How Did Belief In Jesus' Resurrection Get Started?

[orlando]

I am not very convinced by some Jesus Myth-ers' arguments that Jesus never existed or that the first Christians thought he never lived as a man but was some divine spiritual being. I think he did exist and was crucified and that within a few years there was an early form of the church claiming he had risen from the dead.

 

I find it unlikely that these claims were just deliberate lies - and why would people keep following someone who's predictions had not come true and who had just been executed, if nothing else happened at all? I don't personally think it likely however that his body really did come out of its grave, that he visited his disciples, ate with them etc, before floating into the sky.. I think much of these tales are legendary. However it's what actually did happen after his crucifixion that intrigues me.

 

Bible scholar John Domininc Crossan says crucified people's bodies would be thrown in a mass grave and/or eaten by crowns or stray dogs. That might have happened, and explain why there are no accounts of Jesus's body being found, no relics of Jesus etc. Then, perhaps some of the disciples just came to believe in his resurrection because of dreams or visions they had. Also, people were pretty superstitious in those days - I was just reading that some followers of Apollonius of Tyana, an alleged miracle worker a bit after Jesus' time, also thought he had ascended to Heaven and various Greek heroes and Roman emperors etc, were said to have ascended and become gods after they died. But the Jesus stories are unusually literalistic as to his actual physical body coming out of the tomb and visiting his disciples etc. On the other hand, if we are supposed to believe that, are we also to believe the account in one of the gospels that numerous other people were raised at the same time and went wandering round Jerusalem? What do you think happenned? I think the "visions" theory is helped by the fact that pretty much the earliest Christian source, Paul, recounts meetings with the risen Christ that were more like visions/hearing voices etc rather than meeting a flesh and blood person.

[Vixentrox]

It was hardly a unique concept. Through history there have been many dying and resurrection of gods.

[Franko47]

It was hardly a unique concept. Through history there have been many dying and resurrection of gods.

 

 

 

Even by Jesus' time, it was an "old" theme. The death and resurrection of the seasons, represented by human and symbolic sacrifice, was common fair throughout ancient times. There was nothing new about a God getting a human woman pregnant, and messiahs were constantly running around through various regions, especially in impoverished areas and places with difficult political situations. (like being occupied or dominated by the Romans)

 

I've always thought it curious that these guys waited so long before they started writing about the Christ messiah; what were they waiting for ?

[Neon Genesis]

Bart D Ehrman's theory in his book Jesus Interrupted is that the earliest followers of Jesus didn't think he was supposed to die at all, but after Jesus died, they had to come up with an explanation to rationalize how Jesus could have been the messiah if he died on the cross. So the earliest followers went through Hebrew bible and found the passages that later became known as the suffering Messiah passages and insisted that these were prophecies about Jesus even though none of the Jews had seen these as prophecies before then. Ehrman also believes in the theory that the apostles had visions of Jesus being resurrected which convinced them that he had risen and this was all prophesied in the Hebrew bible even though no such prophecies were there and they were taking passages out of context.

[orlando]

Yes, that's plausible, there are several bits, especially in Isiah that can be stretched to sound like Jesus (though sometimes the Christian translations are dubious - like that bit that's usually translated as "they have pierced my hands and feet", in the Hebrew Bible says something like "like lions they maul my hands and feet"). It's also noticeable how many of the bits in the crucifixion narratives etc seem lifted from the OT too -- eg. Psalm 31:5 (New International Version)

5 Into your hands I commit my spirit; Psalm 22:18 (New International Version)

18 They divide my garments among them

and cast lots for my clothing.Psalm 69:21 (New International Version)

21 They put gall in my food

and gave me vinegar for my thirst.Psalm 22

 

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

 

Crossan says the followers of Jesus were probably not at the crucifixion, he was probably not buried in a proper tomb etc, and a lot was embroidered from the OT http://dannyreviews.com/h/Who_Killed_Jesus.html

[Neon Genesis]

Even the bible says the followers weren't at the crucifixion of Jesus because all his followers had fled. Yet for some reason biblical litralists want us to believe these are historically accurate accounts.

[Vixentrox]

Even the bible says the followers weren't at the crucifixion of Jesus because all his followers had fled. Yet for some reason biblical litralists want us to believe these are historically accurate accounts.

I guess his followers hired some paparazzi to get that eyewitness account.

[florduh]

I think he did exist and was crucified and that within a few years there was an early form of the church claiming he had risen from the dead.

