http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/01/romulus-and-jesus-compared.html
QuoteTABLE 1
THE TRANSLATIONS OF ROMULUS AND JESUS COMPARED
Mimetic Signal with References
1 Missing body.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.3-5; Matt
28:11-14; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:3;
John 20:2-10
2 Prodigies.
Livy 1.16.1; Ovid, Metam. 14.816-17;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.6-7; Matt
27:51-54; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45
3 Darkness over the land.
Ovid, Metam. 14.816-22; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6;
Plutarch, Rom. 27.6-7; Matt 27:45;
Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44
4 Mountaintop speech.
Ovid, Metam. 14.820-24; Matt 28:18-20
5 Great commission.
Livy 1.16.7; Ovid, Metam. 14.811, 815;
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Plutarch, Rom.
28.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant.
rom. 2.63.4; Matt 28:18-20
6 Ascension.
Livy 1.16.6; Ovid, Metam. 14.820-24;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6;Plutarch, Rom. 27.7; Luke 24:51;
Acts 1:9
7 Son of god.
Livy 1.16.3 Matt 27:54; Dionysius of
Halicarnas- sus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2; Mark
15:39; John 20:31
8 Meeting on the road.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4;
Luke 24:13-35; Acts 9:3-19
9 Eyewitness testimony .
Cicero, Resp. 2.10; Livy 1.16.1-8; Ovid,
Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4; Plutarch, Rom. 27-28;
Luke 24:35; 1 Cor 15:3-11
10 Taken away in a cloud.
Livy 1.16.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6; Acts 1:9
11 Dubious alternative accounts.
Livy 1.16.4-5; Plutarch, Rom. 27.5-6, 8;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; 2.63.3; Matt 28:11-14
12 Immortal/heavenly body.
Livy 1.16.8; Ovid, Metam. 14.818-28;
Plutarch, Rom. 28.6-8; 1 Cor 15:35-50;
1 Pet 3:18
13 Outside of the city.
Livy 1.16.1; Plutarch, Rom. 27.6; John 19:17
14 The people flee (populifugia).
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.5;Plutarch, Rom. 27.7; Matt (26:56);
28:8; Mark (14:50); 16:8
15 Deification.
Livy 1.16.3; Cicero, Resp. 2.10.20b; Ovid,
Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.56.5-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.7;
28.3; Matt 27:54; Rom 1:4
16 Belief, homage, and rejoicing.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4; Plutarch,
Rom. 27.8; Matt 28:9, 17; Luke 24:41, 52; John 20:27
17 Bright and shining appearance.
Plutarch, Rom. 28.1-2; Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511;
Matt 17:2; Mark 9:3; Luke 9:29; Acts 9:3; Rev 1:16
18 Frightened subjects.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Livy 1.16.2;
Plutarch,Rom. 28.2; Matt 28:5, 10; Mark
16:8; Luke 24:37-38
19 All in sorrow over loss.
Livy 1.16.2; Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511;
Plutarch, Rom. 28.2; Luke 24:18-24
20 Inspired message of translation
Plutarch, Rom. 28.3; Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4
Plutarch's history of Romulus was written either in 75 AD or 110 AD; in either case, contemporary or before the given dates for the gospels and Acts
Ovid lived from 43 BC to 18 AD- also before ths given dates of the gospels etc.
Fasti refers to dates according to the Roman calendar.
Livy was an important historian who lived the same time as Ovid.
The life story as told by Plutarch parallels the story of Jesus closely. Now Mithras:
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html
Quote†Mithras was a Persian deity. He was also the most widely venerated god in the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus. The Catholic Encyclopedia as well as the early Church Fathers found this religion of Mithras very disturbing, as there are so many similarities between the two religions, as follows:
1) Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.
2) Mithra was born on December 25 as told in the “Great Religions of the Worldâ€, page 330; “…it was the winter solstice celebrated by ancients as the birthday of Mithraism’s sun godâ€.
3) According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.
4) After the death of Mithra, his body was laid to rest in a rock tomb.
5) Mithra had a celibate priesthood.
6) Mithra ascended into heaven during the spring (Passover) equinox (the time when the sun crosses the equator making night and day of equal length).
As you can now see, Christianity derived many of its essential elements from the ancient religion of Mithraism. Mithraism became intertwined with the cult of Jesus to form what is known today as “Christianity.†Although literary sources on this religion are sparse, an abundance of material evidence exists in the many Mithraic temples and artifacts that archaeologists have found scattered throughout the Roman Empire, from England in the north and west to Palestine in the south and east. The temples were usually built underground in caves, which are filled with an extremely elaborate iconography (illustrating by pictures, figures and images). There were many hundreds of Mithraic temples in the Roman Empire, the greatest concentrations have been found in the city of Rome itself.
We often hear about how many of the traditions, rites and symbols of modern day "Christian" holidays have their roots in paganism. Have you ever wondered why December 25th was chosen to celebrate the birth of Jesus? Could it only be a consequence that ancient paganism and the story of Mithras' birth coincides with the Yule/Christmas season? If the accounts in the Bible are correct, the time of Jesus birth would have been closer to mid-summer, for this is when shepherds would have been "tending their flocks in the field " and the new lambs were born. Strange enough, the ancient pagan religion, Mithraism, which dates back over 4,000 years, also celebrated the birth of their "saviour" on December 25th. Franz Cumont, who is consider by many to be the leading research authority on Roman Paganism, explained the ancient religion called Mithraism.
This is just some of the comparative evidence that gives a strong indication that Jesus was a myth derived from previous or concurrent myths. Rome was a potpourri of cultures from all corners of the empire, and the myths of previous cultures such as Egypt, Persia and Greece were certainly known by scholars. Contrast the fact that the Jesus myth closely resembles not one but a few previous myths, the Mythicist position of being able to create a messianic, risen from the dead deity becomes much more likely.
