Is the story of Jesus original? I have only heard from a few others and done some brief research. It appears that the story of Horus and Buddha along with many others have similarities. Has anybody else done any research in this area? If so I would appreciate a good place to start looking.
thanks.

I have the same thoughts. His birth sure follows the other ancient myth stories.

The Jesus story is metaphorical. I believe it is based on a real person, like the Arthurian legends, but the virgin birth, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection are all symbolic. I think the twelve apostles represent different aspects of our personalities. Bottom line, I think there was a radically different rabbi (Jesus) who was executed for his views. The Jesus story is a hyperbolic tale of the process of awakening.

It doesn't really matter if he lived or not, however. The story, when studied allegorically has a beautiful meaning.

A great book to read on this is Resurrecting Jesus: Embodying the Spirit of a Revolutionary Mystic by Adyashanti, a Zen Buddhist.

I guess this is one point where mormons got it right. Mary got laid.

There were plenty of vehicles around. Ever hear of Apollonius of Tyana? Like Jesus, he lived in the first century CE. According to stories later told by his devotees, he traveled with his disciples from town to town doing miracles: curing the lame and the blind , casting out demons. These powers emanated from his special access to the divine— he was the son of God, some said —as did his gift of prophecy. He preached that people should worry less about material comforts and more about the fates of their souls, and he espoused an ethic of sharing. He was persecuted by the Romans, and upon death he ascended to heaven. This imparted a nice symmetry to his life, since his birth had been miraculous in the first place; before he was born, his divinity had been proclaimed to his mother by a heavenly figure. 14 Sound familiar?

Wright, Robert (2009-05-20). The Evolution of God (pp. 295-296). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.

some more:

In Late Antiquity talismans made by Apollonius appeared in several cities of the Eastern Roman Empire, as if they were sent from heaven. They were magical figures and columns erected in public places, meant to protect the cities from afflictions. The great popularity of these talismans was a challenge to the Christians. Some Byzantine authors condemned them as sorcery and the work of demons, others admitted that such magic was beneficial; none of them claimed that it didn’t work.[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

There are at least a dozen stories of virgin birth, miracles etc. starting around 2000 BCE. See https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081227133417AAs84oB

The link I'm providing is clearly from an "anti-christian" site. One thing that is great is they supply you with a bibliography of their information and the link jumps straight to that.

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/kb0_bibliography.htm

The next links provide comparisons of gods with Jesus:

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1678/claimed-similarities-between-jesus-christ-and-horus-and-other-gods

http://www.pocm.info/pagan_ideas_miracles.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Esemono/pro

The next link is a documentary that looks at the similarities between other deities and Jesus:

http://youtu.be/dcrygSAqfj4

All of these are food for thought. :-)

The book "The Slave Species of God" covers this issue extensively

I think the Israelites often took local myths and legends and then gave them a Jewish spin. Like the Epic of Gilgamesh turning into Noah and the Flood.

It's like remakes of old movies. Same story, just better special effects.

sounds like you need to watch Religulous.

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/religulous_by_bill_maher_full_movie/

The gospels are literature. Myth making at its finest. Lots of parallels with Horus, Osiris, Mithra, etc...

The question is was there ever a historical Jesus. If not, the gospels show how he was euhemerized after being worshiped as a heavenly deity.

If he did exist, it is next to impossible to determine what if anything from the gospels can be considered to be authentic from his life.

The answer to that question will depend on who is asking it, an Atheist will tend to look for information from an atheist source, a Christian will look at Christian sources. Both tend to look for information that will support their particular beliefs.
A man called Jesus or ‘the Christ’ can be found in many secular as well as non-secular writings dating from the first and second centuries AD, this is a fact and it would seem pointless to deny it therefore we have no reason to suppose that a man called Jesus did not exist. It seems illogical to reject the writings of Roman historians when they write of ‘Jesus’ and at the same time accept other writings by these men as being factual.
Where problems arise is when we talk about who Jesus was and the claims made by him and his followers, those claims cannot be proven one way or another, they are and always will be a matter of faith for the believer and a matter of ridicule for the atheist so I think L.Tom has got it about right.

Interested observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The answer to that question will depend on who is
> asking it, an Atheist will tend to look for
> information from an atheist source, a Christian
> will look at Christian sources. Both tend to look
> for information that will support their particular
> beliefs.

