The Pagan Gospel

[guacamole]

You know guacamole, if I were really that interested in primary sources on this matter, I’d find them myself, instead of insulting people for merely repeating what is acknowledged by the majority of historians and even your own church fathers.

 

If you were really interested in evidence then you'd post some. But you're not. You're more interested in castigating me because I'm pointing out the obvious and then being flippant when people either choose to dodge the question or go off on some tangent. I've already dealt with what the church fathers say. As far as the "majority of historians" I'd like to see you prove that. As far as I can tell, the "majority of historians" think you're a dolt.

 

There is plenty of proof out there, its not like this forum is the only way to get any. And it’s not like you have a case in hell for your position. It is neither reasonable or factual, so quite the smugness, its very unappealing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you don't like my methods. I'll try not to let it keep me up at night.

[Kryten]

Eh?  Who rattled the bars on your cage.  I've known fifteen-year olds who grasp the concepts of *evidence* and *proof*, who realize that repeating an assertion is not evidence. 

Oh goody.  You've decided to argue the "Christianity isn't true" point instead of the "Christianity borrowed from pagans" point.   Hmmmm... I wonder why that is?  Maybe because you're busy trying to find a clue? 

 

Seek and ye shall find...

 

fwiw

guac.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I found Jesus years ago and later found-- like Santa, he wasn't real. I KNOW your religion is a myth built on other previously established myths. I have studied the origins of Christianity from the believer's perspective, since I was one and had been one for 30 years. I eventually came to realize the truth--

* there is not one shred of evidence that Jesus ever existed;

* the concepts of Christianity WERE all borrowed from pagan sources such as Attis, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, etc;

* the bible if full of contradictions- from Jesus' birth to his supposed resurrection;

* and most of the traditions of the church were borrowed-- like Sunday worship (instead of Saturday, like the Jews practiced), the cross, Christmas, Easter, etc.

 

I've read a ton on the old pagan concepts that predate Christianity, and how they were at least well known to the NT writers even IF they didn't directly plagerize them "word for word". There is no doubt that the concepts of being born again; the son/sun (of god) being born three days after the winter solstace (Dec 25th); the saviour being the "son of God"; and being born of a virgin were all well-known ideas prior to the formation of the Christian religion. Jesus may not have been a direct rip-off of Horus in every aspect, but he WAS said to be "the way, the truth, and the light, the messiah", had 12 disciples, was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected, walked on water, and raised El-Azur-us from the dead. This was well before the Jesus character evolved. If you doubt this, then do your own research-- don't expect to be an asshole and then have us do the work for you. But I suspect you doubt these facts because they damage your belief system, so you feel the need to discredit them in order to justify your world-view.

 

I have seen MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence to know Christianity is false, and if you can come up with something-- anything to validate your belief in the invisible, miracle working, all-loving, omnipotent, and all-knowing God of the bible, then please post it so we can all be saved (again). Otherwise, you're arguments are lame and not worth my time. Show yourself mature enough to be respected and maybe you'll be treated with some.

[Mythra]

Pagan_Origins_of_the_Christ_Myth.htm

 

Hey Guys - I'm back.

 

Just got back from vacation - I wasn't around a 'puter for the last couple weeks.

 

Ready to get back into the fray. I see guaca dude hasn't given up yet looking for primary sources. I found a pretty good website with tons of primary source quotes - not that guaca will bother looking. Bottom line is, he can't prove Jesus was a man, and we can't prove beyond all doubt that he wasn't. But, after examining the evidence, what makes the most sense - where does thinking based on non-preconceived notions lead?

 

Of course, Guaca must have rock-solid proof. He won't be accused of being gullible. Oh - wait a minute.. He's a christian.. Not gullible Get it? Oh, the irony..

 

Glad to be back.

[Ouroboros]

Pagan_Origins_of_the_Christ_Myth.htm

 

Hey Guys - I'm back.