The fact that specific histories of Jesus in Judea from outside or objective sources are completely lacking, I'd say the evidence is fairly strong Jesus was an invention from the beginning.
Too many coincidences without any evidence to dispute it.
Stromboli, I agree with you 100%--Jesus, the man, did not exist. He was a conglomerate of many different men and myth. A little study to make is to put the NT into the order in which they were written. Paul's writings then, go first. That is the actual books he wrote, not the several that were attributed to him, but not him. Then would come Mark, Matthew, Luke and then John. (None of these were written by the author christians say they were.) Paul contains no history for Jesus. That is a bit odd, to say the least, for somebody who is supposed to be a follower of him and who claims him god. Mark, Matthew and Luke do have historiical stories about Jesus--but they do not always agree on those 'facts'. Reading it that way changes quite a bit the way one views Jesus. Which is why the Catholic Fathers arranged their version of the bible as they did.
I am sorry but I don't think that is a credible source. It is very apparent the cite has an agenda. I would prefer to see some better sources concerning Mithra before taking that site seriously
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraic_mysteries
Wikipedia indicates he was born of a rock, not a virgin
Well, Contemporary, would this offering from the site of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, be better?
Life events shared by Jesus and another god-man:
There are numerous god-men in the ancient Mediterranean area and Middle East. There are many stories that appear both in Jesus' biography and in the legends of another god-man:
Mother's pregnancy: It was a common belief among early Christians that Mary was pregnant for only seven months. This legend is preserved in the Gospel of the Hebrews. Although this gospel was widely used by early Christians, it was never accepted into the official canon. Semele, mother of Dionysus, was also believed to have had a 7 month pregnancy.
Virgin birth: Author William Harwood has written that Jesus' "equation in Greek eyes with the resurrected savior-god Dionysos led an interpolator to insert a virgin-birth myth into the gospel now known as Matthew." 1
Birth Witnesses:
The gospel of Matthew records that Jesus was visited by an unknown number of wise men, called Magi.
Authors Freke & Gandy identify them as followers of the god man Mithras from Persia. 4
Most other sources believe that they were Zoroastrian priests from Persia who were experts in astrology. There is a Zoroastrian belief "that a son of Zoroaster will be born many years after his death by a virgin...This son will apparantly [sic] raise the dead and crush the forces of evil. Later Christians got rather excited about this apparant [sic] pagan prophecy of the coming of the Messiah..." 2
The gospel of Luke records that Jesus was visited by three shepherds. Mithra the god man from Persia was also visited shortly after birth by three shepherds.
The magi brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. A Pagan belief from the 6th century BCE states that these are the precise materials to use when worshiping God.
Healing: Jesus is recorded throughout the gospels as healing the sick and restoring the dead to life. So was Asclepius, a Greek god man. Pagans and early Christians debated who was the more effective healer.
Ministry: Jesus appeared as a wandering holy man who is later transfigured in the presence of some of his disciples. Dionysus was portrayed in the same manner in Euripides' play The Bacchae, written in 410 BCE.
Miracles:
Both Jesus and Empedocles were recorded as teaching spiritual truths, curing illness, foretelling the future, controlling the wind and rain, and raising people from the dead.
Both Mithra and Jesus performed many healings of the sick and mentally ill; both raised the dead. 3
Mark, chapter 5 describes Jesus driving demons from a man into a herd of about 2,000 pigs who rushed over a cliff and drowned. In Eleusis, about 2,000 initiates would bathe in the sea. Each had a young pig to which the believers' sins would be transferred. The pigs were then chased over a chasm and killed.
Fishing: John 21:11 records that Jesus performed a miracle which enabled Simon Peter to catch exactly 153 fish. The Pagan Pythagoras considered 153 a sacred number. The ratio of 153 to 265 was referred to by the Pagan Archimedes as "the measure of the fish." That ratio is used to generate a fish-like shape using two circles. The sign of the fish was used by the early Christians as their main symbol.
Arrest:
Both Dionysus and Jesus celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples before his death.
Dionysus is described in Euripides' play The Bacchae as bringing a new religion to the people, being plotted against by the leaders, being arrested and appearing before the political ruler. Dionysus said to his captors "You know not what you are doing..," almost replicating Jesus' words at the cross. He was unjustly accused and executed. All of these themes are seen in the Gospels.
Crucifixion & resurrection:
Jesus' body was wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh and aloe. Osiris was also said to have been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh.
Again, the god men myths had been circulating well before Jesus birth. The Christians would have copied earlier Pagan material, not vice-versa.
I will look into this
However I do in fact have a question, were any of these other god-men sin offerings?
I am aware that the early church incorporated pagan holidays and beliefs. These are very evident in catholicism. However most of these incorporations are not significant in context to what Jesus represents in Christianity
Dionysus was not born of a virgin, his father is Zeus
http://www.greekmythology.com/Other_Gods/Dionysus/dionysus.html
Contemporary, what do you mean by "sin offerings"? The OT details scapegoating--that was a sin offering in that all the sins of the tribe or group were put onto the sacrificial goat that was sent out into the desert.
If I remember correctly, there was no early "church", but early churches and gatherings. There were many and they did not agree with each other often. Constantine was responsible for the creation of "The Church".
And I disagree--the christian incorporated pagan beliefs and holidays were very important!
I am referring to prior to the great schism but after Constantine, when I say early church.
A sin offering is an atonement for sin, Jesus was a sin offering
The Christmas tree, the magi, and the date december 25 don't mean very much to Christian doctrine. Christianity revolves around the crucifixion, not the birth. The birth is discussed but it is not at the center of the religion. My point for saying they are insignificant is that if I were trying to poke holes in christianity, i wouldn't waste my time talking about his birth. Many christians are fully aware of the pagan influence on Christmas
I see your point, Contemporary.
