The Origin Of Jesus

[Sokudo Ningyou]

This is one of those areas that sort of bothers me because of a tendency for folks to say things like "Christianity came from paganism." In reality, it's just another mystery religion that carries the characteristic attributes of a mystery religion that developed during that particular time period. Therefore, it simply resembles other mystery religions of the time in that it is based on eastern texts, requires initiation, and has a central mystical figure that holds the secret to getting to paradise (the other prospect being languishing in Hades' like the uninitiated). There wasn't borrowing from these other faiths so much as Christianity was the same type of faith, and so it followed the same basic rules.

 

Jesus was likely some local figure of little historical significance who served as the basis for a lot of elaboration by later writers. Those writers simply gave him the attributes he was expected to have. One of my professors felt that the Christ mystery caught on for two reasons, initially: (1) it filled a niche left by the earlier persecution of the cult of Bacchus by allowing more humble folks (women and slaves) to be initiated, and (2) it had as its center a (reportedly) living person that claimed divinity, at least as reported by Paul, and that made it stand out among the other mysteries.

 

 

Which is what makes the most sense. Jesus (or the three of them that supposedly existed at that time) could have been a guy telling people to be nice to everyone, and to worship an easy master; one God, instead of many. How simple is that? Instead of multiple sacrifices and stories, you've got one deity.

 

But that's such a boring story. Jesus is a nice guy who ends up on the wrong side of the law and dies? Pffft. All the GOOD religions of the day have heroes and mysterious powers. It sounds much better to have Jesus as a messiah who rose from the dead and healed the sick and did miracles. So you paste a mythology on this poor dead bastard, and voila; a new religion.

[SWIM]

But that's such a boring story. Jesus is a nice guy who ends up on the wrong side of the law and dies? Pffft. All the GOOD religions of the day have heroes and mysterious powers. It sounds much better to have Jesus as a messiah who rose from the dead and healed the sick and did miracles. So you paste a mythology on this poor dead bastard, and voila; a new religion.

 

Exactly!

 

That is why the stark similarities the the other mythras! It is an intentional elaboration to deliberately give the story of jeebus teeth!

[MultifariousBirdLady]

I've never encountered the Krishna resurrected myth in any modern or Indian sources... it seems to come from The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviours By Kersey Graves (http://englishatheist.org/16/16.shtml)

 

That sounds really familiar. I wouldn't be surprised if that's where I ran into it.

[Coolhermit]

Evolutionbeyond:"All things considered - it seems that the Jesus story is a patchwork synthesis of various pagan myths, as if certain Jewish messianists of the time were trying to create their own Jewish mystery religion around an imaginary messiah figure."

 

It might be more accurate to say that Paul's Jesus story is a patchwork synthesis .....

 

My understanding of 1st century Jewish/Roman history shows that there was a deliberate scheme to undermine the Jewish messianic revolt against the Roman occupiers and in order to placate/neutralise the incipient insurrection spreading to Rome itself (and then through the whole Roman Empire as other tribes jumped on the bandwagon) it was necessary to invent a cosmic Christ rather than the flesh and blood anti-Roman zealot that Jesus (and his clan/family) was. Paul, as a former acolyte of the Zealot/Qumran community was ideally equipped to subvert this xenophobic/nationalist movement and his success lingers on today.

"

[Evolution_beyond]

Evolutionbeyond:"All things considered - it seems that the Jesus story is a patchwork synthesis of various pagan myths, as if certain Jewish messianists of the time were trying to create their own Jewish mystery religion around an imaginary messiah figure."

 

It might be more accurate to say that Paul's Jesus story is a patchwork synthesis .....

 

My understanding of 1st century Jewish/Roman history shows that there was a deliberate scheme to undermine the Jewish messianic revolt against the Roman occupiers and in order to placate/neutralise the incipient insurrection spreading to Rome itself (and then through the whole Roman Empire as other tribes jumped on the bandwagon) it was necessary to invent a cosmic Christ rather than the flesh and blood anti-Roman zealot that Jesus (and his clan/family) was. Paul, as a former acolyte of the Zealot/Qumran community was ideally equipped to subvert this xenophobic/nationalist movement and his success lingers on today.

"

 

This is almost identical to what I think happened.

 

The difference is that I don't even think there was a real Jesus to begin with.