 

Just got back from vacation -  I wasn't around a 'puter for the last couple weeks.

 

Ready to get back into the fray.  I see guaca dude hasn't given up yet looking for primary sources.  I found a pretty good website with tons of primary source quotes - not that guaca will bother looking.  Bottom line is, he can't prove Jesus was a man, and we can't prove beyond all doubt that he wasn't.  But, after examining the evidence, what makes the most sense - where does thinking based on non-preconceived notions lead? 

 

Of course, Guaca must have rock-solid proof.  He won't be accused of being gullible.  Oh - wait a minute..  He's a christian.. Not gullible Get it?  Oh, the irony..

 

Glad to be back.

 

Hi Mythra! Welcome back, I was wondering what happened to you, but thought that you just needed a break from all the discussion.

[Mythra]

Hans

 

Thanx for the welcome back. Since I'm not exactly the intellectual type, I was a little brain-fried from reading Invictus' mental gymnastics, but two weeks in the pine trees of Northern Idaho (Coer d' Alene) fixed me right up. Glad to see Thankful is back too.

[Ouroboros]

Guac, my reference was Han's link.  I think I piggybacked my initial post onto his posted link, so didn't specifically post the link.  Sorry about that.  This thread has gotten so cumbersome, that I went back, but I can't find his initial post.  I'll dig around again.  I'm probably just overlooking it or not going back far enough.

 

http://www.blackmask.com/acrobook/bookdead.pdf

[Ouroboros]

Hans

 

Thanx for the welcome back.  Since I'm not exactly the intellectual type, I was a little brain-fried from reading Invictus' mental gymnastics, but two weeks in the pine trees of Northern Idaho (Coer d' Alene) fixed me right up.  Glad to see Thankful is back too.

Like old friends!

 

You have a lot of knowledge about these things, so I'm happy to see you around contributing and making our days more pleasurable.

[guacamole]

Hey guacamole....  Okay, IF your "holy word" is not a myth and everything in it is the truth then PROVE IT.  Should be easy and I'll give you the same challenge as Amanda.  Go to a terminally ill children's ward with two-three believers of mustard seed-like faith and heal them in the name of Jesus. 

 

You claim to have a "source" text but I doubt that you'll be able to do anything like the "source" says that you should be able to do.  That means that your source is a bad one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why are you still prattling on about things that aren't germane to the discussion? I know you don't have any evidence so you need to change the subject. You don't need to remind me.

[guacamole]

(Guac)

I'm curious about the reference to "Horus" saying "I shall not die again". From my admittedly limited knowledge of Egyptian Mythology, Horus does not die except in the form of Pharoah, who dies and then goes to live with the gods. Again, it's a problematic passage without the mythic backstory. There's no reason to think that when he says "My moment is in your bodies" means that he indwells the average believer in the way the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. In addition "but my forms are in my place of habitation".... what the heck does that mean? Likwise "An only One who proceedeth from an only One". Is horus saying that he was the only child of an only child and therefore heir to the throne?

 

Guac, my reference was Han's link. I think I piggybacked my initial post onto his posted link, so didn't specifically post the link. Sorry about that. This thread has gotten so cumbersome, that I went back, but I can't find his initial post. I'll dig around again. I'm probably just overlooking it or not going back far enough.

 

I'm not really prepared to debate this indepth, as I was just scouting through the book and found a few passages interesting.

 

I do find it interesting that the word "One" is capitalized. When we read the Bible, if a word is capitalized in that way, we acknowledge that they are speaking of God or Jesus. So, we could probably do the same here and acknowledge that "One" indicates a diety of some sort.

 

Understand that the capitalizing of the word "One" in the text is a translators decision. My understanding of the pyramid text is that it was written on the walls of tombs using hieroglyphics. Hieroglyphics wouldn't have used any capitals. I'm not sure if there is an extant pyramid text in heiratic (the priestly script used on other scrolls, like the book of the dead) or demotic (the scribal script used for common records).