Thanks for the explanation of sin offering. The scapegoat was an atonement for sin. Jesus learned from the goat?
Easter was a major date for celebrating futility and the hope of spring for many pagans. The dead were rising at easter time will before Jesus. The Sun arose each year (the day becomes longer then) in Dec. and was celebrated by many pagans. I have not done this study, but I would venture to say that most if not all, christian celebrations have roots in pagan celebrations and important dates. Why? Christianity does not suffer well those who compete with it. And i do not have to poke holes in Christianity since those holes have existed from the beginning.
No Jesus did not learn it from the goat, the concept of sin offering does have much to do with goats. A sin offering is an offering to appease the wrath of God. Jesus, being without sin, was an ideal sin offering. All the sin that ever was and will be came upon Jesus, and he descended into hell for three days. Then rose again. That is the concept of Jesus being a sin offering
Easter, like Christmas, is likely not the correct date for its corresponding event.
I am unsure why Christianity shares dates with paganism, from my understanding it was to avoid being persecuted, but I have also heard the Catholics did it to control the people and keep them from going back to paganism.
Does that answer your question?
No, Contemporary that did not answer my question. In my view, Jesus was not an actual person, but a myth. And Jesus did not invent the idea or practice of atonement; that concept was ancient. And if one believed in your god then the only real source of sin would be that god. He is the one that should be punished, not his creation. And many god-men went to hell and then returned. There is not a single unique quality for Jesus--all was already there. Jesus is simply assembled in a unique way--much like Zoroaster or Mithras is unique. As for Catholics being the ones who usurped the pagan dates and celebrations--they did in fact do that. But remember there were no Protestants then and would not be until Luther. So, Catholics (in all their stripes) were the original christians. Those dates and celebrations were taken over to extinguish those beliefs.
I didn't say he invented atonement, i believe i implied it had existed previously
I have a question for you
is not the existence of sin and evil liberating? With sin, you have a choice. You do not have to do the right thing all the time. I would say God is giving us freedom by allowing sin. Sin is separation from God, so God cannot be the source of sin
I would like you to provide evidence for those claims
Thanks for the reply, Contemporary.
You said:I didn't say he invented atonement, i believe i implied it had existed previously
Me--You may have. But like all other aspects of christanity, it was a concept borrowed from others before. Nothing new here. i would think that any god worthy of his salt would be able to create and maintain a straight line for his rules. If he had a word to hand out, would it not be in all languages and from the very beginning?
You suggest: is not the existence of sin and evil liberating? With sin, you have a choice. You do not have to do the right thing all the time. I would say God is giving us freedom by allowing sin. Sin is separation from God, so God cannot be the source of sin
Me--As you said, sin is the separation from god (which is a religious concept)--I don't believe in any god, so therefore the concept of sin is meaningless. And the concept of original sin is harmful. However there is right and wrong. How is that determined? How about starting with the Golden Rule? Wicca is also good--first do no harm.
You asked: I would like you to provide evidence for those claims
Me--Glad to--which claims?
that there is not a single unique quality about jesus, I don't think thats true
You are correct in saying that Christianity is not original, it stems from Judaism
However there is little information about the hebrews, and probably no information that is unbiased
Christians accept the golden rule, jesus stated a form of it "love others as yourself"
My point on sin was to clarify that god isn't the source of sin
Quote from: stromboli on September 03, 2014, 12:02:49 AM
Too many coincidences without any evidence to dispute it.
O come, come... those bronze age shepherds were too dumb to copy anything... :eyes:
God isn't the source of sin. sin is a word. In xtianity it is a sin to be gay. It is not a sin other places. God did not create sin, sin is a created concept endemic to religion. The 10 commandments says rape is not a sin nor keeping slaves. Sin is a very relative term.
The point of the article is that Jesus did not have to exist to be created. You said xtianity came from Judaism, but that is not true. Judaism does not accept xtian belief in any part. The messianic/risen savior is not original either with Judaism or xtianity, and the concept of a divine god born in poverty is also not original with them.
As Mike CL pointed out, the New Testament was not written in the order it is presented. The Pauline writings preceded the gospels. Another point; there are no letters in existence that either show a dialogue or discourse between early christian churches addressing issues other than what is presented in Paul's epistles. The epistles were supposedly written in response to letters Paul received.
Paul addresses the authority of the church by naming apostles, prophets and so forth, but the word disciple is never used. There should have been thousands of disciples of Jesus, including all of the living apostles. Disciple is a familiar term that is never used in reference to any of the apostles, nor is there any indication of "I remember the time when we were hangin' at the well, Jesus said...." type of dialogue. Get it? the writings are manufactured to create a savior, but there is no indication of any give and take or any reference to people that knew Jesus or any mention of outside living witnesses other than the writers of the epistles.
Peter 1 and Peter 2 are demonstrably written by different authors because their style is very different. Peter never gives any details of Jesus, never refers to himself as a disciple, never adds any narrative to the story, and Never quotes Jesus directly.
1 Peter 2: 6
Quote6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Why is Peter quoting scripture- he is a contemporary of Jesus- which is at best barely written, if at all? Would he not be quoting Jesus directly?
These are just a few examples. The conclusion after looking at all the evidence- historians, not me- is that Jesus is a myth created from previous myths.
Peter is quoting Isaiah 28:16
Yes judaism does not acknowledge Christianity, however that does not change the fact that it originated in a Jewish culture and takes many elements from judaism
I am aware that the new testament is not in chronological order
The messiah is a jewish concept http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
however many jews believe the messiah to be a military leader and not a spiritual one
Some jews say he is the messiah
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/proofessay
The ten commandments don't say rape is okay
Slavery during that time was different than it was in transatlantic days
slaves were liberated every generation (in the year of jubilee, every 50 years)
Not everyone believed jesus was a good guy, many people thought he was a liar, and so they didn't believe him.
