Why Focus On The Bible First, And Proof God Is Real Second?

[Mriana]

Christ In Egypt.

Ah. So not Computer Integrated Engineering then.

 

Since you have the theory that Christianity started from Egyptian/Buddhist beliefs, then the next thing I wonder, when did Christianity start? And who started it? Was it one of the Roman emperors who created it? And for what purpose. And I assume it also means that Christianity did not start with the Jews, or Paul either, correct?

 

No, I don't have the theory Xianity started with Egyptian and Buddhist beliefs. I think such thinking, religious thought in general, started long before that with fertility and sun gods. I call it the evolution of religious thought. As I mentioned animism to anthropomorphism.

[Ouroboros]

No, I don't have the theory Xianity started with Egyptian and Buddhist beliefs. I think such thinking, religious thought in general, started long before that with fertility and sun gods. I call it the evolution of religious thought. As I mentioned animism to anthropomorphism.

True.

 

But at some point the old ancient belief that the "savior and resurrected god-son" wasn't just a god far away in some other dimension, and not just a spiritual being, but a real person in flesh and blood, must have started. How did it turn from Horus, the spiritual God who died each year and was restored to life three days later, suddenly become a human being who (supposedly) had a bodily death and then a resurrection, and besides it happening closer to the spring equinox instead of winter solstice? I think it's very hard to know why or how this came about.

[Rev R]

I want to look at Mriana's claims in a little more detail later but for now...

 

Is there, or is there not, artifacts in form of writings that can be dated before the Christians which contain the Buddhists beliefs? Yes, or no?

 

Yes.

 

The edicts of Ashoka inscribed on pillars erected in locations of important places within the Buddha legend during the 3rd century BCE contain references to the year of Gautama's birth as well as ethical proclaimations influenced by Buddhist teachings.

According to the Sinhalese chronicles the Pali cannon was committed to writing in the 1st century BCE in Sri Lanka.

[Mriana]

No, I don't have the theory Xianity started with Egyptian and Buddhist beliefs. I think such thinking, religious thought in general, started long before that with fertility and sun gods. I call it the evolution of religious thought. As I mentioned animism to anthropomorphism.

True.

 

But at some point the old ancient belief that the "savior and resurrected god-son" wasn't just a god far away in some other dimension, and not just a spiritual being, but a real person in flesh and blood, must have started. How did it turn from Horus, the spiritual God who died each year and was restored to life three days later, suddenly become a human being who (supposedly) had a bodily death and then a resurrection, and besides it happening closer to the spring equinox instead of winter solstice? I think it's very hard to know why or how this came about.

 

Keep in mind, that there was an astrological component. The humanoid gods had their "play" going on in "the heavens". However, humans started to desire a god in their image. Some Xians today will say that it isn't literally in the image. For the time being, we will exclude that line of thought for I think it might potentially be a throw back to a time in which humans had an actual spiritual deity. At one time, people would have looked at you funny if you actually thought the god walked the earth. Gnosticism was one that saw two separate arenas, for want of a better term- matter and non-matter (or spiritual). Docetists believed that Christ only seemed to to have a human body and to suffer and die on the cross. Somewhere along the line of Xianity, my guess when Rome took over and made a State religion, humans placed a flesh and blood Christ on the cross. There we have the evolution of religious thinking. Zeus did not literally walk the earth, though he could have, if he wanted to, but it was metaphorically. Not sure if you see where I'm going with this, but Gnostism and Docetism became heresy after the big meeting, I think long about 250 C.E. and a literal physical form was enforced on the vulgar (commoner)- thus the Vulgate.

 

Those are just examples of the progress in Xian thinking, but I see a slow progress in the direction of the physical form, which appears to be sudden, but I doubt it was, esp with the Inquisitions and the burning of the largest library- Alexandria. It's something to ponder at least.

[Ouroboros]

Yes.

 

The edicts of Ashoka inscribed on pillars erected in locations of important places within the Buddha legend during the 3rd century BCE contain references to the year of Gautama's birth as well as ethical proclaimations influenced by Buddhist teachings.

According to the Sinhalese chronicles the Pali cannon was committed to writing in the 1st century BCE in Sri Lanka.

How about specifically the idea that Buddha was born from a virgin and was resurrected after his death?

[Ouroboros]

Docetists believed that Christ only seemed to to have a human body and to suffer and die on the cross.

But where did they get the idea that a human being had even done such a thing? It's not like Horus suddenly changed name, and changed location where he died, and who killed him, and how he was killed, and who the followers of Horus were and such. At what point, and how did Horus change to Jesus and the stories in the earliest Gospels (like Thomas) with a teaching Jew?