Why do you think that?

 

Okay, let's assume the man existed and was crucified. No eyewitness ever wrote anything down. How could someone not record these most unusual events? It wasn't until well after the "fact" someone decided to weave the tale. The story did not require a base in reality any more than the stories of Horus hinged on historical fact. If a new religion was to be established, it's hero had to be a resurrected deity if it was to compete with the other myths of the era.

[Deva]

Bart D Ehrman's theory in his book Jesus Interrupted is that the earliest followers of Jesus didn't think he was supposed to die at all, but after Jesus died, they had to come up with an explanation to rationalize how Jesus could have been the messiah if he died on the cross. So the earliest followers went through Hebrew bible and found the passages that later became known as the suffering Messiah passages and insisted that these were prophecies about Jesus even though none of the Jews had seen these as prophecies before then. Ehrman also believes in the theory that the apostles had visions of Jesus being resurrected which convinced them that he had risen and this was all prophesied in the Hebrew bible even though no such prophecies were there and they were taking passages out of context.

 

I think this is very possible. The followers of Jesus certainly very early on were trying to find verses in the Hebrew Bible that would support Jesus being the Messiah, no matter how well they fit what actually happened.

 

I heard Crossan say that probably Jesus started some altercation in the Temple and that was enough for the Romans to get rid of him. That also sounds plausible.

 

I am one of those people who thinks someone real might very well have been behind the Jesus movement that eventually became Christianity. I think there had to have been some real focal point for all of this mythology to revolve around. "Jesus" was an apocalyptic preacher who thought God's rule would come soon. This was an appealing message for his time and he had a small but very persuasive group around him.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I am one of those people who thinks someone real might very well have been behind the Jesus movement that eventually became Christianity. I think there had to have been some real focal point for all of this mythology to revolve around. "Jesus" was an apocalyptic preacher who thought God's rule would come soon. This was an appealing message for his time and he had a small but very persuasive group around him.

Crossan and Marcus Borg have argued that the passage where Jesus predicts the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the end of the world in their lifetime was a saying written after the destruction of the temple and are not historical. It's sort of like when those people after 9/11 claimed Nostradamus predicted 9/11 all along but it was only after 9/11 that you ever find these predictions.

[Deva]

I am one of those people who thinks someone real might very well have been behind the Jesus movement that eventually became Christianity. I think there had to have been some real focal point for all of this mythology to revolve around. "Jesus" was an apocalyptic preacher who thought God's rule would come soon. This was an appealing message for his time and he had a small but very persuasive group around him.

Crossan and Marcus Borg have argued that the passage where Jesus predicts the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the end of the world in their lifetime was a saying written after the destruction of the temple and are not historical. It's sort of like when those people after 9/11 claimed Nostradamus predicted 9/11 all along but it was only after 9/11 that you ever find these predictions.

 

Could be, but how did the early movement evolve? If it was written after the destruction, why was it so persuasive? Maybe considering the Roman occupation it was like an educated guess on Jesus's part before it happened? Then it actually did and people were really impressed. I don't know. I don't think we know these things conclusively. Wish I was there to see how things developed. We know that this was originally a very small movement that rapidly developed and spread far beyond its original range.

 

There is this strong emphasis on the end times. I wish I could remember the scholar's name - but someone wrote an interesting book or article on Jesus as a disciple of John the Baptist and it was really John that started the whole apocalyptic thing. It was really persuasive, but I read it years ago and don't remember.

[orlando]

I am also struck by the strong emphasis on end times. I really think Jesus was predicting the imminent end of the world as we know it - which I think he may have got partly from John the Baptist.

 

I think Jesus existed for a mixture of reasons, just from a lot of reading round the subject; it's hard to pin down. But, for example, I am fairly convinced that Paul's letters are original and are early - around the mid-1st Century, and contrary to what some Jesus Mythers say, there are quite a few passages that show he believed he was a real historical person who had been executed in the quite recent past. He also says (and Acts says) he met with James the brother of Jesus and with Peter and other apostles in Jerusalem. There are also early church fathers' writings, for example by Polycarp, who said he had met the apostle John and Irenaeus who was a pupil of Polycarp, and people like Ignatius (right at the start of the 2nd Century) or Justin Martyr (mid 2nd C) who clearly think the founder of their religion was a man who lived and died in the recent past, was crucified under Pilate etc - this is also recorded by Tacitus in around 116ad ("Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14–37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"). It seems to be believed by most scholars also that at least Josephus's second mention of Jesus (referring to the death of James, brother of Jesus who was called Christ) is genuine, and Josephus' account of John the Baptist definitely has a ring of truth about it. It just seems plausible that some preacher who got crucified started things off and that some of his sayings have made it into the gospels.