 

Remember, this Book of the Dead predates Christian writings. I've had Christians argue that the Bible is based on divine revelation (or continuing revelatory knowledge). Which is why there is info in the NT that is not present in the OT. This is how they wiggle out of contradiction debates. So, I am going to borrow from them in this instance and point out that if one was going to start their own religion based upon another- or a couple others- they would borrow concepts and expound upon them, make them different but similar.

 

It seems that you are abdicating the argument, then. If you can't show a one-to-one relationship between things in the NT or Christian doctrine and things in pagan religion, then you can't prove borrowing. If the best you can do is find things that are "similar" then either you have to say that all religions borrowed from each other because they are all similar, or you can't say that borrowing occured with any certainty.

 

I suspect that you will not be content unless you find an exact copy. The fact though is that there are similarities in various predating myths and religions. This is such common knowledge that even dumb ol' Jack Chick doesn't refute it, but instead puts the "Satan knew before hand and copy-catted ahead of time..." spin.

 

I am content with the defense I have provided so far, though a little dissappointed in the proponents of the theory, excepting yourself. The fact that Jack Chick doesn't refute it but resorts to the "Satan knew before hand..." convinces me that I'm taking the right course.

 

What I found most interesting about the Book of the Dead, was the way in which Osiris was adored and worshipped. It is very similar to the way that Yahweh is revered in the OT writings like the Psalms and such. When I was a Christian, I believed that only Christians could come up with such adoration and worship because they were inspired of the Holy Spirit. The fact that other people of other religions, hold this same kind of worship, proves more to me than 100 comparable myths.

 

Don't you think it's a bit naive to think that people everywhere wouldn't have composed statements of love and devotion to the divine beings that supposedly protected and sustained them? I don't doubt that the egyptians crafted exquisite declarations of faith; considering the vast artistic genius contained in that culture, I would be surprised if they didn't pour out hymns and psalms to their gods. In fact, as a Christian I find that I can relate better to the egyptians through their pronunciations of faith than I can relate to them through the cryptic drawings and occult texts that survived the obliteration of centuries. When it comes down to it, we share a fundamentally similar impulse and reverence for something divine. It's one of the things that I appreciate about the Egyptians and their reverential culture, in which religion was part and parcel of the equation, as opposed to the greeks, for whom religion seems at worst to be mere entertainment, grist for Aristophanes comedies or an after thought, something easily dismantled by any two bit philosopher with a toga and sandals. When you survey the remains of Egypt, you get the sense of a people with a sophisticated theology, a sense of the transcendent, and awe of the supernatural. Perhaps it's a semitic thing...

 

On the one hand you have Christ who is granted rulership of all things by God the Father because of his sacrificial obedience and moral perfection. On the other hand you have Horus who is granted rulership on Osiris' throne because his father is dead and he is heir to the heavenly monarchy.

 

Yes, and? What do you not understand about borrowing and expounding on concepts?

 

Apparently very little. On the one hand you have Christ who is the Son through terminology or metaphor, and who is reckoned the metaphorical heir because of his works. On the other hand you have Horus who is the "biological" son of Osiris and who is heir because of that literal relationship. Horus rules because it is his divine right. Jesus rules because he is "best". If "similarity" of certain ideas is all you have to go on, then I'm not convinced. Zeus was son and heir; are the Christians borrowing from the greeks as well?

 

What does it mean? Both divine food and the sacrifice? How did Egyptians conceive of ritual meals?

 

Now Guac, alot of Christians can't even quite agree on what "divine food and divine sacrifice" or in Christian terms, the bread and the wine and the sacrifice of Jesus- means. I do believe that they had a sacred meal of beer and wheat cakes.

 

On the contrary, Christians agree on what the terms are meant to portrary, because we have, comparatively, reams of expository text that link the sacrifice of Christ to the passover, and the sacrifice of atonement. How did the Egyptians conceive of sacrifice? Was it simply an expression of worship? Was it to curry divine favor? Did egyptian theology encompass a doctrine of sin and supernatural atonement that required sacrifice? What?