 

I can understand that Christianity grew into this pagan copy, but the pagan religion didn't start with a Jewish Jesus dying on a cross, but the pagan belief started with Horus, Buddha, or something else. So at what point did they suddenly come up with this completely new Jewish version?

 

Somewhere along the line of Xianity, my guess when Rome took over and made a State religion, humans placed a flesh and blood Christ on the cross.

But why would the Romans invent a Jewish religion, with pagan undertones? After all they destroyed Jerusalem and spread the Jews out in the rest of the empire. So why would the reinvent their old pagan religion into a Jewish mix?

 

It's like the Nazi Germany in their attempt to kill all the Jews, incorporated the Torah in the law books.

 

Something just doesn't make sense yet. Even if Christianity (which I admit I believe) were merged with paganism, I can't see how it started as such. Wouldn't it be more probable that they had borrowed the name to some degree if they did? Like Chmorus, or Horesus, or whatever. And also with most of the beliefs fairly similar. But why a Jewish carpenter, with 12 Jewish disciples, and for the purpose to make a new state religion. I'm sorry, it's very strange.

 

There we have the evolution of religious thinking. Zeus did not literally walk the earth, though he could have, if he wanted to, but it was metaphorically. Not sure if you see where I'm going with this, but Gnostism and Docetism became heresy after the big meeting, I think long about 250 C.E. and a literal physical form was enforced on the vulgar (commoner)- thus the Vulgate.

Yes, and I think between 50 CE and 250 CE most of the "paganizing" of the new cult was done. But it must have started as some little Jewish cult first, or otherwise there wouldn't be a need of a Jewish God-son.

 

Those are just examples of the progress in Xian thinking, but I see a slow progress in the direction of the physical form, which appears to be sudden, but I doubt it was, esp with the Inquisitions and the burning of the largest library- Alexandria. It's something to ponder at least.

Well, the later development of Christianity only show even more how religion develop, absolutely.

 

But, when Christianity jumps into some of the new religions, like Jehovas Witness or Mormons or whatever, there's always a person, real historical person, involved in that change. They take the old religion, and make the new religion, and usually they do it to make their own culture and society to look good, not the other way around.

 

So it is more likely a Jewish person came up with the pagan Christ. Which leaves Paul as a likely candidate.

[Rev R]

I'll get back to you with a more detailed answer Hans, but the quick and dirty answer is: no mention of virgin birth or resurrection in any of my study of Buddhism.

[Ouroboros]

I'll get back to you with a more detailed answer Hans, but the quick and dirty answer is: no mention of virgin birth or resurrection in any of my study of Buddhism.

Oh, shoot. Did I mix them up?

 

What was it in Buddhism that was merged or copied into Christianity again?

[Rev R]

Hell if I know bro. i have a hard enough time keeping track of one religion's history.

[Mriana]

Yes.

 

The edicts of Ashoka inscribed on pillars erected in locations of important places within the Buddha legend during the 3rd century BCE contain references to the year of Gautama's birth as well as ethical proclaimations influenced by Buddhist teachings.

According to the Sinhalese chronicles the Pali cannon was committed to writing in the 1st century BCE in Sri Lanka.

How about specifically the idea that Buddha was born from a virgin and was resurrected after his death?

 

I did not exactly say he was resurrected, but drew a similarity to it. It is a cycle, in which a new Buddha comes. Think reincarnation. The story of having a miraculous birth (again, all virgin births are miraculous births, but not all miraculous births are virgin births) is in the Acts of the Buddha First Chapter. I am including virgin births with miraculous births because it is a miraculous birth. One has to get their head out of the literalism of Xianity and think miraculous birth for virgin birth.

 

RevR said:

 

I'll get back to you with a more detailed answer Hans, but the quick and dirty answer is: no mention of virgin birth or resurrection in any of my study of Buddhism.

 

See above. He is totally confused in what I am saying. It seems he has his mind stuck in one mode of thought and I'm trying to draw him out of literalism. He might not think he is being literal, but he is because he is focused on "virgin births" not miraculous births.

[Mriana]

Docetists believed that Christ only seemed to to have a human body and to suffer and die on the cross.

But where did they get the idea that a human being had even done such a thing? It's not like Horus suddenly changed name, and changed location where he died, and who killed him, and how he was killed, and who the followers of Horus were and such. At what point, and how did Horus change to Jesus and the stories in the earliest Gospels (like Thomas) with a teaching Jew?