 

re. the predictions of the destruction of the temple, they suggest to me these passages may postdate 70ad and Jesus didn't say them, though it could also have just been a good guess - after all the temple was destroyed before historically by the Jews'enemies, and the OT prophets stock-in-trade was predictions of doom and disaster.

 

However these passages also link the times when the temple will be destroyed to the return of Jesus (probably the historical Jesus never expected to die in the first place and have to "return") and they say it will be the start of the end of the world - wars, earthquakes, the stars falling from the sky... (Matthew) and the Son of Man coming in glory etc... so it sounds like the beliefs of the Christian community after the temple was destroyed and they were hoping Jesus was soon coming back.

 

I think the gospels include some original sayings of Jesus, but it seems very likely they are also embroidered, with suitable OT passages and beliefs of the early Christian community put into Jesus' mouth.

 

I think the success of the Christian movement can be put down partly to Paul's energetic evangelising, the fact that it's message was appealing - just believe in Jesus and you get eternal bliss etc - then, much later, the historical accident that an emperor happened to convert.

[Deva]

It just seems plausible that some preacher who got crucified started things off and that some of his sayings have made it into the gospels.

 

I agree, and I think that John the Baptist probably really existed. He was an apocalyptic preacher and Jesus was his disciple. I think there are probably a few original sayings of Jesus that have been preserved as well. In the gospels and also in the Gospel of Thomas.

[orlando]

Yes, I was just reading the Gospel of Thomas yesterday. Some interesting sayings - some the same as ones from the other gospels, some similar and and some definitely not so familiar, but quite striking and intriguing (and some a bit weird.. 37. His disciples said, "When will you appear to us, and when will we see you? Jesus said, "When you strip without being ashamed, and you take your clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample then, then you will see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid." )

[qadeshet]

Without a shred of evidence to support a historical Jeshua, I see no reason to speculate on his mythical exploits. You may as well ask how Santa manages to visit millions of children in one night.

[orlando]

Fair enough, but that's a bit of a sweeping statement you just made (even though it's repeated on a lot of websites) - I just mentioned a few pieces of evidence, for a start, and almost all academic historians think he existed - and why refer to him as "Jeshua" instead of the name we all know him as (especially if you don't think he existed historically)? If you really want to be authentic, then "Yeshua" is the more usual spelling, but then we are not writing in Hebrew or Aramaic anyway. The Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus is quite good.

 

There may not be anything from his own time, but then that's hardly surprising as he only taught for 1 - 3 years, and was probably quite an obscure figure. And he apparently spent a lot of his time preaching to poor people in rural villages. It would be a bit surprising to find a perfectly preserved copy of the Galilee Times in 29ad about the miracle of the loaves and fishes or something..

[mwc]

Fair enough, but that's a bit of a sweeping statement you just made (even though it's repeated on a lot of websites) - I just mentioned a few pieces of evidence, for a start, and almost all academic historians think he existed - and why refer to him as "Jeshua" instead of the name we all know him as (especially if you don't think he existed historically)? If you really want to be authentic, then "Yeshua" is the more usual spelling, but then we are not writing in Hebrew or Aramaic anyway. The Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus is quite good.

 

There may not be anything from his own time, but then that's hardly surprising as he only taught for 1 - 3 years, and was probably quite an obscure figure. And he apparently spent a lot of his time preaching to poor people in rural villages. It would be a bit surprising to find a perfectly preserved copy of the Galilee Times in 29ad about the miracle of the loaves and fishes or something..

What have you given?

 

I am also struck by the strong emphasis on end times. I really think Jesus was predicting the imminent end of the world as we know it - which I think he may have got partly from John the Baptist.

This? Something you've basically taken away from the biblical texts themselves? You may as well just tell me that this guy is "god" because the bible tells me so.

 

I think Jesus existed for a mixture of reasons, just from a lot of reading round the subject; it's hard to pin down. But, for example, I am fairly convinced that Paul's letters are original and are early - around the mid-1st Century, and contrary to what some Jesus Mythers say, there are quite a few passages that show he believed he was a real historical person who had been executed in the quite recent past. He also says (and Acts says) he met with James the brother of Jesus and with Peter and other apostles in Jerusalem.