Even if there were other documents talking about jesus being the son of god, people would dismiss those as religious texts too
I do have to ask, are you an expert in 1st and 2nd century mediterranean writing styles because you sure talk a lot about them as if you're an expert
I don't care about messianic concepts or any other claims, because the simple fact is that there is no proof that Jesus was either a real person or Jewish. And it still comes back to the fact that there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that christianity was either created or grafted from other religions. The Pauline writings run to the thousands of words in long responses stating policy, doctrine, formation of the church, and every other aspect required in the forming of a religion, yet there is not one, nada, squat, letter or other offering from any other source of any of the churches mentioned. How is it that Paul's writings somehow survived but no other record by any of the churches mentioned or any other author of those letters, which if you go by Paul's statements, he was fairly busy answering.
And as I pointed out, post tense to the living ministry of Jesus, there should have been desciples in the thousands and testimonies to match, none of which are evident. No letters, no testimonies, no second or third party accounts, not even anecdotal accounts of what was supposedly the most remarkable advent in human history. Amazing that so many people witnessed so much and then simply didn't bother to mention it or write it down in any form; not letters, not diaries, nothing.
Every time something of note happens people talk about it. We've got Youtube and Facebook and Huffpost and Reddit and media sources ad infinitum, but the most important event in human history doesn't get a mention. no letters from Roman soldiers or Roman authorities in Palestine, no mention by the people who supposedly were fed by Jesus on the mount or whatever, you name it.
Apologists can make all the claims they want. The facts don't jive with their claims.
Have you ever considered that the Roman officials didn't believe it and dismissed it as nonsense
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 08, 2014, 07:19:21 PM
Have you ever considered that the Roman officials didn't believe it and dismissed it as nonsense
They knew about Christians and their beliefs, obviously. (The strangely prophetic term, "slave religion" was bandied about, for example) Stromboli is saying that contemporary, non-christian confirmation of biblical accounts is a oddly thin. If they actually happened, one would expect the miraculous events described in the bible to generate quite a stir.
QuotePaul's writings then, go first.
Of course there you are assuming that "paul" was any more real than "jesus."
Xtian horseshit aside, the earliest writer for whom we have any considerable body of work is Justin Martyr.... and he never heard of anyone named paul nor did he know of the gospels named for mark, matt, luke and john.
Justin's First Apologia was written to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 AD. Obviously, the story had not been fleshed out at that time.
Quote from: stromboli on September 08, 2014, 07:16:35 PM
I don't care about messianic concepts or any other claims, because the simple fact is that there is no proof that Jesus was either a real person or Jewish. And it still comes back to the fact that there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that christianity was either created or grafted from other religions. The Pauline writings run to the thousands of words in long responses stating policy, doctrine, formation of the church, and every other aspect required in the forming of a religion, yet there is not one, nada, squat, letter or other offering from any other source of any of the churches mentioned. How is it that Paul's writings somehow survived but no other record by any of the churches mentioned or any other author of those letters, which if you go by Paul's statements, he was fairly busy answering.
And as I pointed out, post tense to the living ministry of Jesus, there should have been desciples in the thousands and testimonies to match, none of which are evident. No letters, no testimonies, no second or third party accounts, not even anecdotal accounts of what was supposedly the most remarkable advent in human history. Amazing that so many people witnessed so much and then simply didn't bother to mention it or write it down in any form; not letters, not diaries, nothing.
Every time something of note happens people talk about it. We've got Youtube and Facebook and Huffpost and Reddit and media sources ad infinitum, but the most important event in human history doesn't get a mention. no letters from Roman soldiers or Roman authorities in Palestine, no mention by the people who supposedly were fed by Jesus on the mount or whatever, you name it.
Apologists can make all the claims they want. The facts don't jive with their claims.
An earlier book to consider looking into is The Jesus Puzzle, but Earl Doherty. This was published in the early 2000's and was a great find for me then. This is what Carrier had to say about it:
Summary of Argument and Overall Conclusion
Earl Doherty argues that Christianity began as a mystical-revelatory religion, very different from the "deviant" sect that won the propaganda war to become the eventual "orthodoxy." The latter gained prominence in the 2nd century and achieved total victory by the 4th. According to this theory, the idea of an historical progenitor was not original to the faith even in Paul's day, but evolved over the course of the later 1st century. As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior") was originally a heavenly being, whose atoning death took place at the hands of demonic beings in a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth, a sublunar sphere where he assumed a fleshly, quasi-human form. This and the rest of the "gospel" was revealed to the first Christians in visions and inspirations and through the discovery of hidden messages in the scriptures. After the confusion of the Jewish War and persistent battles over power in the church, rooted in a confused mass of variant sectarian dogmas, a new cult arose with the belief that Jesus actually came to earth and was crucified by Jews with the complicity of the Roman authorities. To defend itself against sects more closely adhering to the original, mystical faith, the new church engaged in polemics and power politics, and eventually composed or adopted writings (chiefly the canonical Gospels) supporting its views.
The "scandalous" consequence of Doherty's theory is that Jesus didn't exist. But it cannot be emphasized enough that Doherty's thesis is not "Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect" but "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist." This is significant. Most scholars who argue that Jesus didn't exist (who are called "ahistoricists," because they deny the "historicity" of Jesus, or "mythicists," because they argue Jesus is mythical) have little in the way of reasons beyond a whole complex of arguments from silence. Doherty, in contrast, uses arguments from silence only to support his thesis. He does not base it on such arguments, but rather on positive evidence, especially a slew of very strange facts that his theory accounts for very well but that traditional historicism ignores, or explains poorly. By far most of the criticism or even dismissal of Doherty's work is based on the criticism or dismissal of the Argument from Silence, or his (often supposed) deployment of it. This completely misses the strongest elements of his case: evidence that Christianity did in fact begin as a mystical-revelatory religion.