 

I can understand that Christianity grew into this pagan copy, but the pagan religion didn't start with a Jewish Jesus dying on a cross, but the pagan belief started with Horus, Buddha, or something else. So at what point did they suddenly come up with this completely new Jewish version?

 

Sigh... Somehow, I don't think you are following, because it seems you want exact word for word, B&W, thinking. When it comes to religion, I can't give you that.

 

Something just doesn't make sense yet. Even if Christianity (which I admit I believe) were merged with paganism, I can't see how it started as such. Wouldn't it be more probable that they had borrowed the name to some degree if they did? Like Chmorus, or Horesus, or whatever. And also with most of the beliefs fairly similar. But why a Jewish carpenter, with 12 Jewish disciples, and for the purpose to make a new state religion. I'm sorry, it's very strange.

 

Get your head out of literal belief of Xain doctrine. That does not work. I don't want to be blatantly direct, but you are thinking with a Xian mind- one that ascribes to 100% literalism. I already said, one cannot be literal when looking at a literary outline of stories. I'm sorry, but maybe the fact I was in the Episcopal Church for so long I learned not to take religious texts word for word literally and learned to accept the category of "miraculous birth" instead of a literal "virgin birth", I don't know, but I never was focused on the word "virgin" and BTW, Mary was not a virgin. The word from Hebrew is alma, which means "young woman" and as a Hebrew scholar explained, this does not necessarily mean "virgin". In Hebrew, that is a totally different word, but the writers of the gospels took alma from Isaiah 7:14 and some where along the line it was mistranslated to "virgin", even in Isaiah 7:14. Not sure is that helps your thinking or not, but the word is not "virgin".

 

But, when Christianity jumps into some of the new religions, like Jehovas Witness or Mormons or whatever, there's always a person, real historical person, involved in that change. They take the old religion, and make the new religion, and usually they do it to make their own culture and society to look good, not the other way around.

 

So it is more likely a Jewish person came up with the pagan Christ. Which leaves Paul as a likely candidate.

 

Yes, there was a man who started Xianity, but it was not Jesus. Jesus was the mythical figure that the religion was built around and is supposedly a lot like the Joshua cult. The person accredited as Paul, is very much a likely candidate, but scholars are saying he didn't write all the books attributed to him. Who's to say.

[Ouroboros]

I did not exactly say he was resurrected, but drew a similarity to it. It is a cycle, in which a new Buddha comes. Think reincarnation. The story of having a miraculous birth (again, all virgin births are miraculous births, but not all miraculous births are virgin births) is in the Acts of the Buddha First Chapter. I am including virgin births with miraculous births because it is a miraculous birth. One has to get their head out of the literalism of Xianity and think miraculous birth for virgin birth.

Ok. So reincarnation is kind of similar to resurrection. Sounds kind of generic though. The Jews, and the Zoroastrians, had some thoughts about afterlife, and so did the Greeks, but I don't see that it necessarily means Buddhism or Egyptian religion had to be the first to introduce these ideas to Christianity. But of course, all religions got their own twists and their own spin on afterlife and such, so Buddhism grew out of Hinduism, and Hinduism grew out of who-knows-what.

 

 

See above. He is totally confused in what I am saying. It seems he has his mind stuck in one mode of thought and I'm trying to draw him out of literalism. He might not think he is being literal, but he is because he is focused on "virgin births" not miraculous births.

No, I think it was my fault since I asked him.

 

So the similarity is not about "virgin birth" to "virgin birth", but from "some kind of birth" to "some other kind and similar birth?" And the same for the resurrection? I find the concepts a bit too different to say that they actually were the cause of the other religions belief.

 

It sounds more like the Greek religion had more influence than Egyptian or Buddhism.

[Ouroboros]

Sigh... Somehow, I don't think you are following, because it seems you want exact word for word, B&W, thinking. When it comes to religion, I can't give you that.

No, it's not the B&W thinking, because I'm actually rated high on conceptual thinking and understanding quite wide abstractions on the personality tests. It's a curse, because instead I suffer in making cogent explanations of what I think.

 

The problem I have is that when each time a new religion starts, it starts with someone who make it start. That person, or group, borrows ideas from earlier religions and add their own stuff.

 

Christianity is very "Jewish" in many aspects. It also have all these other religions mixed in, like pagan, Greek, and whatnot, but it's base for the soup is "Jewish." And I can't see how an Egyptian religion was made into a Jewish one. If you start with chicken broth, the soup will taste chicken, but if you start with beef broth it will taste like beef, and Christianity tastes mostly like Jewish.