Paul? About the only thing that begins to date Paul is the link to Aretas and that is uncertain given that the only Aretas that is known about that time wasn't in the region of Damascus or in possession of it...unless we contort history around so that it just might have happened...but not so much in reality. Beyond that these letters could have been written pretty much any time and could have been altered by anyone. Assuming they weren't altered (an unlikely prospect) then the dating becomes difficult and everyone simply "defaults" to the standard 1st century time line. I'm also ignoring the fact that roughly half of all Paul's writings are now considered to be forgeries.

 

There are also early church fathers' writings, for example by Polycarp, who said he had met the apostle John and Irenaeus who was a pupil of Polycarp, and people like Ignatius (right at the start of the 2nd Century) or Justin Martyr (mid 2nd C) who clearly think the founder of their religion was a man who lived and died in the recent past, was crucified under Pilate etc - this is also recorded by Tacitus in around 116ad ("Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14–37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus").

Have you even read these? I have. They aren't as convincing as you might think. What about someone like Theophilus of Antioch, who was supposedly bishop there, but had no clue who "jesus" was or what xianity meant in relation to his contemporaries? For the leader of the church "founded" by Peter and Paul he was quite ignorant.

 

Xians weren't a monolithic group. Read your fathers to learn that xians demonized other xians, like today, for calling themselves xians even though they followed leaders/teachings that they didn't consider "xian." Followers of Simon Magus were called "Christian." If "xians" were accused, persecuted, and/or killed by anyone for anything which "christians" were they? Or, like today, were all considered "Christian" to demonstrate they are 2 billion strong but once they no longer need to demonstrate how large and powerful they are they return to the "No True Scotsman" way of life and only they and theirs are the "true xians?" Represented by only a handful.

 

It seems to be believed by most scholars also that at least Josephus's second mention of Jesus (referring to the death of James, brother of Jesus who was called Christ) is genuine, and Josephus' account of John the Baptist definitely has a ring of truth about it. It just seems plausible that some preacher who got crucified started things off and that some of his sayings have made it into the gospels.

Josephus uses the word for "christ" in exactly 3 places in his writings. Once to relate to placing a surface on a structure and the other two only appear in books 18 and 20. In book 18 it appears in the passage related to "jesus" and in book 20 it appears in the "James" passage you've cited. He never uses it even when "appropriate" to express Jewish ideas (ie. kings, priests, "messiahs") even when other Greek sources might use the word themselves. There is no reason for him to use a word to describe a person, then expect his reader to recall that word 2 books later, all without a reminder. He does this quite regularly (ie. "This is the same 'so and so' that I spoke of in a previous book," or something along those lines...perhaps a "This is the same Jesus that was crucified in an early book"). If the section is book 20 relies on book 18 and book 18 is questionable then book 20 becomes questionable. If the use of "christ" in book 18 is questionable then it's wise to question the use of "christ" in book 20. Would a reader understand what "christ" meant without explanation? Since it would essentially mean "to rub" this would be "Jesus the Rubbed" or some think "Jesus the Oily" but since Josephus used it to mean "rubbed" in reference to the building this seems to be how he uses that word. "Jesus the Rubbed" is not much of a savior and is not likely convey the desired message. Only those "in" on the whole of the notion of the name would understand. And if we take into account nomina sacra the idea that Josephus is the one that let the sacred name out of the bag is rather unthinkable. Only those who knew the connection would even understand who this person was since it was shrouded in mystery. Not one single piece of early literature we possess actually writes out the name of "Jesus" or "Christ" but instead uses the nomina sacra. Translators fill this in for us. No casual reader could have ever connected these dots as a result.

 

I think the gospels include some original sayings of Jesus, but it seems very likely they are also embroidered, with suitable OT passages and beliefs of the early Christian community put into Jesus' mouth.

I far as I recall nothing truly original came out of the "mouth" of old "jesus."

 

I think the success of the Christian movement can be put down partly to Paul's energetic evangelising, the fact that it's message was appealing - just believe in Jesus and you get eternal bliss etc - then, much later, the historical accident that an emperor happened to convert.

But what about:

12 That is, that some of you say, I am of Paul; some say, I am of Apollos; some say, I am of Cephas; and some say, I am Christ's.

