The Christian Myth Is Based on Pagan Myths

[sunnyK]

Maybe a splash of highly advanced technology and we would have the perfect combo?

[Plu]

Maybe a splash of highly advanced technology and we would have the perfect combo?

You can't have highly advanced technology without advanced technology, you can't have advanced technology without modern technology, you can't have modern technology without old technology, and you can't have old technology without primitive technology.
These things build on each other. The infrastructure needed to build a highly advanced device is collosal, all the food and shelter for those thousands of people working on said device needs to come from somewhere, and it sure isn't going to come from the excess harvest of Jim Hippy who is growing food in his backyard the all biological way, because the harvest bounty of organic farms is way smaller than that of an industrial farm. We need industrial farms in order to produce enough food with few people, so that we free up all these other people to do all the other stuff we need to lay down infrastructure for advanced endeavours.

[Passion of Christ]

It should be pointed out that none of these pagan gods were real historical people and the resurrection they underwent tied into the coming of spring and they were dead during the winter months. Even secular historians generally agree that Jesus was a real man and that he was put to put to death.

[FrankDK]

>  Even secular historians generally agree that Jesus was a real man and that he was put to put to death.

I don't know what the percentage is, but many secular historians believe that the whole Jesus story is a myth.  We've been through the reasons before, and no one has presented any valid reasons for believing that there was an historical person on whom the legends of Jesus are based.  And it's probably true that the majority of people in societies that worshiped earlier savior gods also believed that the objects of their worship had been real, living people.

Frank

[Hydra009]

It should be pointed out that none of these pagan gods were real historical people

Blashemy!  The Greek Gods were real.  How else do you explain people writing stories about them or believing that they were real!   :P

And the writings had real, historical cities, too!

Even secular historians generally agree that Jesus was a real man and that he was put to put to death.

Actually they don't.

Collin, tell him what he's won.

An week-long all-expense paid tour of You'reWrongsville, KY with motel 8 reservations and one full continental breakfast.

[Passion of Christ]

It should be pointed out that none of these pagan gods were real historical people Blashemy!  The Greek Gods were real.  How else do you explain people writing stories about them or believing that they were real!   :P

The Greek gods were personifications of nature and various aspects of human life. Jesus was a heretical Jewish preacher from the 1st century. There were a lot of people like him around at the time many were healers, exorcists and said to have performed miracles. They weren't killed though that's one of the main differences. Their followers didn't have experience of them after they had died that's another difference there. So you can pinpoint Jesus to within a historical period, location and time in the real world. His real Hebrew name would have been Yeshua Jesus is the Latinised version. The Greek gods you can't really do this with as they had more mythological origins in the human psyche.

And the writings had real, historical cities, too!

They put their gods in real locations and battles to make some kind of a point about the brutal nature of the human condition and mortal life and that kind of thing. You can see the difference between these gods and Jesus and the Bible in general which centres entirely on a real people and human prophets. There are no magic swords, flying horses or monsters or anything like that in there. Maybe a tiny bit of folklore and fanciful beats but not to anywhere near the same extent as the classical Greek and pagan myths. The God the Bibnle and Torah centre upon is very different kind of thing to the Greek gods, and certainly different to Jesus.

Actually they don't.

They do because there is no good reason to suppose that anyone made the story up in it's entirety. They may for the most part not agree that Jesus was in anyway divine or returned to his followers from the dead in any form they will other naturalistic and psychological explanations for that. But we can be clear that Jesus in the Jewish historical context isn't anything much like the Greek or pagan gods.

[Hydra009]

and

[Passion of Christ]

I got your point and I explained why you're wrong to compare a Jewish preacher and healer of the first century to the Greek gods. There are people who claim that Jesus never existed but this is a loony conspiracy theory. You may as well say Socrates, Zarathustra, Mohammed and Buddha never existed just because you don't follow their philosophy or religions.

[Plu]

There's actually a lot of reasons to believe in some of those other folk (especially Socrates) but there's not an awful lot of reason to believe jesus was based on a real person, since pretty much all of the accounts were written after his death and many contradict each other.

There's also the problem that jesus only has one source, while no other writers of the time seem to mention him at all. Some of the other figures you mention on the other hand are well documented by many different people, which gives them more credibility.

Add to this that the only real source on the jesus character also claims he has magical powers, and it becomes rather hard to give his existance more than a "maybe". I mean; maybe he was real. But there's not a lot of reason to believe he is and even less reason to give him any more attention than the other people alive during his time.

[Hydra009]

I got your point and I explained why you're wrong to compare a Jewish preacher and healer of the first century to the Greek gods. There are people who claim that Jesus never existed but this is a loony conspiracy theory. You may as well say Socrates, Zarathustra, Mohammed and Buddha never existed just because you don't follow their philosophy or religions.

Perhaps next you can regale us with your top 10 arguments for how an ottoman is nothing like a footstool.  Or claim that scholars universally believe that Marduk was a real person and that anyone who doesn't believe in Marduk are nuts.

[Passion of Christ]

There's actually a lot of reasons to believe in some of those other folk (especially Socrates) but there's not an awful lot of reason to believe jesus was based on a real person

There numerous people like Jesus around at the time they were six to the dozen and nothing particularly remarkable. None of them were put to death or raised glory that's a small difference there. The raised in glory part is the only bit that secular historians may well disagree on but the basic story and teachings/parables and whatever is fine. The story may well have been a little exaggerated here and there but can't know to what extent. We can suppose someone and some kind of event that effected people in a profound way lays at the heart of it, there people prepared to die for Jesus 20 years after his death. No-one was ever prepared to die for Socrates or Zeus.

since pretty much all of the accounts were written after his death and many contradict each other.