While I agree that most would look to confirm their firmly held beliefs I wonder what you would say to someone who doesn't hold a firm belief either way?

> A man called Jesus or ‘the Christ’ can be
> found in many secular as well as non-secular
> writings dating from the first and second
> centuries AD, this is a fact and it would seem
> pointless to deny it therefore we have no reason
> to suppose that a man called Jesus did not exist.
> It seems illogical to reject the writings of Roman
> historians when they write of ‘Jesus’ and at
> the same time accept other writings by these men
> as being factual.

Rubish, the only illogical stance in this discussion is to accept at face value writings which fall apart with the slightest deconstruction. History doesn't stand with the writings of a few people it stands with the confirmation of the writings a few people.

> Where problems arise is when we talk about who
> Jesus was and the claims made by him and his
> followers, those claims cannot be proven one way
> or another, they are and always will be a matter
> of faith for the believer and a matter of ridicule
> for the atheist so I think L.Tom has got it about
> right.

No argument here.

pagan origins of the christ myth

http://www.pocm.info/

Thanks. That was a good one. This particular topic fascinates me no end.

> This particular topic fascinates me no end.

Me, too. But I really wish I could have learned things like this in school, a long time ago, - would have saved me a lot time.

The tactic is not original...

Joseph Smith decides he doesn't want to go out and work in the field so he says, "Uh, Dad. I'm really tired. I was up all night having visitations from angels."

His dad buys it. A story evolves and a religion is born.


Mary gets knocked up and tells Joseph, "Uh, God appeared to me and magically impregnated me."

Joseph buys it. A story evolves and a religion is born.

The Jesus story is a conglomerate of mythology. One quality of mythology is that the stories incorporate memorable and repeatable events so the story gets passed along, usually with a lesson. It's much easier to remember a legend about Paul Bunyan and Babe than it is to simply teach about an exemplary lumberjack.

Was there a seed character for Bunyan? I have no idea, but the hero in the legend became "sticky" (easy to remember) just like the elements of the Jesus story.

There may have been a real Jesus, and he may have said some good things. And he may have been crucified.

The mythology begins with the meanings ascribed to his experiences. The virgin birth and the return from the "other side" are both covered extensively by Joseph Campbell. There are actually several references in the New Testament to contemporary alternative mythical systems. Why would believers be figuratively washed in the blood of the Lamb? Because believers in the Dionysian religion literally washed themselves in a deluge of blood from a freshly killed bull. Who makes themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven? The followers of the Attic mysteries. They would quite literally cut off their manhood to achieve a higher state of spirituality.

I guess for me the new thing about Jesus was the idea that his main purpose was to save us from sin. Please help me here. Neither the Jews nor the Romans nor the Greeks really had much use for the concept of sin. How did that all get started and then applied to Jesus?

Jacob,
I hope that I would never tell you that you are talking rubbish, by all means tell me that you believe I’m mistaken but please don’t tell me I talk rubbish without providing the evidence as to why I am.

“While I agree that most would look to confirm their firmly held beliefs I wonder what you would say to someone who doesn't hold a firm belief either way?”
I would say to such a person, ‘that’s fine believe whatever you like it’s not for me to tell you what to believe.’

“History doesn't stand with the writings of a few people it stands with the confirmation of the writings a few people.”

Possibly so but how could the writings of those men could be confirmed, they are either true or they are not true? Without evidence to the contrary, and of course there CANNOT be EVIDENCE to the contrary, only belief, their writings about a man called Jesus should be taken at face value unless there is good reason not to. Why not, instead of telling me I talk rubbish, provide the proof that they were lying.

What you are in fact demanding is that writers such as Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, etc. all NON CHRISTIAN historians with no possible reason to lie should claim that a man variously called Jesus, Christus or simply ‘Jesus a wise man’ preached in Palestine and was put to death by the Romans. Modern day historians accept that the accounts of the times written by those men are, as far as can be ascertained, accurate. Why then do you demand a higher level of confirmation in the case of a man called Jesus? Could it be simply that your Atheist beliefs will not allow you to believe that Jesus, and I'm not talking about the Jesus of the Bible, could have existed. Please remember that I did NOT say the biblical accounts are true, I said there is no reason to suppose that a man called Jesus didn’t exist.