 

There were plenty of real flesh-and-blood messiahs, who the Jewish messianists would rally behind in revolt against Rome. I think Paul was a troubled man - torn between his Jewish heritage and his Hellenistic sympathies. I think he tried to 'find' himself by becoming a zealot for a while - but in the end he came up with a synthesis between his Jewish heritage and his worldly, Hellenistic side. Probably such ideas had already been brewing (the 'Church of God' in Jerusalem, that he mentions) - but Paul completed this synthesis of Messianic sentiment and ideas and myths from the mystery religions - and invented a spiritual messiah called Jesus Christ, a kind of Jewish mystery religion figure.

 

Then the gospels got written and people began to think that Jesus was a real man who was literally god - the rest is history.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

Evolutionbeyond:"All things considered - it seems that the Jesus story is a patchwork synthesis of various pagan myths, as if certain Jewish messianists of the time were trying to create their own Jewish mystery religion around an imaginary messiah figure."

 

It might be more accurate to say that Paul's Jesus story is a patchwork synthesis .....

 

My understanding of 1st century Jewish/Roman history shows that there was a deliberate scheme to undermine the Jewish messianic revolt against the Roman occupiers and in order to placate/neutralise the incipient insurrection spreading to Rome itself (and then through the whole Roman Empire as other tribes jumped on the bandwagon) it was necessary to invent a cosmic Christ rather than the flesh and blood anti-Roman zealot that Jesus (and his clan/family) was. Paul, as a former acolyte of the Zealot/Qumran community was ideally equipped to subvert this xenophobic/nationalist movement and his success lingers on today.

"

 

 

Welcome, Coolhermit!

 

Do you have any suggested books explaining this scheme? For a while I've thought that Paul really threw a wrench into everything*, but I hadn't heard about any deliberate subversion attempts like you're referring to. Makes a lot of sense, though.

 

* Lately, someone pointed out to me a few verses which suggest to him that Paul was one of the false prophets that the Church at Ephesus tried and rejected. It's certainly not definite, but the possibility is very interesting.

[MathGeek]

Reading through these posts and those links made me think...

 

The average sucker (like yours truly) could fall for anything from either side of the belief fence. The evidence of borrowing is substantial but the bullshit to smooth over these contrarian viewpoints is also daunting. Like accepting the validity of Christ's life, sacrifice and salvation, it is a matter of choice pure and easy. I could talk to my spouse about this information and she would reject it without a thought all because of her want to believe in something. I really think there is serious scholarship for and against the "Jesus Story" and there is enough compelling evidence to suggest that Jesus existed (for this sucker anyway). All in all, I think we choose the evidence we want to accept and we want to deny and we make thought cases based on our chosen evidence. The primate mind is limited in its scope of understanding, which is where this propensity for choosing evidence comes from. The consensus all around the board is lacking, but in this thread there seems to be a general consensus toward the end of Jesus's non-existence. As for me, it seems irrelevant when one doesn't deal with Christian witnesses on a daily basis.

[Grandpa Harley]

TBH there is more compelling evidence that Batman exists than Jesus, applying the evidentiary rules that apologists apply...

[MultifariousBirdLady]

I really think there is serious scholarship for and against the "Jesus Story" and there is enough compelling evidence to suggest that Jesus existed (for this sucker anyway). All in all, I think we choose the evidence we want to accept and we want to deny and we make thought cases based on our chosen evidence. The primate mind is limited in its scope of understanding, which is why this propensity for choosing evidence comes from. The consensus all around the board is lacking, but in this thread there seems to be a general consensus toward the end of non-existence of Jesus. As for me, it seems irrelevant when one doesn't deal with Christian witnesses on a daily basis.

 

I agree with you there, and I also suspect that someone like Jesus existed... but I think he was very, very different from what Paul and other early Christians made him into.

 

I think he was a charismatic leader advocating a somewhat cult-like movement which had the undertones of a spiritually-based insurgency against the occupying Roman Empire. I think it was growing strong enough to make certain leaders raise their eyebrows a bit, but not enough for them to bother spending any time writing about him or the movement. He was crucified like other rebels and that was that as far as the Romans were concerned, but the members of his movement kept looking for some other way to continue the work of the group from there (which can and does happen with other cults where some anticipated event is suddenly dashed before their eyes -- there are examples in recent history). Then along comes Paul and changes it into something completely spiritualized...

 

IMO.

 

And really, in a way, the Jesus that I think existed historically is so different from the Jesus of subsequent mythology, with all its collected Pagan/solar symbolism and all that, that one might as well say that the Jesus of modern Christianity never existed. In my view it would amount to about the same thing.

[Tyson]

I once heard a story that went like this.