This work shows clearly that a real flesh and blood Jesus was not needed to create "christianity". Jesus was added later as he was needed and the farther away from the early christian groups we go in history, the more history of Jesus was added. What was created was not Jesusanity, but Christianity; Christ is a title, not a last name. The mythical Jesus did not have the name Mr. Jesus Christ (no middle initial either--although I like to add an H. to it or simply say 'Jesus fucking Christ'--especially when I hit my thumb with a hammer.
Quotescholars who argue that Jesus didn't exist (who are called "ahistoricists," because they deny the "historicity" of Jesus, or "mythicists," because they argue Jesus is mythical) have little in the way of reasons beyond a whole complex of arguments from silence.
You know, there is a reason why xtians pound the "argument from silence" drum so hard. It's because they have no answer for it.
There is not a shred of evidence that the Romans attended stock car races at the Circus Maximus. That does not mean that they did.
There is not a shred of evidence that the Assyrians had space travel. That does not mean they did.
There is not a shred of evidence that Martians invaded Ohio in 1832. That does not mean that they did.
An argument from silence can be quite compelling.
On the one hand we have xtians claiming that there were "multitudes" greeting jesus when he entered Jerusalem. Not a single first century writer knows of this.
We hear that there were multitudes of xtians in Rome itself in 64 AD yet there is not a single xtian catacomb in Rome in the first century.
The earliest Roman writers to mention xtianity (Pliny the Younger and Suetonius) probably wrote Chrestians not Christians and they never heard of any "jesus." (Tacitus is a much more complicated story.)
Not a single Roman writer knows anything about even a rumor of a dead criminal coming back to life in Jerusalem. Yet the xtians insist it is so.
The argument from silence is far more compelling that the argument from gospel bullshit.
Minimalist, you stated:
There is not a shred of evidence that the Romans attended stock car races at the Circus Maximus. That does not mean that they did.
There is not a shred of evidence that the Assyrians had space travel. That does not mean they did.
There is not a shred of evidence that Martians invaded Ohio in 1832. That does not mean that they did.
The first one, I'll give you. The other two I'm not sure of. Have you listened to some of those guys on the History Channel? There are friggin aliens everywhere, everywhen!
Funny you mentioned that. Just today I unsubscribed from the History Channel and when they asked "why" I told them it was because they stopped doing history.
Quote from: Minimalist on September 09, 2014, 10:42:26 PM
On the one hand we have xtians claiming that there were "multitudes" greeting jesus when he entered Jerusalem. Not a single first century writer knows of this.
We hear that there were multitudes of xtians in Rome itself in 64 AD yet there is not a single xtian catacomb in Rome in the first century.
The earliest Roman writers to mention xtianity (Pliny the Younger and Suetonius) probably wrote Chrestians not Christians and they never heard of any "jesus." (Tacitus is a much more complicated story.)
Not a single Roman writer knows anything about even a rumor of a dead criminal coming back to life in Jerusalem. Yet the xtians insist it is so.
Don't forget that Matthew has a zombie invasion of Jerusalem (kind of)
Quote from: Matthew 27:52-53
and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
Yet no one bothered to write even that down at the time.
Amen, brother.
(http://www.funnyvooz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/funny-zombie-11.jpg)
In response to the zombie invasion, the passage doesnt specify how they appeared to others, so i think its a stretch to call it a zombie invasion
In addition, the word for grave is sheoul, which is a different concept than being buried, so it would be more appropriate to picture this as the saints being released from sheoul and some how some people knew about it
The passage is way too vague to assume stuff, however it does say saints were released from the grave(sheoul)
The central point is that the advent/crucifixion/ascension/resurrection of Jesus by xtian standards is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT IN HUMAN HISTORY. And yet there is no evidence other than that manufactured after the fact, and very little of that, to support it. And virtually nothing that can be considered as objective and sustainable. Get it?
As i mentioned earlier, it is only important to christians, any one else didnt care or didnt believe it, evidence being no one else recorded it
Second, the tombstone of pontius pilate has been found, indicating he was a real person
And the method of execution is accurate
To stress my first point, if u were caesar, and u heard about this, would u accept it or dismiss it as nonesense or a local legend
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 10, 2014, 04:30:28 PM
In response to the zombie invasion, the passage doesnt specify how they appeared to others, so i think its a stretch to call it a zombie invasion
In addition, the word for grave is sheoul, which is a different concept than being buried, so it would be more appropriate to picture this as the saints being released from sheoul and some how some people knew about it
The passage is way too vague to assume stuff, however it does say saints were released from the grave(sheoul)
Wrong and wrong. The passage (Greek, not Hebrew) says that "the graves [μνημεῖον] were opened; and many bodies [σῶμα] of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised". Really, 12 seconds with Strong's concordance (or simply knowing what language Matthew was written in) would have cleared up these errors on your part.
I was referring to the concept
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 10, 2014, 05:02:25 PM
I was referring to the concept
Oh, so you think yourself an authority on what was in the mind of whomever wrote this passage at the time that he wrote it and have no need to look at the actual words he used? That is presumptuous of you.
It is in the context of a jewish society, so i dont think it is innapropriate to consider the possibility of jewish concepts being used here
If any jewish text written in any language is talking avout the grave, i would consider sheoul to be a possibility
I am considering the culture that the text was written in, he used the word grave, yes it was in greek, but this is in judea
Another example would be that the greek word sabbaton refers to shabbat, so using the concept shabbat instead of sabbaton or sabbath is appropriate
Likewise i will talk about the grave with the possibility it is referring to sheoul
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 10, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
As i mentioned earlier, it is only important to christians, any one else didnt care or didnt believe it, evidence being no one else recorded it
Second, the tombstone of pontius pilate has been found, indicating he was a real person
And the method of execution is accurate
To stress my first point, if u were caesar, and u heard about this, would u accept it or dismiss it as nonesense or a local legend
First point--if I noticed that several undead were wandering around my town, I could care less if they were christian, islamic or the VFW--I'd want to know where they hell they came from! And,yeah, the news would be on top of it.