I would like to ask you a question just to lighten the mood a little. Many Americans have watched the Mel Gibson film (movie) Braveheart, unfortunately many of them seem to think it was true record of events………..Do you?

Do you have a list of quotes from these authors? I've only read about Josephus. If I recall correctly, he only made two references to Jesus, and they don't confirm any details of his life. How do we know he wasn't just repeating something that Paul made up decades after the fact?

Chump Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do we know he wasn't just repeating something
> that Paul made up decades after the fact?

That's exactly what he would have been doing, as Josephus was born after Jesus supposedly died. He could only have been repeating what he'd been told by somebody else.

So maybe Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus were of the ilk of Mel Gibson? :-)

"So maybe Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus were of the ilk of Mel Gibson? :-)”
It's possible dagny but I guess that’s something we'll never know.

Joking aside, I was trying to make the point that people, myself included, have dispositions that tend to predetermine their beliefs. Hard evidence or proof is rarely needed in such cases. So Braveheart is the bees knees for those who want such tales of valour to be true but it’s a fairy story to those who wish it to be false. :-)

There are good reasons to believe Jesus is entirely mythical. Watch some YouTube clips from Robert M. Price or Richard Carrier. These are both guys with PhD's in history and they've studied the idea extensively.

Have you seen the movie on YouTube called Zeitgeist? I saw it in 2007 and it really opens your eyes to how similar Jesus is to other deities and demigods. Up to that point I was pretty unsettled about Mormonism. My patriarchal blessing I received in the mid-90's told me things would happen that in fact had already happened. That cracked the door of suspicion for me. When I received my endowments for my mission I remember thinking that this wasn't the church I grew up with, but I still pressed on in my head.

As funny as it may sound, I finally let go of it all in my mind when I saw Zeitgeist and realized how much of a fraud the Jesus story is. That is when I really stopped believing and wearing my garments. There is a lot of TSCC centered conversation here, and rightly so. It was interesting to see and read your thread about Jesus. I definitely recommend you take 2 hours and watch Zeitgiest. Here is a link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guXirzknYYE

I think I am going to watch it again!

I had already had issues w/the Bible stories, BoM Stories and even my ancestor Mormon Pioneer stories. I could sort of accept the Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef stories because I had read Carl Jung's writings on collective consiousness and archetypal anecdotes. Then Joseph Campbell came along and suddenly; I not only started to read the Bible again but learned to like it, just as I did with the Bhagavadha Gita, Vedas. But I also know not to take the myths and fables as science (Creation story, flood, giants, miracles, whales swallowing people, etc...). It's just a type of Tolkien tale or even Harry Potter Saga.

Interesting that you bring up Tolkien and Harry Potter. If you read about the early Joseph Smith, before Nauvoo, he was very keen to preach what I consider spiritual alchemy. I think most Mormons who really dug deep into the Mormon world would feel quite at home in kabbalah, vedics, and other gnostics that the Harry Potter world also shares. The hidden knowledge aspect described in Zeitgeist is what fascinates me the most.

Part of the difficulty in weighing the allegations that Christianity utilized myths relating to others is that of the correct chronology of the events relating to Jesus and the claims of the others. We have too little evidence of the exact dates of Jesus to even measure that half of the equation. It is interesting that the Bible does make reference to another Jesus who was a pretender.

While one could simply conclude that Jesus was what the Bible says he was on the basis of the continuity of Christianity for almost 2000 years, the mere existence of Mormonism being permitted to continue makes that a shaky argument. The denial of Jesus is mostly premised on the position that there is insufficient proof he existed outside of the Bible which, since large parts of the Bible are demonstrably flawed, makes it iffy.

While I submit that TSCC is proven a fraud and cannot be saved by belief in the simple hoax, I find that Christianity, though not proven, is acceptable on the basis of belief. That belief, so based on feelings, cannot and should not permit the persecution or bias against non-believers. In a similar vein, we must oppose all religions or philosophies which act like ISIS, etc. and would impose religion on others.

Thank you for all the wonderful comments. This has given me lots of directions to research. Much thanks!

I'm just waiting for Bona Dea to show up and tell everybody how silly they are for noticing similarities between jesus and other myths that are much older...