 

A man was walking through a forest one day and noticed quite a few trees with arrows perfectly shot through bullseye targets. Every last one had an arrow shot dead in the middle. As he continued walking he met the archer responsible for these acts. Completely amazed at the archer's accuracy, he asked him about his expertise. The archer looked at him and said, "oh this is very easy. All I do is shoot the arrows into the tree and then I draw the target around them."

 

I too believed that someone VERY remotely resembling the Jesus of the Gospels existed. Yes, some itinerant preacher walking the countrysides with some new, charismatic and intimate interpretation of Jewish worship which caught the attention of the common folk. Some followed behind him thinking he was the guy who was going to trounce the Romans, but his confusing and sometimes contradictory messages were lost on them. Dude might have been full of himself to some degree too, like many cult leaders, thinking he was god's special appointee. He pissed off the establishment who probably saw him as a threat to their bread and butter (the ignorance of the common folk) and they managed to get him strung up. His followers then started with their crap about he did not really die and/or he just stepped away for a minute to go build them castles in the sky and he would eventually come back to kick ass.

 

BUT, meanwhile, back in real life, it became necessary to "prove" to the masses that this dude who was going to come back was the real deal so we have writers like the one who wrote the book of Matthew had to dig through the OT and find so-called prophecies that predicted or spoke of the Jesus guy (probably hoping his audience was too stupid to realize there were none). He had his arrow (Jesus), now it became necessary to draw the target (the Gospels) around him. How could they miss?

[SWIM]

BUT, meanwhile, back in real life, it became necessary to "prove" to the masses that this dude who was going to come back was the real deal so we have writers like the one who wrote the book of Matthew had to dig through the OT and find so-called prophecies that predicted or spoke of the Jesus guy (probably hoping his audience was too stupid to realize there were none). He had his arrow (Jesus), now it became necessary to draw the target (the Gospels) around him. How could they miss?

 

 

Tyson, that was a very good anology of the whole deal!

 

Well done!

[Tyson]

BUT, meanwhile, back in real life, it became necessary to "prove" to the masses that this dude who was going to come back was the real deal so we have writers like the one who wrote the book of Matthew had to dig through the OT and find so-called prophecies that predicted or spoke of the Jesus guy (probably hoping his audience was too stupid to realize there were none). He had his arrow (Jesus), now it became necessary to draw the target (the Gospels) around him. How could they miss?

 

 

Tyson, that was a very good anology of the whole deal!

 

Well done!

 

 

Thanks. While I am not a believer by any stretch, I am not one who believes that Jesus NEVER existed. For him to exist actually makes it easier to refute the whole fantasy of the NON-existent mythical Jesus. A mere man who captured the imagination of the poor and rejected masses who over time had a legend built around him and it found itself in the right place at the right time which catapulted it into the position it holds today.

 

To clarify, I believe some guy by the name of Jesus existed, I just don't believe the legendary stories weaved around him so that means I don't believe he was the son of some god, walked on water or raised the dead, was born of any virgin, had angels attend his birth nor did he rise from the dead and sitting on the right hand of some pie in the sky. In other words, none of the bullshit!

[SWIM]

Thanks. While I am not a believer by any stretch, I am not one who believes that Jesus NEVER existed.

 

I tend to be in that camp too, there is just not enough historical evidence to believe he *really* existed. Most myths though revolve around an exaggerated fact, so there *might* be someone (with a different name maybe) that was crucified for his beliefs, life was cheap back then and crucification was common.

[KickBall]

P.S. Why can't these nut jobs every answer a question SIMPLY? I don't have the time or the inclination to read all that bs.

 

Don't bother even reading it, I just read it and like someone else stated already, it doesn't refute anything. I looked very hard for some evidentiary refutation of the other saviour similarities and the author of that page didn't give any. Didn't even try nor, in what I read, even provide any facts to back up a thing. Just went round in circles. The bottom line really from his point of view is, that he just believes in jesus that's it. Also, in reference to what Tyson said, and I agree with btw, there actually are references in Isaiah that could be likened to describing jesus, birth, death etc and references in Psalms as well. Trouble is, jesus as well as his followers knew of those stories also and just like the guy drawing the bullseyes around the already struck arrows, they used the stories to write jesus story. The writers drew the bullseyes. Great story about the bullseyes btw, I'm gonna have to remember that one. Might be at least somewhat more pallatable for belieivng would they have after the fact dug up some manuscripts NO ONE knew about at the time and then found exact descriptions, but it went the other way around as we now know.

[Tyson]

P.S. Why can't these nut jobs every answer a question SIMPLY? I don't have the time or the inclination to read all that bs.