You have Paul, Apollos and Cephas (and "christ"). Were Apollos and Cephas just plain crappy or do you just not know enough of them that you've discounted their efforts and attributed it all to Paul? Apparently the Corinthians thought enough of them to splinter over them...according to this at least. Paul wasn't so super considering he was always trying to keep his groups from resisting the influence of others. It seems it's later generations of xians that "fall in love" with Paul. Marcion surely does but he quickly stops being the xian poster child though that doesn't mean Paul can't still be used.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

Why would a group of Jews decide to suddenly make up a Jewish messiah that didn't fit any of the Jewish prophecies and would make up a belief about the suffering Messiah even though this wasn't how Jews interpreted those passages before hand unless there was a historical person behind these events that these Jewish believers were trying to rationalize a belief around? It seems more likely to be that there was a historical Jesus who wasn't supposed to die and all the suffering messiah myth was added onto the story after his death as an apologetic response to me. If early Christians ripped off from pagan myths and had no problems with this, why is there no record of any Christian admitting similarities between Greek myths and Christian myths until Justin Martyr? If it was known that the early Christians were stealing from Greek myths and fabricated the character of Jesus, why didn't the pagan critic Celsus argue against the historicity of Jesus? Even Celsus believed there was a historical Jesus but he argued that the virgin birth myth was made up to cover up that Jesus was an illegitimate child and that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier.

[J.W.]

I am not very convinced by some Jesus Myth-ers' arguments that Jesus never existed or that the first Christians thought he never lived as a man but was some divine spiritual being. I think he did exist and was crucified and that within a few years there was an early form of the church claiming he had risen from the dead.

 

I find it unlikely that these claims were just deliberate lies - and why would people keep following someone who's predictions had not come true and who had just been executed, if nothing else happened at all? I don't personally think it likely however that his body really did come out of its grave, that he visited his disciples, ate with them etc, before floating into the sky.. I think much of these tales are legendary. However it's what actually did happen after his crucifixion that intrigues me.

 

Bible scholar John Domininc Crossan says crucified people's bodies would be thrown in a mass grave and/or eaten by crowns or stray dogs. That might have happened, and explain why there are no accounts of Jesus's body being found, no relics of Jesus etc. Then, perhaps some of the disciples just came to believe in his resurrection because of dreams or visions they had. Also, people were pretty superstitious in those days - I was just reading that some followers of Apollonius of Tyana, an alleged miracle worker a bit after Jesus' time, also thought he had ascended to Heaven and various Greek heroes and Roman emperors etc, were said to have ascended and become gods after they died. But the Jesus stories are unusually literalistic as to his actual physical body coming out of the tomb and visiting his disciples etc. On the other hand, if we are supposed to believe that, are we also to believe the account in one of the gospels that numerous other people were raised at the same time and went wandering round Jerusalem? What do you think happenned? I think the "visions" theory is helped by the fact that pretty much the earliest Christian source, Paul, recounts meetings with the risen Christ that were more like visions/hearing voices etc rather than meeting a flesh and blood person.

 

 

"This is my body broken for you, eat of it and remember me" [i didnt bother looking it paraphrased].

 

The disciples got it, and ate him. Thats my theory. The spirit of Christ is in them alright. Simple, they went past the point of no return after giving up everything and so they followed it out to its end-- thinking it would make a difference-- and it did.

[Guest Valk0010]

A cult movement doesn't delibrately lie.

 

To me how cults operate, and how religion, particularly in that kind of period, operate explains a bundle about xtainity.

 

I haven't really read much about it, but the little I have read, it seems plausible.

 

essentially the resurrection belief started out of a end times desire. I can't remeber the verses exactly, but on is Paul calling Christ, the first Fruits, and correct me if I am wrong there are some references in the letters of Peter, about people getting frustrated that the end times hasn't happened yet.

 

That and between mythological and oral tradition inaccuracy and some overjoyous neediness, you get the belief that Christ rose. Anything you could think of could describe it, because all the even most improbable natural situation is more probable then "God raised jesus."

[orlando]

@MWC

 

I know there were several different early versions of Christianity but I don't know of any that did not believe in a historical Jesus of some kind (for example there were some who thought he was not a real man but a sort of materialised spirit that appeared to be a man)but I am not aware of any that thought there was no historical Jesus - if you are, can you tell me which?

 

re. Paul, 2nd century sources show his letters were considered important to the the Christian community along with the gospels and that Paul was considered an important figure in the early church - you also have the references to him in Acts -- plus just the fact that Christianity spread rapidly around the Mediterranean (eg. to Rome, where Tacitus says Nero persecuted them in the 60s ad) and there is no particular reason to think this was not due to him. Also I know that scholars disagree over whether some of the letters were really by him, but the majority are generally accepted as genuine, including some with references to a historical Jesus or to Paul meeting James and Peter etc.