Excuse me, but I have repeately said there are similarities which were added to the narrative. These were generally added later to make the story more majestic. What I have complained about are authors such as Achyra S. who make up new versions of the myths and who describe parallels which do not exist. I have also criticized posters who take questionable scholarship as truth while rejecting mainstream experts usually without bothering to actually read them.Perhaps you should actually read my posts and stop putting words in my mouth.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excuse me, but I have repeately said there are
> similarities which were added to the narrative.
> These were generally added later to make the story
> more majestic. What I have complained about are
> authors such as Achyra S. who make up new versions
> of the myths and who describe parallels which do
> not exist. I have also criticized posters who take
> questionable scholarship as truth while rejecting
> mainstream experts usually without bothering to
> actually read them.Perhaps you should actually
> read my posts and stop putting words in my mouth.

"Generally added later"?...Later then what?
The entire New Testament was generally added later...decades after Jesus purported death. Your entire FAITH on a historical Jesus is from information GENERALLY ADDED LATER.

People reject your logical fallacy of appeal to authority because your authorities put up poor evidence to make their case.

Some have a higher standard for evidence then your so called authorities.

Your ignorance and lack of manners is showing.

Wrong place



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2014 11:24AM by bona dea.

Actually it is the knowledge that the best evidence of a historical Jesus is poor evidence at best and all of it was "Generally added" long after the fact that demands better evidence then...."all the top scholars believe...blah blah blah"

Your top scholars put out lousy evidence as the best evidence they have.

No matter how you slice it with your boy historical Jesus....you do not have good enough evidence to prove your case.

There is more evidence of Sasquatch then your boy historical Jesus

There are a number of good resources that address parallels between pagan myths and the appearance of Jesus. C.S. Lewis has always been one of my favorites. He found no compromise in recognizing parallels between pagan myths and Jesus. He argued that parallel pagan myths actually pointed toward a divine design that became fully realized in the person of Jesus. His book, "Miracles" is a good resource. Here are a couple of web links that cover more of the details:

http://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/c-s-lewis-on-pagan-philosophy-as-a-road-to-christian-faith/

http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/node/44

Isn't there a temporary ban on this subject after the last few threads got heated?

rhgc
“The denial of Jesus is mostly premised on the position that there is insufficient proof he existed outside of the Bible which, since large parts of the Bible are demonstrably flawed, makes it iffy”

I’m in complete agreement with you on the above but I would like to add something that, in the years I have been coming to this site, appear to have been overlooked.

The Jerusalem temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD70, whether that destruction was a fulfilment of prophecy as described in the bible or that the ‘prophecy was written into the narrative at a later date is irrelevant. What many fail to take into account is that the tribal records and a huge amount of invaluable information pertaining to that period was also destroyed, including I might add, the very thing that we are discussing, any possible records of Jesus’ birth.

I can use as an example of this loss the spurious Mormon claim that they are simply following the Law of Tithing. Without going into details it’s enough to say that tithes could be collected ONLY by Levites, members of the tribe of Levi. Jews have not followed the law of tithing for nearly 2000 years because all records were lost after AD70. It follows that records of any Jews, not just Jesus, born before that time were also destroyed.

Possibly the paucity of information concerning the existence of Jesus could be due to the above rather than the overly simple statement saying that the information isn’t available because he didn’t exist.

Yes, but wouldn't the Romans have kept records of their dealings with criminals, or things which caused disturbances in the area and what-have-you?

"Yes, but wouldn't the Romans have kept records of their dealings with criminals, or things which caused disturbances in the area and what-have-you?

It's true that the Romans kept records of disturbances and it's possible they kept records of executed criminals. I honestly couldn't say either way. However, we should also note even if they did have records of executed criminals none of those names, as far as I'm aware, have survived. For example we know absolutely nothing about those executed by the Romans following various uprisings from the fall of Jerusalem in 63BC to it's destruction in 70AD. Likewise the same could be said of the thousands of Christians martyred in Rome.

There are virtually no records of criminal procedings from that era and that place.In fact there are few names of crucifixion victims at all. Even important literature has been lost. Mundane court documents are pretty much non existant



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2014 01:55PM by bona dea.

There is an excellent book on the subject coming out very soon. I was privileged to read the author's draft and I contributed a cover blurb to the book. I will make an announcement on the board when it's available.