The contradictions demonstrate that this was based on real events of some kind and not an entirely fictional story. There no different versions of the Iliad with contradictions because that was a deliberately manufactured story not based on oral eyewitness accounts. There was a real battle of Troy at some point but it didn't involve the mythological characters and gods described in this story, that was all pure fabrication and story telling.

There's also the problem that jesus only has one source, while no other writers of the time seem to mention him at all.

If there was any reason to suspect that Jesus never existed at all then non-Christian pagan and Jewish historians living in the decades following his death would have been very quick to seize upon that. Instead they concentrate on attacking claims of his divinity and his existence in general. This would have been within living memory for them don't forget.

Some of the other figures you mention on the other hand are well documented by many different people, which gives them more credibility.

We don't have any contemporary records or eyewitness testimony of Hannibal of Carthage for instance only what people wrote about him many years later. Socrates for all we know may have been a literary invention of Plato as he is our source for historical information on Socrates. We generally just assume these historical people did exist so to treat Jesus differently is a double standard. You can certainly claim he didn't have any genuine supernatural power and he didn't return to life from death, that it was based on some kind of mass hysteria or his followers imagined they saw him like people claim to have seen Elvis after he died. Of course Elvis didn't have an empty tomb to go with all that, the fact that Jesus body was missing is central to the story and no-one claimed otherwise. Instead they accounted for it by claiming that Jesus followers stole it to perpetuate a hoax.

Add to this that the only real source on the jesus character also claims he has magical powers

Belief in supernatural or paranormal ability was very normal back then, it's controversial now but it isn't something that science has necessarily disproved. At least not to the extent as atheists like to think it has, there is plenty that goes on in the world that is scientifically baffling and unexplainable.

and it becomes rather hard to give his existance more than a "maybe".

It's better to say that he existed but was some kind of a fruitcake who thought he was God seeing as there isn't a good reason to assume that he never existed as even the historians of the 1st century agreed on that much even if they were opposed to Christianity.

I mean; maybe he was real. But there's not a lot of reason to believe he is and even less reason to give him any more attention than the other people alive during his time.

We have the vantage point of history where we can now see the influence Jesus's teachings and his early followers have had on the world. If Jesus was someone to be taken seriously then he will have made some kind of impact for the good in the world as it is today. which I would say he most certainly has if you compare how we are now as a society to how people were back in the Roman world, we have made some kind of a moral progression.

[stromboli]

There may well have been a real person in the mix of what became Jesus, but that person could be anyone. It needn't even be someone claiming Messianic divinity. What makes Jesus Jesus is the divinity, and that did not come with the person. There are any number of possibilities including Osiris or the god of Mithraism which was prevalent among the Roman soldiers. It is believed by many that the reason Christianity gained traction is because of the Mithrian beginnings; nobody wanted to disrespect the most powerful force on earth, the Roman legions.

Objective sources and historians do not give us any figure that can be identified specifically. Literally anybody who was crucified in that time frame by Romans could potentially qualify, or the whole thing could be an invention.

[Sargon The Grape]

None of them were put to death or raised glory that's a small difference there.

Stop lying.

[Passion of Christ]

There may well have been a real person in the mix of what became Jesus, but that person could be anyone.

More like there will be some mythology in the mix of the real person, we can be sure the general story is true as as the teachings and parables. These will have been sourced from a sayings gospel such as that of the gospel of Thomas. Spiritual Healers, exorcists workers of miracles were know for their talents and Jesus/Yeshua would fit neatly into the 1st century scene. The difference being his execution by the Roman authorities and his subsequent return to life. It's the subsequent return to life which is the primary point of contention. The stories of his powers whatever they entailed is somewhat academic, though we assume the creator of the entire universe could in theory do everything described, these would all be parlor tricks compared to that.

It needn't even be someone claiming Messianic divinity. What makes Jesus Jesus is the divinity

He spoke, forgave sins and acted as though he himself had the authority of God. So certainly if he didn't have that kind of authority he was mentally unhinged in quite a serious way. Or he did have that kind of authority it's one or the other.



 

and that did not come with the person. There are any number of possibilities including Osiris or the god of Mithraism which was prevalent among the Roman soldiers. It is believed by many that the reason Christianity gained traction is because of the Mithrian beginnings; nobody wanted to disrespect the most powerful force on earth, the Roman legions.

There may have been some cross fertilization of rituals and themes but Christianity began historically as a Jewish sect called "The Way" not as a pagan Mystery Cult.  


 

Objective sources and historians do not give us any figure that can be identified specifically. Literally anybody who was crucified in that time frame by Romans could potentially qualify, or the whole thing could be an invention.

If it was invented who invented it and why? Why were people prepared to be persecuted and killed over an invention? More likely it was based on a real event of some kind and this event may or may not have been the work of the divine. If you don't believe in God to begin with then there will have to be some kind of other explanation for it. If you do believe in God this is one of the better potential revelations, I'd take it over Mohammeds Quran and his experience in his cave though that's a valid alternative based on the same concept of God from the Bible. Muslims don't believe Jesus was crucified at all but that does conflict even with the secular historians view.

[AtDawnTheySquee]

The Easter Bunny is a pagan symbol of fertility. But ya know, those dang Christians always have to steal everything and claim it's theirs.

Oh and the Jesus fish is the pagan symbol for vagina. ^-^