 

Don't bother even reading it, I just read it and like someone else stated already, it doesn't refute anything. I looked very hard for some evidentiary refutation of the other saviour similarities and the author of that page didn't give any. Didn't even try nor, in what I read, even provide any facts to back up a thing. Just went round in circles. The bottom line really from his point of view is, that he just believes in jesus that's it. Also, in reference to what Tyson said, and I agree with btw, there actually are references in Isaiah that could be likened to describing jesus, birth, death etc and references in Psalms as well. Trouble is, jesus as well as his followers knew of those stories also and just like the guy drawing the bullseyes around the already struck arrows, they used the stories to write jesus story. The writers drew the bullseyes. Great story about the bullseyes btw, I'm gonna have to remember that one. Might be at least somewhat more pallatable for belieivng would they have after the fact dug up some manuscripts NO ONE knew about at the time and then found exact descriptions, but it went the other way around as we now know.

 

Thanks Kickball. Yes, the story, I think, gives a great comparison to what I really feel went down ESPECIALLY regarding the writer of Matthew who supposedly wrote his Gospel to convince the Jews that Jesus was indeed their prophesied messiah. It would make no sense if no one even remotely existed to fabricate these alleged predictions around. He has Jesus being born of a virgin which he claims was predicted by the prophet Isaiah. This is of course false when all things are considered. He apparently endorses the idea the prophet Micah predicted Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem. If you read Micah 5 in full, it becomes evident Micah was speaking of some hero in HIS day as the threat of the Assyrians was bearing down on King Hezekiah's Judah 700 years before the time of Jesus. He also claims it was predicted Jesus would be called a Nazarene, a claim that has no corresponding OT prophesy. He claims that Jesus' alleged return from Egypt with his family after fleeing Herod was a fulfillment of a prophesy in the book of Hosea. Hosea was stating an alleged historical fact NOT making a prediction. Finally, he claims that Herod's alleged and uncorroborated "massacre of the innocents" was predicted by the prophet Jeremiah when in fact that prophet predicted no such thing.

 

The writer of Matthew clearly had an agenda. As for writers like Paul, influenced by Greek Hellenism and perhaps Mithraism, he was more interested in promoting some mystical Christ perhaps based on some historical figure.

[PandaPirate]

One very important thing we're missing is this: no one every ACTUALLY believed in these "mythical gods." WHY oh why is Jesus the only "sun god" that was catapulted to actual human status?

 

The things that strike me so much are that Jesus "walked on water" as does the reflection of the sun. Jesus is "risen" just as the sun does every morning. Jesus wears a crown of thorns, just as the sun does (sun rays or the corona) and he can be seen "coming on the clouds."

[bellsybop]

I don't believe a man named Jesus was ever here either. I may be wrong, but I don't give a diddlysquat.

The bullseye theory is genius.

[Guest lenbitme]

Wow, so apparently these stories have been around for a looooong time.

[rpMcMurphy]

Paul and Luke were contemporaries of the disciples, and communicated with them frequently. Has anybody considered that such a relationship would be pretty good validation for the fact that Jesus really existed? If Paul was acquaintances with Peter, and Jesus never really existed, don't you think Peter might have mentioned that to Paul?

[Evolution_beyond]

Paul and Luke were contemporaries of the disciples, and communicated with them frequently. Has anybody considered that such a relationship would be pretty good validation for the fact that Jesus really existed? If Paul was acquaintances with Peter, and Jesus never really existed, don't you think Peter might have mentioned that to Paul?

 

you are assuming that Paul thought Jesus really existed. It is just as possible that Paul thought of Jesus as a spiritual presence from God, a spiritual messiah who can enter your heart and renew you from within.

 

In fact we only know of Peter through Paul (and the gospel writers). So we don't really know what Peter thought.

 

The first piece of evidence we have is really Paul's letters - and it really does seem that he was a guy with some crazy ideas about linking up Messiah prophecy with mystery religion mythology. This 'Jesus Christ' he spoke of (which can also be translated as 'Joshua Messiah') seems to be some kind of mythical, spiritual messiah figure.

 

So all we have to begin with is Paul's theology. The gospels were written later - and I even think that the writers of Matthew and Mark believed they were telling a mythical tale. It is with Luke's gospel that the literalist confusion begins. Certain followers of Paul seem to have got confused by what he was saying.