Second point--Okay pilate was a real person. Therefore, everything the bible says about him is true????? We all know that George Washington is real. So, according to your logic everything written about his has to be true. I was taught that he cut down a cherry tree and that he did not lie about it when he was asked about it. As it turns out that is not true--a minister (not surprising--Weams was his name I think) wanted to create a lesson on teach good character, so he invented this story as an illustration of good character. (of course it is natural for a christian minister to lie about something to illustrate good character--the ends always justifies the means from them) Just because the bible has real people and places mentioned in it does not validate all that is said in the book.
Third--if I were ceaser and heard about dead people walking about, I would damn well want to know about it.
It is always amazing, and amusing, how twisted christians get in trying to tell us what scripture means.
I mention pilate, because of the statement that there is no evidence, when in fact there is some evidence
If you read the previous post i made, i propose that the dead rising from the grave may refer to the underworld and not the grave
In addition the zombie passage is too vague to assume anything, yes the dead rised, yes people knew about it
But without proof, i doubt the romans would do anything, considering theyre empire, and an urban legend in a single city would be small talk
To answer your post in short, without evidence people wont do anything about something., the passage in question is vauge and i am not removing the possibility of a spiritual ressurrection which would leave little evidence
To clarify, i believe jesus literally rose from the dead but i am unsure about the others
I guess this is a difference between me and you. When I want to know the word for grave (let us not forget, that is what you said) I look at the word actually used for grave (a novel concept, apparently). If you want to shift the goal posts to what the writer must have intended the underlying concept to be, fine, but get ready for some heavy lifting.
First off, if the author wanted to describe a spiritual resurrection from the underworld then there would have been more appropriate (Greek) words at his disposal than "σῶμα" and "μνημεῖον". If he wanted to describe a bodily resurrection from the grave there would not have been any more better words to use.
You say that we should ignore the actual Greek used and insert a Hebrew concept because that was clearly what he intended. I say that the author's apparent inability (or unwillingness) to read Hebrew--evidenced in his reliance on the Greek mistranslation of Isaiah for his "virgin prophecy--his inability to understand Hebrew parallelism--seen in his Triumphal entry story--and his general treatment of the OT prophets are strong evidence against imposing Hebrew/Jewish ideas in place of what is actually written as he does not show any willingness to adhere to them himself.
You make a good point, i will look into this
I always thought the priests of Mithras were attempting to emulate Christianity because they were fearful of being cast aside by the ruling elite of Rome, which ended up happening.
QuoteSecond, the tombstone of pontius pilate has been found, indicating he was a real person
Really? And where pray tell is it? Or is it another of Ron Wyatt's finds which subsequently got lost?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on September 10, 2014, 04:50:57 PM
As i mentioned earlier, it is only important to christians, any one else didnt care or didnt believe it, evidence being no one else recorded it
Romans were almost maniacal when it came to keep records. No Roman record about Jayzus' trial, crucifixion, death, whatever is available. Meanwhile, we have records from the same age and area detailing how many loaves of bread were stored in their warehouse.
No contemporary historian living in the area has written a single word about the big crowds gathered by Jeebus (who, according to the gospels, had more or less the popularity of a modern rockstar), nor about the hours of complete darkness which allegedely happened at Jayzus' death.
QuoteSecond, the tombstone of pontius pilate has been found, indicating he was a real person
And the method of execution is accurate
The Pilate Stone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone) is NOT Pilate's tombstone! It's only a partially readable dedication from the alleged Pilate to the emperor Tiberius. At most, it tells us that Pilate was a real person and prefect of Judea. No evidence for the historicity of Jeebus boy.
QuoteTo stress my first point, if u were caesar, and u heard about this, would u accept it or dismiss it as nonesense or a local legend
If I were Caesar and heard about a man gathering crowds of followers I would damn make sure to know if it's just a local legend or if there's some truth behind it.
Quote
''To answer your post in short, without evidence people wont do anything about something., the passage in question is vauge and i am not removing the possibility of a spiritual ressurrection which would leave little evidence
To clarify, i believe jesus literally rose from the dead but i am unsure about the others.
To Clarify, this is the Daftest Statement iv'e seen you make since iv'e been here.
QuoteThe Pilate Stone is NOT Pilate's tombstone! It's only a partially readable dedication from the alleged Pilate to the emperor Tiberius. At most, it tells us that Pilate was a real person and prefect of Judea. No evidence for the historicity of Jeebus boy.
Correct - although Pilate's historicity was not in question. Both Josephus and Philo wrote of him.
There is and always will be endless speculation about the entirety of the story, but the mere fact that everything in the New Testament, especially that relating to the resurrection and the Book of Acts (which many historians think is a fake, including Richard Carrier) is both post-dated and not verifiable as Jewish sources. Carrier notes that the first writings were dated to about 63 ACE; a bit past anything that could be called concurrent.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/epistles1.htm
QuoteMany scholars attempt "chronologies" of the life of Paul, yet Acts of the Apostles is a naive fantasy and the Pauline letters of themselves provide few clues in time or place. Bringing Paul's epistles seamlessly into the story of the church proves to be an impossible task, for collectively the letters offer no continuous narrative and no one has any real idea of the sequence of their composition. Hence the enduring "uncertainty" in the origin of the letters and their stark incompatibility with the "authorised" early history of the faith.
Pious reflection and wishful thinking assemble the epistles into the "life" of the apostle, delicately extracting a few perceived "facts" from the embarrassing mythology of Acts, as pegs on which to hang the garments. Yet the epistles are themselves full of hyperbole, the inane and the wondrous. Paul, no less than Peter, struts across a stage that exists only in the dreams of those who would speak in his name and rule with his authority. Myth is not truth.