 

Did they have a ritual meal? Interesting; but many religions have ritual meals. Hinduism has ritual meals. Juydaism had ritual meals. I'd be willing to bet that the Eskimos had rituals meals. If I started a religion today, it would probably have a ritual meal. So what? Is something that nearly every religion has indicative of borrowing? If you're going to cherry pick phrases that sound similar to you, but not provide the background data that makes the passages intelligible for comparison, then should I deem that evidence? No. I'd be a fool if I did, and you know it.

 

That's what rankles me about the mythicist position; people will be quite keen about evidence until the point someone proposes that Jesus was copied from pagan sources, at which point the need for the quality of evidence that sets the standard for what is commonly thought of as "skepticism" is thrown out the window.

 

Hopefully someone else will go through some primary sources. I'm not trying to blow you off right now. When I posted those, I had free time. But this week I have two biology tests, a state certification exam for my nursing assistant course and two essays to write. So I can't do anything more here than lob off a few posts to relieve my study headache.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just finished running through a busy spot in my schedule, though it seems your commitments have much more gravitas than mine.

Good luck, MM.

 

I'm going through primary source matieral as time allows. Right now I have about four pages of "Attis" citations. As soon as I am satisfied that I have exhausted all avenues then I will post them in a new thread. I look forward to your comments when you have time to post. Thanks for the discussion.

 

fwiw

guaca.

[guacamole]

I found Jesus years ago and later found-- like Santa, he wasn't real.  I KNOW your religion is a myth built on other previously established myths.  I have studied the origins of Christianity from the believer's perspective, since I was one and had been one for 30 years.  I eventually came to realize the truth--

* there is not one shred of evidence that Jesus ever existed;

* the concepts of Christianity WERE all borrowed from pagan sources such as Attis, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, etc;

* the bible if full of contradictions- from Jesus' birth to his supposed resurrection;

* and most of the traditions of the church were borrowed-- like Sunday worship (instead of Saturday, like the Jews practiced), the cross, Christmas, Easter, etc. 

 

You don't know squat because you haven't read the evidence first hand. You accept uncritically whatever Freke, Gandy, Archaya S, et. al. have to say. Otherwise you'd know, for example, that the sources from Krishna post date the arrival of Christianity in India, or that there is a rather devastating dearth of Mithra texts that can shed light on belief and practice.

 

You think Attis is where it's at? Do tell. I've been researching the divine eunuch for the past week already. I've got four pages of Attis texts, none of which show any similarity to Jesus. Maybe you can explain where I went wrong.

 

I'm calling your bull. Put up or shut up. Repeating the assertion doesn't make it true. Post the evidence.

 

I've read a ton on the old pagan concepts that predate Christianity, and how they were at least well known to the NT writers even IF they didn't directly plagerize them "word for word".  There is no doubt that the concepts of being born again; the son/sun (of god) being born three days after the winter solstace (Dec 25th); the saviour being the "son of God"; and being born of a virgin were all well-known ideas prior to the formation of the Christian religion.  Jesus may not have been a direct rip-off of Horus in every aspect, but he WAS said to be "the way, the truth, and the light, the messiah", had 12 disciples, was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected, walked on water, and raised El-Azur-us from the dead.  This was well before the Jesus character evolved.  If you doubt this, then do your own research-- don't expect to be an asshole and then have us do the work for you.  But I suspect you doubt these facts because they damage your belief system, so you feel the need to discredit them in order to justify your world-view.

 

Great. Supply the texts or stop wasting bandwith.

 

I have seen MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence to know Christianity is false, and if you can come up with something-- anything to validate your belief in the invisible, miracle working, all-loving, omnipotent, and all-knowing God of the bible, then please post it so we can all be saved (again). Otherwise, you're arguments are lame and not worth my time.  Show yourself mature enough to be respected and maybe you'll be treated with some.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Translation:

 

"I don't have the evidence you're asking for so let's change the subject."