 

As for Peter - we'll never know. Paul says that Peter (or Cephas) was one of the high ranking members of the 'Church of God' in Jerusalem that he also claims was the direct forerunner of his own theology. So either they believed exactly as Paul did (combination of mystery religion ideas and Jewish Messiah prophecies) or else they were simply symbolic messianists (Jews who believed the messiah prophecies talked of a symbolic, spiritual messiah rather than a literal person) and it was Paul who took it one step further by adding the mystery religion elements.

 

Jesus? Anything we know of Jesus is third hand knowledge (Paul via Peter via possible Jesus) and the strong similarities with mystery religion figures (plus the very spiritualised version of Jesus that Paul preaches) makes me doubt he ever existed.

 

One day I decided to shrug off all assumptions and look at the evidence we have in the historical order we have it in and see what the most likely explanation is. That's how I came up with my current ideas of the origins of christianity.

[rpMcMurphy]

Paul and Luke were contemporaries of the disciples, and communicated with them frequently. Has anybody considered that such a relationship would be pretty good validation for the fact that Jesus really existed? If Paul was acquaintances with Peter, and Jesus never really existed, don't you think Peter might have mentioned that to Paul?

 

you are assuming that Paul thought Jesus really existed. It is just as possible that Paul thought of Jesus as a spiritual presence from God, a spiritual messiah who can enter your heart and renew you from within.

 

In fact we only know of Peter through Paul (and the gospel writers). So we don't really know what Peter thought.

 

The first piece of evidence we have is really Paul's letters - and it really does seem that he was a guy with some crazy ideas about linking up Messiah prophecy with mystery religion mythology. This 'Jesus Christ' he spoke of (which can also be translated as 'Joshua Messiah') seems to be some kind of mythical, spiritual messiah figure.

 

So all we have to begin with is Paul's theology. The gospels were written later - and I even think that the writers of Matthew and Mark believed they were telling a mythical tale. It is with Luke's gospel that the literalist confusion begins. Certain followers of Paul seem to have got confused by what he was saying.

 

As for Peter - we'll never know. Paul says that Peter (or Cephas) was one of the high ranking members of the 'Church of God' in Jerusalem that he also claims was the direct forerunner of his own theology. So either they believed exactly as Paul did (combination of mystery religion ideas and Jewish Messiah prophecies) or else they were simply symbolic messianists (Jews who believed the messiah prophecies talked of a symbolic, spiritual messiah rather than a literal person) and it was Paul who took it one step further by adding the mystery religion elements.

 

Jesus? Anything we know of Jesus is third hand knowledge (Paul via Peter via possible Jesus) and the strong similarities with mystery religion figures (plus the very spiritualised version of Jesus that Paul preaches) makes me doubt he ever existed.

 

One day I decided to shrug off all assumptions and look at the evidence we have in the historical order we have it in and see what the most likely explanation is. That's how I came up with my current ideas of the origins of christianity.

Even if you believe that the gospels came later, the story of Christ was clearly around before Paul, because he used to persecute Christians. You might be able to say he took the story and developed his messianic theology around it, but that's of no consequence to me.

 

The fact that Paul and Luke affirm several amicable meetings with Peter and/or the disciples makes it pretty hard for me to doubt the existence of Christ. For me at least, it's pretty well-grounded that the disciples went to their deaths preaching the resurrection, and I have no problem accepting that. Maybe they saw something, maybe they were hallucinating, whatever. But to say that all those people created the man out of thin air is pretty bold.

 

My problems have always been with Christian theology, not the historical evidence. I actually think that's the best thing Christianity has going for it.

[Evolution_beyond]

Even if you believe that the gospels came later, the story of Christ was clearly around before Paul, because he used to persecute Christians.

 

Does Paul himself refer to those he was persecuting as 'Christians'? No. In Galatians (one of the earliest NT documents btw) he says that he was persecuting 'the Church of God'.

 

The fact that Paul and Luke affirm several amicable meetings with Peter and/or the disciples makes it pretty hard for me to doubt the existence of Christ.

 

Why? I do not deny that Peter existed, or James, or John. Those are the three people that Paul mentions as being part of 'the Church of God'. Again you are assuming that Peter is someone who literally met Jesus and that we have some kind of separate evidence for this. All we have is gospels written later that use Peter as a character in a narrative. Doesn't necessarily make the narrative true.

 

 

For me at least, it's pretty well-grounded that the disciples went to their deaths preaching the resurrection, and I have no problem accepting that. Maybe they saw something, maybe they were hallucinating, whatever. But to say that all those people created the man out of thin air is pretty bold.