 

Get your head out of literal belief of Xain doctrine. That does not work.

That's not the issue.

 

Yeshu is not a Roman name or an Egyptian name. Whoever came up with Christianity in the beginning must have been a Jew, not a Roman. It could have been a Pagan Jew, but there must be a reason why they picked a Jewish setting for the story!

 

That's how every new religion works. Islam started with people who became the first Muslims. They didn't pick a Swedish Mohammad or a Greek Mohammad. Mohammad was someone which could connect to their culture and social setting. And the same must have been the backdrop to the early Christian cult. It must have been a Jewish social setting, otherwise it doesn't make sense for the Romans to make it Jewish!

 

I don't want to be blatantly direct, but you are thinking with a Xian mind- one that ascribes to 100% literalism.

No, I am not.

 

Has nothing to do with the Christian mindset, but everything about the Jewish background story. Why would Romans pick a Jew for their Messiah story? Why would they pick Palestine to play out their newly invented pagan religion?

 

It must have started Jewish cult, and then become pagan. Nothing else makes sense.

 

I already said, one cannot be literal when looking at a literary outline of stories.

Literal? So to say that the Bible use the Jewish name Jesus is to take it too literal? I see. The first Christians didn't call Jesus for Jesus, but for some Roman name, and then they changed it to Jewish later... but why would they do that then...?? That makes even less sense.

 

I'm sorry, but maybe the fact I was in the Episcopal Church for so long I learned not to take religious texts word for word literally and learned to accept the category of "miraculous birth" instead of a literal "virgin birth", I don't know, but I never was focused on the word "virgin" and BTW, Mary was not a virgin. The word from Hebrew is alma, which means "young woman" and as a Hebrew scholar explained, this does not necessarily mean "virgin". In Hebrew, that is a totally different word, but the writers of the gospels took alma from Isaiah 7:14 and some where along the line it was mistranslated to "virgin", even in Isaiah 7:14. Not sure is that helps your thinking or not, but the word is not "virgin".

I have no problem with that the virgin birth was influenced from pagan religion.

 

But the name "Jesus", 12 Jewish friends of Jesus, placed in Palestine, everything Jewish, in the early story it must have been because the first version of the story happened in Palestine and not in Rome. Because if it had happened in Rome they would have written Jesus as a Roman, and died and resurrected in Rome instead of Jerusalem.

 

The Romans who invented Christianity must have at least been Jewish, and they must have had some interest in making it Jewish, and put that in the face of the Roman emperor, since Palestine was a headache for the rulers. They that place so much that they destroyed it in 70 AD! Not because they loved it, but because they were pissed at the Jewish revolts. So why would the Romans invent a Jewish paganism?

 

Yes, there was a man who started Xianity, but it was not Jesus.

Sure, that is possible. But the first Christians must have had an interest in making a Jewish cult/religion rather than a Roman paganism, or otherwise the Roman must have had an interest in making a Jewish paganism. Right? Did that make sense?

 

Jesus was the mythical figure that the religion was built around and is supposedly a lot like the Joshua cult. The person accredited as Paul, is very much a likely candidate, but scholars are saying he didn't write all the books attributed to him. Who's to say.

Well, if Paul didn't write what he supposedly wrote, the someone else, perhaps Bob, with the signature Paul wrote them. And he wrote them with a signature of Paul, because the Churches knew that Paul (who didn't exist) was every important to them... But they knew Bob, who was not important, except that he wrote under the name of Paul, to fool them, to believe in Paul, who didn't exist... wait... I got lost... that part is still very confusing...

 

Perhaps Josephus didn't exist either?

[Rev R]

I think I see what you are saying about a common ancestor of religious thought. Where you go wrong, I think, in bringing "Buddhism" into the picture and citing Asvagosha and "Acts of the Buddha" is that the Buddha life stories are a separate class of literature from the Dharma teachings. I'm not saying that Hellenistic thought didn't influence Buddhism (look at Zen thought and Buddhist art), and I'm not saying that Indian thought didn't filter back into the West (I've heard the claim that the Jataka were reworked as Aesop's fables). My assertion is that the Life of Buddha is a myth of how the teachings came into being, but in the end the personality is not integral to the practice.

 

I see little value in proving or disproving Buddha since it changes nothing in terms of the teachings and the practice. Jesus on the other hand, well that is a different animal altogether.

 

Apologies if I still misunderstand what you are getting at.