 

Nice try, but no. Right now we're exploring whether or not Christians borrowed from pagans. Everything else is irrelevant.

 

fwiw

guac.

[guacamole]

Pagan_Origins_of_the_Christ_Myth.htm

 

Hey Guys - I'm back.

 

Just got back from vacation -  I wasn't around a 'puter for the last couple weeks.

 

Ready to get back into the fray.  I see guaca dude hasn't given up yet looking for primary sources.  I found a pretty good website with tons of primary source quotes - not that guaca will bother looking.  Bottom line is, he can't prove Jesus was a man, and we can't prove beyond all doubt that he wasn't.  But, after examining the evidence, what makes the most sense - where does thinking based on non-preconceived notions lead? 

 

Of course, Guaca must have rock-solid proof.  He won't be accused of being gullible.  Oh - wait a minute..  He's a christian.. Not gullible Get it?  Oh, the irony..

 

Glad to be back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Holy crap. I looked at the website you posted. Did you actually think that there were some primary sources posted there somewhere? I don't know what's more pathetic, that you think you have knowledge but don't or that you came back to this thread to publicize the fact.

 

Keep clownin'

guaca.

[doomguarder]

Hello Guac,

 

SO what will you accept as primary sources, and are you willing to put your sources to the same test as what you would require of those on this board?

 

Just thought I would get a definition before I go hunting.

[Mythra]

I think guaca already demonstrated his blatant double standard when he declared the gospel of Matthew to be a primary source. He probably thinks because it's the first book in the new testament, that it was the first written. A real scholar.

 

This is a fun little game he's playing. No matter what you show, he'll say "you call that evidence"? Then, you find something else, and he scoffs at that. Chuckling the whole time at the silly atheists who are running around digging up primary sources for him.

 

While at the same time, he swallows the bible whole without any critical analysis at all.

 

There are a lot more people than Acharya S. and Freke and Gandy who know full well the implication of pagan ideas and greek thought finding their way into the bible. The bible is either completely a man-made concoction, or else God is terribly unoriginal.

[Mythra]

But, just so that guaca can have another primary source quote to ignore or scoff at, here is another:

 

The God Dionysos: "To these ends I have laid my deity aside and go disguised as man" Euripedes 5th century BCE.

 

Gee, isn't that EXACTLY what Jesus did?

[Ouroboros]

I understand that there is huge difficulties to find a primary source from a pagan cult where the words and stories matches so closely to the Gospels so there is no doubt to a transfer has been made, or to find a document proving that the writers of the Gospels deliberately copied from the pagan cults.

 

My post here won't be one of those proofs Guac wants, but I ask myself if there is any primary source that can prove to the same degree that any of the Gospel writers copied Jesus words accurately? Does a primary source exist to show that Jesus said what Matthew said he did? For me to believe there was a true transference of facts and sayings from Jesus to Matthew, I require a primary source that states that or in other ways proves this.

[Kryten]

You think Attis is where it's at?  Do tell.  I've been researching the divine eunuch for the past week already.  I've got four pages of Attis texts, none of which show any similarity to Jesus.  Maybe you can explain where I went wrong. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try to not be an asshole for a day and maybe you'll get some respect. What grade are you in??

I admit, including Attis as a source was inadvertant. But I also admit you are blind if you can't see christianity borrowed from pre-existing sources. Even the Christians admit those concepts were there first but that Satan must have put them there to discredit the Jesus story. The evidence is overwhelming unless you refuse to let go of your myths. I know it's hard to accept the truth, so I understand your struggle and need to lash out.

[guacamole]

Hello Guac,

 

SO what will you accept as primary sources, and are you willing to put your sources to the same test as what you would require of those on this board? 

 

Just thought I would get a definition before I go hunting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Doomguarder.