 

No doubt they were preaching the resurrection. But many pagan people preached resurrection before them. The dying and resurrecting god is a common myth.

 

My problems have always been with Christian theology, not the historical evidence. I actually think that's the best thing Christianity has going for it.

 

Of course the theology is completely insane nonsense, when taken literally at least.

 

But you really think christianity has a lot going for it historically? Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus's birth as being during the reign of King Herod (who died in 4 BC) and Gospel of Luke has Jesus birth occuring during a census that took place in 6 AD.

 

Does that sound like good historical evidence to you?

[Deva]

My problems have always been with Christian theology, not the historical evidence. I actually think that's the best thing Christianity has going for it.

 

That is interesting. The fact that Christianity presents itself as an accurate historical record makes it absolutely vulnerable to any historical information that arises that is contrary or which does not support the "facts" as reported in the gospels and elsewhere in the Bible.

 

There is every reason to believe that the infancy narratives as reported in Matthew and Luke are complete fabrications. As others have pointed out, these authors had an agenda. There is not a shred of evidence that the Romans made Jews go back to their hometown to be taxed or for a census or any other reason whatsoever. There are other problems with stories historically. Just do some research and read some modern Biblical scholarship. If just this part of the so-called historically accurate narrative is undermined, where is its overall credibility?

[rpMcMurphy]

Does Paul himself refer to those he was persecuting as 'Christians'? No. In Galatians (one of the earliest NT documents btw) he says that he was persecuting 'the Church of God'.

 

Act 26:9-11:

I myself thought that I should do everything I could against the cause of Jesus of Nazareth. That is what I did in Jerusalem. I received authority from the chief priests and put many of God’s people in prison; and when they were sentenced to death, I also voted against them

 

1Ti 1:12-15:

I give thanks to Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength for my work. I thank him for considering me worthy and appointing me to serve him, even though in the past I spoke evil of him and persecuted and insulted him.

 

There's more if you need:

http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/paul-from-...to-ministry.htm

 

And what "Church of God" do you think Paul refers too if not the Christian church?

 

 

Why? I do not deny that Peter existed, or James, or John. Those are the three people that Paul mentions as being part of 'the Church of God'. Again you are assuming that Peter is someone who literally met Jesus and that we have some kind of separate evidence for this. All we have is gospels written later that use Peter as a character in a narrative. Doesn't necessarily make the narrative true.

Again, it seems hardly likely that Paul and Luke were telling stories about the disciples when the disciples could have been there to refute them.

 

 

No doubt they were preaching the resurrection. But many pagan people preached resurrection before them. The dying and resurrecting god is a common myth.

Of course the difference being that pagan people weren't given the opportunity to validate the resurrection of their god. If Christ didn't raise from the dead, the disciples would have known it, thus making it a bit strange for them to go down swinging the way they did.

 

Of course the theology is completely insane nonsense, when taken literally at least.

I agree that a lot of it is nonsense.

 

But you really think christianity has a lot going for it historically? Gospel of Matthew portrays Jesus's birth as being during the reign of King Herod (who died in 4 BC) and Gospel of Luke has Jesus birth occuring during a census that took place in 6 AD.

 

Does that sound like good historical evidence to you?

Yes. It indicates that the Gospel writers worked independently and gathered their information from many different sources. It's like four different journalists working the same story; the details don't always line up, but the main points are there.

 

I don't believe in an inerrant Bible, if that's what you were trying to get at.

[Guest Zenobia]

None of this is a surprise to me. The fact that xtians try to ban the video just proves how insecure they are

 

Almost everything about christianity was "borrowed" from older beliefs... Christianity was a "Roman" religion. The Romans were notorious for "borrowing" from other cultures. They borrowed art, literature, music, architecture, everything from cultures they conquered...

 

Once Rome became "christian" in the 4th century, they combined "christianity" with existing pagan beliefs in order to unify the empire. That's why christians celebrate Jesus' birth during winter solstice. If jesus was in fact born during the roman census, it didn't happen during winter solstice because people didn't travel en masse in winter. And The idea of Jesus' "birth" is compatible with solstice, because that is the "birth" of the Sun...

 

An excellent book, if you can get past some of the feminist diatribe (LOL), is The Crone. This book contains a fountain of information on the "origins" of Christ, and of christian beliefs. Most were stolen from Goddess religions by the jealous Christian patriarchy. This book is an invaluable resource and it really changed my life. A definate MUST for anyone who is trying to unravel some of the xtian myths or just needs some handy arguements to throw back at the fundies. The author cites every statement she makes and loads the book with resources.