[Mriana]

So the similarity is not about "virgin birth" to "virgin birth", but from "some kind of birth" to "some other kind and similar birth?" And the same for the resurrection? I find the concepts a bit too different to say that they actually were the cause of the other religions belief.

 

Humm... I have seen many IQ test (and this is really not meant to be an insult at all) that go something like "All gnomes are mythical characters, but not all mythical characters are gnomes." then go on to something that may or may not fit the general category.

 

 

Has nothing to do with the Christian mindset, but everything about the Jewish background story. Why would Romans pick a Jew for their Messiah story? Why would they pick Palestine to play out their newly invented pagan religion?

 

OK if you say so.

 

Literal? So to say that the Bible use the Jewish name Jesus is to take it too literal? I see. The first Christians didn't call Jesus for Jesus, but for some Roman name, and then they changed it to Jewish later... but why would they do that then...?? That makes even less sense.

 

I meant you cannot take the stories literally.

 

I'm sorry, but maybe the fact I was in the Episcopal Church for so long I learned not to take religious texts word for word literally and learned to accept the category of "miraculous birth" instead of a literal "virgin birth", I don't know, but I never was focused on the word "virgin" and BTW, Mary was not a virgin. The word from Hebrew is alma, which means "young woman" and as a Hebrew scholar explained, this does not necessarily mean "virgin". In Hebrew, that is a totally different word, but the writers of the gospels took alma from Isaiah 7:14 and some where along the line it was mistranslated to "virgin", even in Isaiah 7:14. Not sure is that helps your thinking or not, but the word is not "virgin".

I have no problem with that the virgin birth was influenced from pagan religion.

 

But the name "Jesus", 12 Jewish friends of Jesus, placed in Palestine, everything Jewish, in the early story it must have been because the first version of the story happened in Palestine and not in Rome. Because if it had happened in Rome they would have written Jesus as a Roman, and died and resurrected in Rome instead of Jerusalem.

 

I didn't say anything about the 12 happening or not happening in Palestine.

 

The Romans who invented Christianity must have at least been Jewish, and they must have had some interest in making it Jewish, and put that in the face of the Roman emperor, since Palestine was a headache for the rulers. They that place so much that they destroyed it in 70 AD! Not because they loved it, but because they were pissed at the Jewish revolts. So why would the Romans invent a Jewish paganism?

 

I don't think they were Jewish, at least not just Jewish.

 

Well, if Paul didn't write what he supposedly wrote, the someone else, perhaps Bob, with the signature Paul wrote them. And he wrote them with a signature of Paul, because the Churches knew that Paul (who didn't exist) was every important to them... But they knew Bob, who was not important, except that he wrote under the name of Paul, to fool them, to believe in Paul, who didn't exist... wait... I got lost... that part is still very confusing...

 

I said "attributed to Paul". Just because they are attributed to Paul does not mean he wrote them.

 

I think I see what you are saying about a common ancestor of religious thought. Where you go wrong, I think, in bringing "Buddhism" into the picture and citing Asvagosha and "Acts of the Buddha" is that the Buddha life stories are a separate class of literature from the Dharma teachings. I'm not saying that Hellenistic thought didn't influence Buddhism (look at Zen thought and Buddhist art), and I'm not saying that Indian thought didn't filter back into the West (I've heard the claim that the Jataka were reworked as Aesop's fables). My assertion is that the Life of Buddha is a myth of how the teachings came into being, but in the end the personality is not integral to the practice.

 

Again, I quoted from a textbook and I stated that textbook. Those statement are not solely my own, as I tried to document.

[Ouroboros]

So the similarity is not about "virgin birth" to "virgin birth", but from "some kind of birth" to "some other kind and similar birth?" And the same for the resurrection? I find the concepts a bit too different to say that they actually were the cause of the other religions belief.

 

Humm... I have seen many IQ test (and this is really not meant to be an insult at all) that go something like "All gnomes are mythical characters, but not all mythical characters are gnomes." then go on to something that may or may not fit the general category.

I'm not sure what you mean. That a mythical birth is the same as another mythical birth, and therefore the second mythical birth must be a copy of the first mythical birth?

 

I meant you cannot take the stories literally.

Which I don't. But however imaginary the stories are, last time I checked, the story was made out to be imaginary happening in the imaginary land Palestine, with imaginary Jewish people. Even if they were imaginary, the Romans didn't like the Jews, so the author who invented the religion took a huge risk of making it up using Jewish fiction for his new pagan version.

 

But the author of the story used a Jewish backdrop to the new religion. I doubt a Roman inventing a new paganism would pick something that were a thorn for the Roman empire.