 

When I referred to original sayings of Jesus I merely meant ones said by him, not ones which had content never mentioned by anyone else before. Are you sure you ever said anything original by that definition, and have you been through every saying of his and found an earlier source? Just because many things he is said to have taught came from the Old Testament etc, that is not proof he didn't exist and would hardly have been surprising, since it is likely he had no particular wish to start a new religion. Off the top of my head I would say that "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" was quite original, but I wouldn't swear to it.

 

Anyway, in any case, I wasn't really asking for another "did Jesus exist" debate, but just to say that, assuming it is reasonable to think he did exist (which I do) then how might the idea that he literally rose from the dead (as opposed, eg. to going to heaven as a spirit) have got off the ground?

[Guest I Love Dog]

It was hardly a unique concept. Through history there have been many dying and resurrection of gods.

 

 

 

Even by Jesus' time, it was an "old" theme. The death and resurrection of the seasons, represented by human and symbolic sacrifice, was common fair throughout ancient times. There was nothing new about a God getting a human woman pregnant, and messiahs were constantly running around through various regions, especially in impoverished areas and places with difficult political situations. (like being occupied or dominated by the Romans)

 

I've always thought it curious that these guys waited so long before they started writing about the Christ messiah; what were they waiting for ?

 

As far as I can understand the situation at that time, when the Romans were designing their brand of Christianity(there had been many before, with varying beliefs), they needed to appease the Hebrews/Jews and produced the Messiah that the Jews had been waiting for. The Romans wanted the Jews on side, they were excellent businessmen(as still today) and they were into importing and exporting and the Romans wanted a part of it.

 

That's my understanding after reading much history.

[Guest I Love Dog]

I am not very convinced by some Jesus Myth-ers' arguments that Jesus never existed or that the first Christians thought he never lived as a man but was some divine spiritual being. I think he did exist and was crucified and that within a few years there was an early form of the church claiming he had risen from the dead.

 

Bible scholar John Domininc Crossan says crucified people's bodies would be thrown in a mass grave and/or eaten by crowns or stray dogs.

 

Look up Mithra/Mithras, Horus and others. The Jesus story is an old theme, re-hashed to suit the Roman design of their form of Christianity.

 

As far as I can research, the way of Roman crucifixion was to use a tree with a cross piece. Around those times they were executing up to 500 people per day, so making a cross for each of them would have been expensive and time consuming. The victims were nailed to the "cross" with cast iron nails about 6-8 inches long and would not have come out easily. The executed people were left to rot on the cross as an example to other criminals and it was forbidden to remove them under pain of death. Vultures/crows and other birds would very quickly clean the flesh off the body so a "resurrection" was extremely unlikely. I have seen 2 eagles strip a large dead animal(kangaroo) in a matter of a couple of hours.

 

Jesus crucifixion and resurrection made a nice fairy story for the Romans as they wrote their "holy" book, their weapon to control the masses and make a pile of money at the same time.

 

Imagine a story where a god creates all people to be sinners and then offers them a way to be saved from being a sinner, even having his one and only son killed in the process. As good as anything that Hans Christian Anderson ever wrote!

 

Imagine telling your kids that they are loathsome, awful, terrible, wicked sinners and the only way they can change is to worship you, bow down to you, grovel at your feet, chant ridiculous songs at you, obey every word that you utter, sacrifice and burn animals at your altar, drink your blood, eat your flesh, kill others if they have a different god or religion. How totally gross and ridiculous!

[Neon Genesis]

 

Jesus crucifixion and resurrection made a nice fairy story for the Romans as they wrote their "holy" book, their weapon to control the masses and make a pile of money at the same time.

 

Imagine a story where a god creates all people to be sinners and then offers them a way to be saved from being a sinner, even having his one and only son killed in the process. As good as anything that Hans Christian Anderson ever wrote!

 

Imagine telling your kids that they are loathsome, awful, terrible, wicked sinners and the only way they can change is to worship you, bow down to you, grovel at your feet, chant ridiculous songs at you, obey every word that you utter, sacrifice and burn animals at your altar, drink your blood, eat your flesh, kill others if they have a different god or religion. How totally gross and ridiculous!