I'd quote from Carrier, but he trashed Acts for about 150 pages, so a single quote will take some looking.
In 2 Cor. 11 the alleged "paul" writes:
Quote32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me.
There were two Nabatean kings named Aretas who are relevant to the discussion. Aretas IV attacked Herod Antipas and was last seen in history being chased back to Nabatea by Roman Governor of Syria, Lucius Vitellius. Vitellius suspended his campaign upon the death of Tiberius awaiting new orders from Caligula. Aretas IV never controlled Damascus.
Aretas III
did control Damascus for about 20 years according to Josephus. He lost it to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in 64
BC. This fact is almost never discussed by jesus freaks for obvious reasons.
BTW, there are very few historical markers in what are considered the "authentic" epistles of "paul," of which 2 Corinthians is considered to be one.
Quote from: Minimalist on September 11, 2014, 09:57:42 PM
BTW, there are very few historical markers in what are considered the "authentic" epistles of "paul," of which 2 Corinthians is considered to be one.
This^ And complete lack of, as I said, complimentary letters that Paul was supposedly answering, along with no details of any of the people which he supposedly knew and was writing to.
Here is a site containing the works of Justin Martyr (c. 160 AD).
http://earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html
I've gone through them with a search feature and guess what? Even in 160 Justin never heard of any "paul" in spite of the claim that it was paul who brought xtianity to Rome over a century before. Justin also does not know anything about any gospels named for mark, matthew, luke or john indicating that this bit of the bullshit story had not been written by 160, either.
Methinks that jesusism is late 2d century bullshit.
Quote from: Minimalist on September 12, 2014, 12:13:47 AM
Here is a site containing the works of Justin Martyr (c. 160 AD).
http://earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html
I've gone through them with a search feature and guess what? Even in 160 Justin never heard of any "paul" in spite of the claim that it was paul who brought xtianity to Rome over a century before. Justin also does not know anything about any gospels named for mark, matthew, luke or john indicating that this bit of the bullshit story had not been written by 160, either.
Methinks that jesusism is late 2d century bullshit.
Minimalist your statement jogged my memory a bit about this guy--Marcion. He was a huge proponent of Paul (inventor of????) and was alive around the time-frame of Justin. Here is a snippet about him:
Study of the Jewish Scriptures, along with received writings circulating in the nascent Church, led Marcion to conclude that many of the teachings of Jesus were incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. Marcion responded by developing a di-theistic system of belief around the year 144.[6] This notion of two godsâ€"a higher transcendent one and a lower world creator and rulerâ€"allowed Marcion to reconcile contradictions between Old Covenant theology and the Gospel message proclaimed by Jesus.
Marcion affirmed Jesus to be the saviour sent by the Heavenly Father, and Paul as his chief apostle. In contrast to other leaders of the nascent Christian church, however, Marcion declared that Christianity was in complete discontinuity with Judaism and entirely opposed to the Old Testament message. Marcion did not claim that the Jewish Scriptures were false. Instead, Marcion asserted that they were to be read in an absolutely literal manner, thereby developing an understanding that YHWH was not the same god spoken of by Jesus. For example, Marcion argued that the Genesis account of YHWH walking through the Garden of Eden asking where Adam was proved YHWH inhabited a physical body and was without universal knowledge (omniscience), attributes wholly incompatible with the Heavenly Father professed by Jesus.
According to Marcion, the god of the Old Testament, whom he called the Demiurge, the creator of the material universe, is a jealous tribal deity of the Jews, whose law represents legalistic reciprocal justice and who punishes mankind for its sins through suffering and death. Contrastingly, the god that Jesus professed is an altogether different being, a universal god of compassion and love who looks upon humanity with benevolence and mercy. Marcion also produced his Antitheses contrasting the Demiurge of the Old Testament with the Heavenly Father of the New Testament.
Marcion held Jesus to be the son of the Heavenly Father but understood the incarnation in a docetic manner, i.e. that Jesus' body was only an imitation of a material body, and consequently denied Jesus' physical and bodily birth, death, and resurrection.
Marcion was the first to introduce an early Christian canon. His canon consisted of still only eleven books grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon, being a shorter and earlier version of the gospel which later became known as the Gospel of Luke,[7] and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle, whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings. The gospel used by Marcion does not contain elements relating to Jesus' birth and childhood, although it does contain some elements of Judaism, and material challenging Marcion's ditheism.
Yes, Mike. Marcion is the key....and Justin did know of Marcion unlike all the others. Somehow, all this happy horseshit got merged but until Marcion came around no one seems to know of any 'paul.'
It is also true that we have no idea what Marcion's original epistles said. WE only know what emerged on the other side after the proto-orthodox (to borrow Bart Ehrman's terminology) got finished massaging the message.
Then there is the whole chrestus/christos thing. That's another part of this whole story.
Good thread! I'm learning stuff. did a thread about Ehrman earlier that ruffled some xtian feathers, but I certainly view him as a legitimate historian. The xtian viewpoint is that if you were religious and then became an agnostic or atheist, you are a traitor akin to Judas. Lol. As a former xtian, that includes me.
I am still reading Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" and will eventually do a thread on it, but there is so much material it is a matter of wading through and distilling it. The more I learn the more I lean to the mythicist position. Haven't done this much scholarly research since uni. Have more to study on, thanks to you. appreciate it.
Quote from: stromboli on September 12, 2014, 11:27:32 AM
Good thread! I'm learning stuff. did a thread about Ehrman earlier that ruffled some xtian feathers, but I certainly view him as a legitimate historian. The xtian viewpoint is that if you were religious and then became an agnostic or atheist, you are a traitor akin to Judas. Lol. As a former xtian, that includes me.