 

Whenever you compare two texts, for the sake of the comparison, those texts are the primary sources. Simply put, if someone says that Christianity created Jesus by copying pagan sources, the primary sources would be pagan texts to prove the borrowing and the new testament. It doesn't matter whether or not either of the texts are true, primal, eyewitness, or whatnot. The reason it doesn't matter is because none of those have anything to do with borrowing.

 

fwiw

guaca.

[guacamole]

I think guaca already demonstrated his blatant double standard when he declared the gospel of Matthew to be a primary source.  He probably thinks because it's the first book in the new testament, that it was the first written.  A real scholar.

 

This is a fun little game he's playing.  No matter what you show, he'll say "you call that evidence"?  Then, you find something else, and he scoffs at that.  Chuckling the whole time at the silly atheists who are running around digging up primary sources for him.

 

While at the same time, he swallows the bible whole without any critical analysis at all.

 

There are a lot more people than Acharya S. and Freke and Gandy who know full well the implication of pagan ideas and greek thought finding their way into the bible.  The bible is either completely a man-made concoction, or else God is terribly unoriginal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Keep clowning. Everyone can see that you haven't posted any evidence yet, your puerile obfuscation about primary sources not withstanding.

 

Here's a hint. Check out your books and follow the footnotes. Google the references on line and posts the texts for us to discuss. I don't have Freke and Gandy or Acharya S. Otherwise I would do it myself. You speak of some others. Fine. Use them as a resource to lead you.

 

  But, just so that guaca can have another primary source quote to ignore or scoff at, here is another:

 

The God Dionysos: "To these ends I have laid my deity aside and go disguised as man" Euripedes 5th century BCE.

 

Gee, isn't that EXACTLY what Jesus did?

 

That's the first thing approaching a primary source that you have provided. It would be nice to get a reference of some sort with that, but meh...

 

Is that EXACTLY what Jesus did? Do one of you skeptics wanna handle this lob pitch or can I?

 

Okay. This is gonna be deep so hold onto your bloomers. Jesus is never described as "disguised as man". On the contrary when St. Paul speaks of Jesus as having laid aside his divinity, he doesn't mean that Jesus decided to put on a disguise, as was the habit of Greek gods, but he actually became a man.

 

Here's the Christian primary source:

 

John.1 Verses 1 to 25

 

 

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[2] He was in the beginning with God;

[3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

[4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

[5] The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

[7] He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him.

[8] He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.

[9] The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.

[10] He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.

[11] He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.

[12] But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;

[13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

[14] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

 

Note here: the Word became flesh. He didn't adopt some disguise for the purposes of fornication like the greek gods, a form that could be sloughed off or altered at will so that when the god tired of human interaction he could go back to Olympus. Jesus was stuck, because in Christian theology, he wasn't a trickster taking on a disguise to see what was going on, but actually became a man. It's called, the doctrine of the Incarnation.

 

In addition, Christians have a little doctrine called the "Hypostatic Union". A doctrine in which Jesus is fully human and fully divine. As far as I can tell from the meager quote you've supplied, Dionysus never adopted a full humanity- as a divine being he was never subject to death and debasement at the hands of men. He was never identified with humanity, but a "disguise", a seeming likeness of humanity that was only an illusion. There's no doubt that Dionysus was always a God, even when masquerading.

 

EXACTLY what Jesus did? Not a chance.

 

fwiw

guac.

[Heimdall]

I have just discovered this thread and am going through it slowly, this is my first comment:

 

Lokmer, you are referring to the Mahabharata, which was a collection of ancient stories dating back to at least the 1st millennium BCE and telling of events that occurred around 5100 BCE and includes some astronomical data that is evidence that the stories are actually that old. These stories were gathered and put in a unified text around 350 CE. Krishna’s story is mentioned in this collection. However, the penultimate source for the Krishna story is the Bhagavata Purana , reported to have been written by the Hindu Saint Veda Vyasa around 3100 BCE. Therefore, Krishna can be included in the rolls of those other ancient Resurrecting Man-Gods. Moral of the story, don't always believe the information apologists put out.