There is zero evidence that the Romans invented Christianity and virtually all scholars, whether conservative or liberal are in universal agreement that Christianity was originally a Jewish sect and most of the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are exaggerations. The similarities between Christianity and rival pagan religions are mostly exaggerated by Internet fansites that worship Zeitgeist and not based on actual scholarship. The Jesus myth hypothesis is essentially the atheists' creationism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_Comparative_Mythology#Mithraism_and_Christianity

The idea of a relationship between early Christianity and Mithraism is based on a remark in the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr, who accused the Mithraists of diabolically imitating the Christian communion rite.[12] Based upon this, Ernest Renan in 1882 set forth a vivid depiction of two rival religions: "if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic,"[13] Edwin M. Yamauchi comments on Renan's work which, "published nearly 150 years ago, has no value as a source. He [Renan] knew very little about Mithraism..."[14]

 

The philosopher Celsus in the second century provides some evidence that Ophite gnostic ideas were influencing the mysteries of Mithras.[15]

[edit] "Virgin Birth"

 

It is sometimes said that the birth of Mithras was a virgin birth, like that of Jesus. But no ancient source gives such a birth myth for Mithras. In Mithraic Studies it is stated that Mithras was born as an adult from solid rock, "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix."[16]

 

David Ulansey speculates that this was a belief derived from the Perseus' myths which held he was born from an underground cavern.[17]

[edit] The 25th of December

 

It is often stated that Mithras was thought to have been born on December 25. But Beck states that this is not the case. In fact he calls this assertion 'that hoariest of "facts"'. He continues: "In truth, the only evidence for it is the celebration of the birthday of Invictus on that date in Calendar of Philocalus. 'Invictus' is of course Sol Invictus, Aurelian's sun god. It does not follow that a different, earlier, and unofficial sun god, Sol Invictus Mithras, was necessarily or even probably, born on that day too."[18]

 

Unusually amongst Roman mystery cults, the mysteries of Mithras had no 'public' face; worship of Mithras was confined to initiates, and they could only undertake such worship in the secrecy of the Mithraeum [19] Clauss states; "the Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own. The festival of natalis Invicti [birth of the Unconquerable (Sun)], held on 25 December, was a general festival of the Sun, and by no means specific to the Mysteries of Mithras."[20]

 

Steven Hijmans has discussed in detail the question of whether the general "natalis Invicti" festival was related to Christmas but does not give Mithras as a possible source.[21]

[edit] Salvation

 

A painted text on the wall of the St. Prisca Mithraeum in Rome contains the words: et nos servasti (?) . . . sanguine fuso (and you have saved us ... in the shed blood). The meaning of this is unclear, although presumably refers to the bull killed by Mithras, as no other source refers to a Mithraic salvation. However the servasti is only a conjecture.[22] According to Robert Turcan,[23] Mithraic salvation had little to do with the other-worldly destiny of individual souls, but was on the Zoroastrian pattern of man's participation in the cosmic struggle of the good creation against the forces of evil [24]

[edit] Symbolism of Water

 

Monuments in the Danube area depict Mithras firing a bow at a rock in the presence of the torch-bearers, apparently to encourage water to come forth. [25] Clauss states that, after the ritual meal, this offers 'the clearest parallel with Christianity'. [26]

[edit] "Sign of the Cross"

 

Tertullian states that followers of Mithras were marked on their forehead in an unspecified manner.[27] There is no indication that this is a cross, or a branding, or a tattoo, or a permanent mark of any kind.[28] The symbol of a circle with a diagonal cross inscribed within it is commonly found in Mithraea, especially in association with the Leontocephaline figure; and also appears to have been inscised onto Mithraic sacramental loaves. It has been suggested that this functions as an astrological symbol.

[edit] Mithraic motifs and medieval Christian art

 

From the end of the 18th century some authors have suggested that some elements in medieval Christian art reflect images found in Mithraic reliefs.[29] Franz Cumont was among these, although he studied each motif in isolation rather than the combination of several elements and whether they were combined in Christian art in the same way.[30] Cumont said that after the triumph of the church over paganism, artists continued to make use of stock images originally devised for Mithras in order to depict the new and unfamiliar stories of the bible. The "stranglehold of the workshop" meant that the first Christian artworks were heavily based on pagan art, and "a few alterations in costume and attitude transformed a pagan scene into a Christian picture".[31]

 

