary writings.
Jesus didnt exist ergo the gospels must be false?
This is not what I am saying.
Again, The Gospels were not written at the time of his supposed existence so therefore they are at best doubtful.
Thats just bad history you need to prove why they are false.
One more time. The Gospels exist, but they are in the wrong time frame.
I dont particularly want to get bogged down in talk over Alexander, but i would state you would prehaps expect the existance of a little more archeological evidence, for the conqueror of the known world, than a carpenters son.
Hardly. We are talking about "a carpenters son" who fed multitudes with a few loaves.
He also defied gravity by walking on water and he brought the dead back to life.
If there is good evidence for the life of a military conquerer or a politician, then surely it's not too much to expect a few contemporary descriptions of the worlds greatest magician.
You have to be carefull here, what is it exactly we are questioning? That Jesus never existed or that Jesus was never ressurected?
Both.
Again
There is no reliable evidence for either.
and we have as yet given no reason why the entire collection of NT evidence should be deemed invalid)
The entire New Testament can indeed be deemed to be invalid for the above reasons. ie no contemporary writings.
In addition to this the creed relayed in Corinthians shows that belif in the reasurrection was in circlation within 5 years of Jesus's death.
No it was'nt.
A collection of writings written decadesafter the event makes this claim. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/2/2008 6:11:49 PM |
That's it? That's all you've got? "Because I said so!"
No, that's not all I've got. It's all I felt like posting at the time.
A study was mentioned in the clip that posted. The elements of various myths were compared with the Gospels.
You might also want to read Uta Ranke-Heinemann's "Putting Away Childish Things" which talks about how pre-Christian myths were very similar to different aspects of the Gospels. Heinemann has a PhD in Catholic theology and was (or is?) the chair of History of Religion at the University of Essen.
Her book "Eunuchs For The Kingdom Of Heaven" is also excellent, though it deals with women, sexuality and the Catholic Church. It caused quite a stir.
There have been others over the years, but you'll have to send me a certified cheque if you want me to dig them up for you. I don't tutor for free. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/2/2008 6:42:48 PM |
Unsure why you think I've conceded there is evidence of Christ's existence. My point was that there is no contemporary writings of his existence. None. Zero. Diddly squat.
Wikipedia: Titus Flavius Josephus
"Josephus offers information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. His writings provide a significant, extra-biblical account of the post-exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus. He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism (and, thus, the context of early Christianity)."
There's at least partial contemporary evidence. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 22 | |
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/2/2008 9:10:02 PM | | ^^^ Same as the sometimes cited reference to Tacitus. The only problem with these is their antiquity; they could very very easily have been tampered with by a later (Christian) hand, particularly after Christianity came into its own finally following the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century. Changing or adding to another writer's words at the time , in a "published" work, was not at all taken as seriously as it is today. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/3/2008 12:03:58 AM | I have the video downloaded and Brian Flemming makes the best presentation that the whole 'christ' myth was based on close to 2 dozen previous 'christs' before the bible was invented.
Id gladly share this video with anyone on mIRC bitlord or whatever interface available.
Ive made copies for xmas and handed out to my brainwashed family members... those hypocrites may never have me over for turkey again but I made my stance known:P
This one part of that video is my favorite part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6YROu-JrBc&feature=related
You get to see some of the names of the people the myth was based on... THEN you get to see how completely ignorant people ARE to historical accuracy.
Zietgiest is an even better video.
Go check it out.
The devil wants you to 
if there IS such a thing | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/3/2008 5:26:18 AM | For a better understanding of how inter related the myth of Christ is with older myths,I suggest the site ,Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth..http://www.pocm.info/
Brian Flemming's film as well as Zeitgeist is too simplistic and not completely accurate.Yes,Christ IS based on older myths,but he is not a carbon copy,he's a composite.A 2000 year old Forrest Gump story where a mythical character is injected into history for credibility.
By the way,those that think Satan injected counterfeits, ,Satan,too is based on much older myths.The Egyptian,Set for example who was the brother of Osiris.
That's not to say that there was absolutely no basis for a historical Jesus,he could be based in part on Yeshua Bin Pandera.The radical rabbi that lived around 100 BC who was stoned to death and hung on a tree for sorcery on Passover.
Christ is a recycled pagan sun god.Every major bullet point in his alleged life is a solar metaphor.December 25th birth is symbolic of the sun being "born" as it begins it's movement south and days begin to get longer.The virgin birth is based on the fact that many ancient calendars began with sun in the constellation of Virgo.Twelve disciples = 12 zodiac signs through which the sun passes every day in it's arc across the sky.There are more,suggest you look at the site mentioned above as well Acharya S's site ,truthbeknown.com.
As far as the so called Old testament "prophesies" of a messiah supposedly fulfilled with Jesus.It's really easy to make predictions come to pass when you are writing about a FICTIONAL CHARACTER, and yes,people do die for myths.Muslim extremists do it all the time and people died for myths in ancient times.Look at your ancient history,especially the Pharaoh Akhnaton who tried to impose monotheism on ancient Egypt. | |
|
| The God Who Wasn't There
Posted: 6/3/2008 6:27:33 AM | Did the Jesus of the Gospels even exist?
No. Do a search here for historical Jesus. We had a discussion that went on for over 10 pages and not one piece of evidence for Jesus was able to withstand even a little scrutiny.
The divine Jesus was based on older, mythic "savior figures" such as Thor, Balder, Deva tat, Dionysus, Mithras, Bacchus and Horus, arguing that these figures shared most of a set of key characteristics with Jesus, including being born of a virgin on December 25, being killed on a cross or tree, being visited by Magi from the East, riding donkeys into the city, being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, etc.
Unfortunately non-Christians have been suckered into believing this. These alleged parallels simply don't exist. While Jesus' birthday was taken from pagan beliefs, the Bible itself gives no such date, and by the descriptions it was more likely to be in the spring. Jesus was invented from OT passages.
The letters of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, which were written before the Gospels, omit most of the events from the traditional life of Jesus, which Flemming argues Paul would never have omitted from his arguments unless he had never heard of them. Flemming asserts that Paul mentions only the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension, and presents them as having occurred in a mythic realm, rather than an Earthly one.
This is pretty much true. Scholars are divided about whether Paul was a mythicist. In any case he was an outsider that only knew about Jesus from a vision he had after falling off a donkey and perhaps a few things he heard here and there while suppressing Jewish insurrectionists (Zealots). | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
Don't post here if you can't keep your "Cool" 