 

I will comment as I come across interesting items - Heimdall

[guacamole]

Guac,

 

I'm sorry that I can't give you a better response.  Time is limited for me and today isn't a good day for a debate on my part.  I wanted to point something out though.  (I'm always going to put your text in green, your screenname inspired the color  )

 

Feh. Don't apologize, you've posted the best responses to this thread by far. If this is what you can muster when you are busy, you'd be a sight when you've got the time...

 

I don't doubt that the egyptians crafted exquisite declarations of faith; considering the vast artistic genius contained in that culture, I would be surprised if they didn't pour out hymns and psalms to their gods.  In fact, as a Christian I find that I can relate better to the egyptians through their pronunciations of faith than I can relate to them through the cryptic drawings and occult texts that survived the obliteration of centuries.  When it comes down to it, we share a fundamentally similar impulse and reverence for something divine.  It's one of the things that I appreciate about the Egyptians and their reverential culture, in which religion was part and parcel of the equation, as opposed to the greeks, for whom religion seems at worst to be mere entertainment, grist for Aristophanes comedies or an after thought, something easily dismantled by any two bit philosopher with a toga and sandals.  When you survey the remains of Egypt, you get the sense of a people with a sophisticated theology, a sense of the transcendent, and awe of the supernatural.  Perhaps it's a semitic thing...

 

As a Christian, I was taught that reverence for "the transcendent" is inspired by God, and that that reverence only came from people who were worshipping the One True God- which in simple terms would be Christans and Jews.  The reason they had this "awe" and "reverence" was supposedly because they were being inspired by the real God.  So how could someone have this same awe and transcendence for a fake god who doesn't exist?  Do you see where I am coming from.  To me, the fact that the Egyptians have such awe and reverence, speaks volumes to the fact that people can and do have the ability to conjure up a "god", feel the reality of it and even worship. 

 

That's definitely a traditional view from Christians; one I think is born of insecurity and doubt. From my point of view, I don't know enough to even rule out that God had a relationship with the egyptians that was appropriate to the time and place. I wouldn't doubt it. Scripture itself hints at the idea, both in Genesis when Melchizedek, a quite obviously pagan priest offers sacrifice and prayer to God on Abraham's behalf; and also in Paul when he writes that the reality of God is made manifest to mortals through the natural world. I guess I would say that if Egyptians can feel such awe and reverence, then maybe there's something to it.

 

Shockingly ecumencial... I know...

 

You say that perhaps it is a semitic thing, and perhaps you are right.  It could be semitic thing.  But the Egyptians writings came first, and I can't forget that the Israelites spent some time in Egypt.  Could it not be induced then, that the Israelites learned how to worship and adore the transcendent in Egypt, from the Egyptians?  If that is true, why would people following the "true god" need to learn reverence from people following a "false god".  It would in fact be the other way around.  In truth, we note that more expressive books like The Psalms and Ecclesiastes (which was actually my favorite book of the Bible) came after the exodus from Egypt. 

 

I hope I am expressing myself

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're expressing yourself quite well. I have no doubt that the Israelites were influenced by the Egyptians. If you get the chance (well, if I get a chance I'll try to find the citations...) look into the way that the structure of the Covenant in Deuteronomy closely mirrors vassalage documents from Egypt, among other areas in the ancient neareast. My only sources are hard copy and buried in a file, so let me see if I can dig them out and google them.

 

The Egyptian concept of Maat, is also something that has a great deal of sympathy to Biblical texts. I think the Egyptians were very concerned about moral order and ritual purity, so that get's expressed in concepts like Maat and also perhaps a slight reverb in the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

It probably is worth nothing that most wisdom literature was widely circulated amongst the cultures and there is a great deal of interplay between them.