 

I didn't say anything about the 12 happening or not happening in Palestine.

Well, when you say that the Christian religion started from the pagan religion, and suggest Egypt and Buddhism and other religions, then we must go back and think of why the author picked Jews for the astrological signs.

 

I don't think they were Jewish, at least not just Jewish.

Someone like Paul, who was (supposedly, if he existed) a Hellenized Jew.

 

I said "attributed to Paul". Just because they are attributed to Paul does not mean he wrote them.

I know that, and I understand what you're saying, but it would be strange if someone faked letters from Paul, to send to the churches. If Paul didn't exist, then the churches wouldn't know who Paul was. They would get letters from this Paul which no one had heard about. Why would Bob, or Peter, or Claus, or Herbert, write a fake letter from Paul, if Paul wasn't a person anyone knew about. Right?

 

So even if he didn't write any of those letters, there must have been a Paul at some time, otherwise the churches would have gone like this: "Hey, Greta, I picked up the mail for the church this morning, and you know, I got one of those spam mails again, from someone who calls himself Paul. I have still no clue who this Paul is and why he sends these mails to us. I'll throw it in the trash-bin again, and tomorrow you have to go to the mail office and put us on the no-spam list."

[Mriana]

So the similarity is not about "virgin birth" to "virgin birth", but from "some kind of birth" to "some other kind and similar birth?" And the same for the resurrection? I find the concepts a bit too different to say that they actually were the cause of the other religions belief.

 

Humm... I have seen many IQ test (and this is really not meant to be an insult at all) that go something like "All gnomes are mythical characters, but not all mythical characters are gnomes." then go on to something that may or may not fit the general category.

I'm not sure what you mean. That a mythical birth is the same as another mythical birth, and therefore the second mythical birth must be a copy of the first mythical birth?

 

I meant what I said- miraculous birth is any birth that is not conceived in the usual human way. It is a category that includes virgin births. I'm not sure how hard that is to comprehend or what is not being communicated.

 

I meant you cannot take the stories literally.

Which I don't. But however imaginary the stories are, last time I checked, the story was made out to be imaginary happening in the imaginary land Palestine, with imaginary Jewish people. Even if they were imaginary, the Romans didn't like the Jews, so the author who invented the religion took a huge risk of making it up using Jewish fiction for his new pagan version.

 

You can place it in any cultural setting.

 

I said "attributed to Paul". Just because they are attributed to Paul does not mean he wrote them.

I know that, and I understand what you're saying, but it would be strange if someone faked letters from Paul, to send to the churches. If Paul didn't exist, then the churches wouldn't know who Paul was. They would get letters from this Paul which no one had heard about. Why would Bob, or Peter, or Claus, or Herbert, write a fake letter from Paul, if Paul wasn't a person anyone knew about. Right?

 

I don't think you do understand what I am saying and I have a feeling we have big communication problem. I'm not sure how to put it in different words to stop this going around in circles. It is getting ridiculous.

 

So even if he didn't write any of those letters, there must have been a Paul at some time, otherwise the churches would have gone like this: "Hey, Greta, I picked up the mail for the church this morning, and you know, I got one of those spam mails again, from someone who calls himself Paul. I have still no clue who this Paul is and why he sends these mails to us. I'll throw it in the trash-bin again, and tomorrow you have to go to the mail office and put us on the no-spam list."

 

[Guest Thor]

Thanks Thor.

 

So there's two different theories here that we have to examine a bit further.

 

1) Christianity started as a Jewish cult (around 30-40 CE), and the pagan traditions were added on later by Paul, and whoever else.

 

2) Christianity started as a pagan religion (unknown date?), and never were a part of any Jewish cult. (Or the alternative, a Jewish cult took on pagan traditions from start)

 

What kind of evidence is there for one or the other?

 

Great questions. Well, it depends on how far back you want to go. The general "Christian" movement can be traced to the Therapeuts of Egypt (see Eusebius), but their ideas are not only from the Old Testament and Jewish thought of the day but also the Egyptian religion as well as Greek mythology and philosophy. So, it's a chicken and egg proposition, because then you can trace the Jewish thought to pre-Judaic cultures as well. In any case, the basic framework of the Christ myth is about the sun, and other natural phenomena that can be found in many places worldwide, far out of the reach of the Hebrews, Israelites or Jews.

 

And I'm just throwing this out there as a quick post for thoughts.

[Guest Thor]

No, I don't have the theory Xianity started with Egyptian and Buddhist beliefs. I think such thinking, religious thought in general, started long before that with fertility and sun gods. I call it the evolution of religious thought. As I mentioned animism to anthropomorphism.