I am still reading Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" and will eventually do a thread on it, but there is so much material it is a matter of wading through and distilling it. The more I learn the more I lean to the mythicist position. Haven't done this much scholarly research since uni. Have more to study on, thanks to you. appreciate it.
As a newbie on the board, I did not quite know what to expect. Stromboli, yours was the first post I read and it was your intro to Carrier's latest. That rekindled some long smoldering embers in my mind. In the 2000-2005 time frame I did a hobby like study of the history of Jesus. Robert M. Price, especially his Incredible Shrinking Man (Jesus, of course) book, became my guru. Scoured the net for others like him and came across Carrier, who had not written a book about Jesus yet. But he did have a book-like essay tackling all of the known references to a historical Jesus. I loved and was so impressed I hard copied it from his site (about 120 pages I think.) He has since taken it down and I've looked all over the net for a copy and can't find one. Wish I could give more details, but my granddaughter has it and is reading it. When I get it back I can give more details. I can't wait to get my hands on his new book!
Anyway, I feel myself being pulled back into that urge to study the issue much more closely again. I'll have to pull out all my old references and start filling in the gap of stuff published from 2005 to now.
This is too much to recap so I'll just post the link to a discussion at AF.org.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-21103.html (https://atheistforums.org/thread-21103.html)
There is a derail attempt by one jesus freak moron and a little banter but in general it stays on topic for 3 pages.
BTW, I just ordered Carrier's book.
Thanks, Minimalist. I read thru the 7 pages of material, was sent to several websites and bookmarked several. Starting to create another set of ahistorical Jesus sites. Thanks again.
De nada.
QuoteThe xtian viewpoint is that if you were religious and then became an agnostic or atheist, you are a traitor akin to Judas.
At least xtians rarely throw rocks at apostates, Strom. Got to give them that much....at least in this century.
Quote from: stromboli on September 12, 2014, 11:27:32 AM
Good thread! I'm learning stuff. did a thread about Ehrman earlier that ruffled some xtian feathers, but I certainly view him as a legitimate historian. The xtian viewpoint is that if you were religious and then became an agnostic or atheist, you are a traitor akin to Judas. Lol. As a former xtian, that includes me.
I am still reading Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" and will eventually do a thread on it, but there is so much material it is a matter of wading through and distilling it. The more I learn the more I lean to the mythicist position. Haven't done this much scholarly research since uni. Have more to study on, thanks to you. appreciate it.
The Christian viewpoint is that someone who ends up not being a Christian was never actually a Christian in the beginning, just simply stating they were a Christian. It's really so easy to say you're a Christian but it have really no meaning. Just look at the Catholics in France, a Christian study showed that half of them didn't even believe in God....France is one of the nations where missionaries go to fail (at least according to what the missionaries themselves have said).
Quote from: Lachish on September 14, 2014, 09:54:00 PM
The Christian viewpoint is that someone who ends up not being a Christian was never actually a Christian in the beginning, just simply stating they were a Christian. It's really so easy to say you're a Christian but it have really no meaning. Just look at the Catholics in France, a Christian study showed that half of them didn't even believe in God....France is one of the nations where missionaries go to fail (at least according to what the missionaries themselves have said).
By that same logic a criminal who recants his crime was never really a criminal. So much for forgiveness of sins.
Quote from: Lachish on September 14, 2014, 09:54:00 PM
The Christian viewpoint
You speak for all Christianity?
Quote from: Lachish on September 14, 2014, 09:54:00 PMThe Christian viewpoint is that someone who ends up not being a Christian was never actually a Christian in the beginning, just simply stating they were a Christian.
*shoots a basketball at a hoop*
*misses*
That wasn't a real throw.
*misses again*
That was just practice.
*nothing but net*
1 for 1! I'm amazing!
Quote from: stromboli on September 14, 2014, 11:10:15 PM
By that same logic a criminal who recants his crime was never really a criminal. So much for forgiveness of sins.
That's like saying someone who has had sex before converting is now a virgin because they are born-again.
Quote from: Lachish on September 15, 2014, 09:12:30 PM
That's like saying someone who has had sex before converting is now a virgin because they are born-again.
Thank you for proving my point.
Quote from: stromboli on September 15, 2014, 09:27:38 PM
Thank you for proving my point.
The point being? Criminality and sex actually require action. What action is there in faith?
QuoteThe Christian viewpoint is that someone who ends up not being a Christian was never actually a Christian in the beginning, just simply stating they were a Christian. It's really so easy to say you're a Christian but it have really no meaning. Just look at the Catholics in France, a Christian study showed that half of them didn't even believe in God....France is one of the nations where missionaries go to fail (at least according to what the missionaries themselves have said).
So if someone who declares themselves a non- believer becomes a believer and is trumpeted as such, they are true believers. But Bart Ehrman, a historian and ordained minister declares finally they have serious doubts about the religion and at the end considers themselves a doubting agnostic, where do you draw the line of faith? How more demonstrable can you be than a minister preaching to a congregation?
If your viewpoint is that a doubter can become a believer, where is the logic that says it is therefore wrong to learn not to believe? Your religion teaches that nonbelievers can become believers, but if a believer becomes a nonbeliever, they didn't believe in the first place? And you don't think that is illogical?
The statement you made is very like one that Mormons use, when meeting an exMormon. They say that "well, they were disgruntled or disagreed with something the church taught so they left". The fact that I proved Mormonism to be false is not the issue, it is literally ignored. Your statement is nothing but an excuse to write off nonbelievers or people who learned otherwise and became atheists. It is simply writing off the person involved so you don't have to deal with it intellectually. It is neither logical nor honest.
Ehrman of course studied this shit in depth for decades. He did not suddenly have a brain cramp one day and say "there's jesus....oh, no it isn't."