 

fwiw

guac.

[guacamole]

I understand that there is huge difficulties to find a primary source from a pagan cult where the words and stories matches so closely to the Gospels so there is no doubt to a transfer has been made, or to find a document proving that the writers of the Gospels deliberately copied from the pagan cults.

 

My post here won't be one of those proofs Guac wants, but I ask myself if there is any primary source that can prove to the same degree that any of the Gospel writers copied Jesus words accurately? Does a primary source exist to show that Jesus said what Matthew said he did? For me to believe there was a true transference of facts and sayings from Jesus to Matthew, I require a primary source that states that or in other ways proves this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I still don't see the relevance of accuracy. If the Gospel writers copied Jesus' words acurately, then there is not point to the comparison because there is no chance of borrowing (assuming Jesus wasn't the crook in the first place). In order to grant the possibility of borrowing we have to operate on the assumption of the possibility that the Gospels are not genuine eye witness documents.

[guacamole]

Try to not be an asshole for a day and maybe you'll get some respect. What grade are you in??

I admit, including Attis as a source was inadvertant.  But I also admit you are blind if you can't see christianity borrowed from pre-existing sources.  Even the Christians admit those concepts were there first but that Satan must have put them there to discredit the Jesus story. The evidence is overwhelming unless you refuse to let go of your myths.  I know it's hard to accept the truth, so I understand your struggle and need to lash out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Stop obfuscating about evidence and I'll give some respect. I can't promise I won't be an asshole though. It's a hobby of mine.

 

You're right including Attis as a source was "inadvertant". That's what I'm trying to explore, the evidence to see what other inclusions are "inadvertant". Sorry. I don't know you from Adam. I'm not gonna take your word for it.

 

I'll believe it when I see it.... sound familiar? Gee....

[guacamole]

I have just discovered this thread and am going through it slowly, this is my first comment:

 

Lokmer, you are referring to the Mahabharata, which was a collection of ancient stories dating back to at least the 1st millennium BCE and telling of events that occurred around 5100 BCE and includes some astronomical data that is evidence that the stories are actually that old.  These stories were gathered and put in a unified text around 350 CE.  Krishna’s story is mentioned in this collection.  However, the penultimate source for the Krishna story is the Bhagavata Purana , reported to have been written by the Hindu Saint Veda Vyasa around 3100 BCE.  Therefore, Krishna can be included in the rolls of those other ancient Resurrecting Man-Gods.  Moral of the story, don't always believe the information apologists put out.

 

I will comment as I come across interesting items - Heimdall 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It'd be great to get some sources. I gotta tell ya though, the astronomical data sounds alot like bullshit, an end run around observations that the stories could have been inflected with Christian influence.

 

fwiw

guac.

[Lokmer]

Lokmer, you are referring to the Mahabharata, which was a collection of ancient stories dating back to at least the 1st millennium BCE and telling of events that occurred around 5100 BCE and includes some astronomical data that is evidence that the stories are actually that old.  These stories were gathered and put in a unified text around 350 CE.  Krishna’s story is mentioned in this collection.  However, the penultimate source for the Krishna story is the Bhagavata Purana , reported to have been written by the Hindu Saint Veda Vyasa around 3100 BCE.  Therefore, Krishna can be included in the rolls of those other ancient Resurrecting Man-Gods.  Moral of the story, don't always believe the information apologists put out.

 

Heimdall - thanks. I've never found primary texts on Krishna dating that far back. I'll give 'em a read.

 

-Lokmer

[Skankboy]

In order to grant the possibility of borrowing we have to operate on the assumption of the possibility that the Gospels are not genuine eye witness documents.

 

Yes and no. I'm sure most people here would agree that the Gospels are not eye witness accounts. But even if they were, and they accurately reproduced what Jesus was saying, it doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't borrowing concepts from earlier traditions. It would however mean that he wasn't the "son of god" as we think of it today.

 

IMOHO,