True.

 

But at some point the old ancient belief that the "savior and resurrected god-son" wasn't just a god far away in some other dimension, and not just a spiritual being, but a real person in flesh and blood, must have started. How did it turn from Horus, the spiritual God who died each year and was restored to life three days later, suddenly become a human being who (supposedly) had a bodily death and then a resurrection, and besides it happening closer to the spring equinox instead of winter solstice? I think it's very hard to know why or how this came about.

 

Interesting questions. I'll just throw some thoughts out there. These religious beliefs seem to evolve from being based on natural phenomena that actually existed like the sun, moon, stars, constellations etc Each Pharaoh was THE living Horus. When he died he became THE Osiris. Much of their religion was based around natural phenomena having celebrations at solstices & equinoxes. They emphasized death and rebirth on daily, weekly, monthly & yearly cycles. Have you never seen Zeitgeist part 1? It gives a very basic explanation. Here's a brief clip http://www.truthbeknown.com/videos.html

 

It got mixed in with Jewish beliefs about their messiah around the 1st c. BCE. Dr. Price discusses how this supposed historical messiah evolved too. He mentioned that it looked like they took "several stabs at it" before Christianity finally seem to stick.

[Guest Thor]

Hansolo "But where did they get the idea that a human being had even done such a thing? It's not like Horus suddenly changed name, and changed location where he died, and who killed him, and how he was killed, and who the followers of Horus were and such. At what point, and how did Horus change to Jesus and the stories in the earliest Gospels (like Thomas) with a teaching Jew?

 

I can understand that Christianity grew into this pagan copy, but the pagan religion didn't start with a Jewish Jesus dying on a cross, but the pagan belief started with Horus, Buddha, or something else. So at what point did they suddenly come up with this completely new Jewish version?"

 

Geez, you gotta read "Who Was Jesus?" and "Christ in Egypt" it details most all of your questions.

 

"...Both Metzger and Tenney's conclusion that there do in fact exist significant parallels between Christ and other gods is well founded, because, as Metzger remarked, from the earliest centuries both non-Christian and Christian alike commented on these correspondences. As one extremely important example of an early Christian comparison of Jesus with other gods, in his defense of the "new superstition" of Christianity, Church father Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD/CE) felt compelled to provide analogies to Christ's story from previous non-Christian mythology and legend, remarking:

 

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter..."

 

- WWJ 229

 

"...In his Exhortation to the Heathen (IV), Church father Clement of Alexandria shows a familiarity— although contemptuously, as is typical of the early Christian apologists towards other religions—with the myth of Osiris, as well as the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis, a hybrid of Osiris and the Egyptian god Apis, which, per Clement, "together make Osirapis." Serapis himself was associated with the Greek god Asclepius..."

 

"The god Serapis/Asclepius is important for a couple of reasons: 1. The Emperor Hadrian is quoted as saying that the Christians of his time worshipped Serapis;1 and 2. There was a Serapis/Asclepius sanctuary built at Jerusalem during Hadrian's reign, c. 135 AD/CE, prior to the clear emergence of the canonical gospels in the literary record."

 

- WWJ 230-1

 

"This changeover from the Egyptian to the Christian religion occurred within the Gnostic movement as well..."

 

- "Christ in Egypt 166

 

This is fascinating work she has written here.

[Badger]

It goes back to the point I made earlier (& probably others as well) on page 9. Repeating rumors, traditions & myths doesn't constitute substantiating the claims with valid evidence. We are in the same position today as the earliest church fathers with no valid evidence supporting the claims :

Or Acharya S is just wrong about Josephus. Pseudoscience. It is possible at least, isn't it?

 

But maybe it is too much asked to even question her claims. WWJ seems to be your inerrant book.

[Ouroboros]

I don't think you do understand what I am saying and I have a feeling we have big communication problem. I'm not sure how to put it in different words to stop this going around in circles. It is getting ridiculous.

And it seems that I can't get through what I'm saying either. So I will leave this discussion, because I don't see how we can get any further.

[Ouroboros]

"...Both Metzger and Tenney's conclusion that there do in fact exist significant parallels between Christ and other gods is well founded, because, as Metzger remarked, from the earliest centuries both non-Christian and Christian alike commented on these correspondences. As one extremely important example of an early Christian comparison of Jesus with other gods, in his defense of the "new superstition" of Christianity, Church father Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD/CE) felt compelled to provide analogies to Christ's story from previous non-Christian mythology and legend, remarking:

...

Yes, I know, and I agree there are parallels. And I even agree that Christianity brought in a lot of pagan belief, but that is not my problem at all.

 

My problem is more about the progression of how it happened, and when it happened. And the thing is that we don't have to put it all in a false dilemma, where either MythJesus is true, or GodsSonJesus is true, and there's no middle ground. I think there is a middle ground. A theory that solves the problems. The idea that Christianity is fully loaded with pagan belief does not mean that it must have been created from scratch and only for the purpose of being pagan. Since Christianity have a lot of pagan belief, but it has backdrop (like in story book, you place it in a social setting, people, culture, etc, to connect to the reader) which is Jewish, and that doesn't fit for me for a Roman author. So the story writer must have intended to write for the Jewish community, at least at first.

 

The way I see it, as I have said before, is that I think the stories, the pagan beliefs, and influence, the Gospels, the faulty Bible, and much more seems to point to this sequence:

 

1) a small Jewish cult, which no one was interested in. Insignificant, and most likely some form of Essene or so. Perhaps they had a few, or short stories, about their leader. And perhaps the story already had a little of pagan or Greek influence. But the audience of the text was for converting Jews to the new religion.

 

2) Paul took over and added pagan elements. Because he studied for 3 years, alone, in the scriptures, and in his pagan hometown, and came back with the "Right Gospel," Or "True Gospel." And Paul made it into a Roman religion, but kept the Jewish backdrop.

 

Most of the MythJesus theory sounds like that there was some Roman, paid by the Emperor, to create a new religion. The whole conspiracy idea going on there. And sure, that's possible too, it's just I can't figure out why the Emperor wanted to create a new religion with Jewish stuff in it, since he most likely didn't favor them at all. So is the explanation for this theory that the Emperor wanted to create a pagan Judaism to break up and mess up the Jews, and then it got out of hand and became a Roman religion too? Or does the MythJesus explain the sequence of events different?

[Mriana]

HanSolo, I'm sorry, but what you just said makes no logical sense to me. What does make sense is a progression of human thought that moved from animism to anthropomorphism, from (oh let's just pull one out of our hat, for simplicity) Egyptian myth to Hebrew myth to Xian myth. The Jews did have a lot of influence from the Egyptians, Babylonians, etc etc. Many of their stories came from there and were set to their culture (see Victor H. Matthews, a uni prof of religious studies books for a start). Midrash was a popular way for Hebrews/Jews of creating new stories for their people. The Jews started out as polytheistic and moved to monotheism, which is evident in the start of the OT and moving onward in it.

 

Just starting there and moving on with what I learned in my religious studies courses alone, with no outside sources, I get a glimpse in the progression of religious thought. Thus, I cannot make any sense out of what you are saying. It is just not logical, IMO. Now you can say I maybe deluded by my education alone, as well as other sources such as Spong, Acharya, Price, Harpur, and many many more, but my education alone doesn't give way to making sense out of what you are saying.

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo, I'm sorry, but what you just said makes no logical sense to me. What does make sense is a progression of human thought that moved from animism to anthropomorphism, from (oh let's just pull one out of our hat, for simplicity) Egyptian myth to Hebrew myth to Xian myth. The Jews did have a lot of influence from the Egyptians, Babylonians, etc etc. Many of their stories came from there and were set to their culture (see Victor H. Matthews, a uni prof of religious studies books for a start). Midrash was a popular way for Hebrews/Jews of creating new stories for their people. The Jews started out as polytheistic and moved to monotheism, which is evident in the start of the OT and moving onward in it.

Ah. Okay. What you're saying is that the Christian religion got most of its pagan ideas from Judaism, from the beginning there. Do I understand you correct now? So the virgin birth, winder solstice celebration, etc, came from paganism through the Jewish culture.

 

Just starting there and moving on with what I learned in my religious studies courses alone, with no outside sources, I get a glimpse in the progression of religious thought. Thus, I cannot make any sense out of what you are saying. It is just not logical, IMO. Now you can say I maybe deluded by my education alone, as well as other sources such as Spong, Acharya, Price, Harpur, and many many more, but my education alone doesn't give way to making sense out of what you are saying.

First of all, I'm no saying that you're deluded, second of all, so far what I see is that we can't trust any of the documents in history, and shouldn't assume that the Gnostic, Buddhist, Egyptian, or any other records to be any more reliable as historical sources than the Christian ones. And if my reasoning doesn't make sense to you, then I'm truly sorry, and I can only blame myself for not making myself clearer.