A series of scholars have since discussed possible similarities with Mithraic reliefs in medieval Romanesque art.[32] Vermaseren stated that the only certain example of such influence was an image of Elijah drawn up to heaven in a chariot drawn by fiery horses.[33] Deman stated that to compare isolated elements was not useful, and that combinations should be studied. He also pointed out that a similarity of image does not tell us whether this implies an ideological influence, or merely a tradition of craftmanship. He then gave a list of medieval reliefs that parallel Mithraic images, but refused to draw conclusions from this, as these would be subjective.[34]

[edit] Mithraea re-used in Christian worship

 

Several of the best preserved Mithraea, especially those in Rome such as at San Clemente and Santa Prisca, are now to be found underneath Christian churches. It has been suggested that these might indicate a tendency for Christians to adopt Mithraea for Christian worship, in a similar manner to the undoubted conversion into churches of temples and shrines of civic paganism. such as the Pantheon. However, in these Roman instances, the Mithraeum appears to have been filled with rubble prior to the erection of a church over the top; and hence cannot be considered demonstrable examples of deliberate re-use. A study of early Christian churches in Britain concluded that, if anything, the evidence there suggested a tendency to avoid locating churches on the sites of former Mithraea [35].

 

On the other hand, there is at least one known example of a Mithraic carved relief being re-used on a Christian church; in the early 11th Century tower added to the church of St Peter at Gowts in Lincoln, England. A much-weathered Mithraic lion-headed figure carrying keys, (presumably from a ruined Mithraeum in Roman Lincoln) was incorporated into the church tower, apparently in the mistaken belief that it was an ancient reprentation of the Apostle Peter[36]. Elsewhere, as in one of the Mithraea in Doliche, there are instances where the tauroctony of a cave Mithraeum has been replaced by a cross, which suggests later use as a church; but again the date of re-use cannot be determined, and hence it is by no means certain how far the Christian occupiers were aware of their cave's Mithraic past.

[mwc]

Why would a group of Jews decide to suddenly make up a Jewish messiah that didn't fit any of the Jewish prophecies and would make up a belief about the suffering Messiah even though this wasn't how Jews interpreted those passages before hand unless there was a historical person behind these events that these Jewish believers were trying to rationalize a belief around?

Who did what now?

 

Are you asking why a story would be written telling about a small group of Jews doing essentially what you describe long after these events were to have supposedly happened?

 

Are you asking why everyone seemed to learn everything from either someone else, another story or from "personal revelation" but nobody learned a thing from anyone involved in the initial core movement?

 

I'm not sure what it is you are asking because you're asking me how to make the story come true. I can't help make this Pinocchio a real boy. That's up to the fairy.

 

It seems more likely to be that there was a historical Jesus who wasn't supposed to die and all the suffering messiah myth was added onto the story after his death as an apologetic response to me. If early Christians ripped off from pagan myths and had no problems with this, why is there no record of any Christian admitting similarities between Greek myths and Christian myths until Justin Martyr?

Why indeed? Who says that this was what "christians" were doing? I already said they were a diverse group as opposed to a monolithic one. The writings that still are extant don't agree with one another. There's enough in the OT to "create" the key concepts of the gospel stories without resorting to pagan ideas but that doesn't mean that by the time of Justin there weren't pagan ideas that had been mixed-in or parallels that needed to be addressed. Also, Justin being the first real xian apologist might factor in to the reason for why he's the first to address these issues when other xians do not (ie. it makes little sense to write to other xians to discuss how your god is like the current pantheon of gods).

 

The idea of an "apologetic" response to the crucifixion is weak. The entire story, start to finish, does not exist *as-is*, in the OT. It's all apologetics. A virgin born hybrid god/man from Bethla(hem)-(Naza)reth? Does this exist in the OT? Nope. Nowhere. It's made up. Patch worked from "prophecy." John the Baptist and his origin story? Same. The various "miracles?" Count them in. Just go on through G.Matthew and he'll let you know because he likes to state when some "prophecy" is getting done. So adding a crucifixion to all this? No problem. Just dig around until you find a "hit" in the old books. It's not "embarrassing" or a "problem" but a "fulfillment" because the author(s) decided what "created" their messiah and what didn't. Anyone who did not agree was in error...not them. The misunderstanding was on the part of those who failed to "see" what they "saw" in the OT. The "revelation" from the pages of the scriptures as given to them by their Lord God through the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

So to die all of a sudden isn't a problem but a fulfillment and is only a problem if we assume that the rest of the story is based in some reality where their messiah wasn't a warrior and wasn't uniting the tribes and wasn't driving out foreigners and wasn't rebuilding Herod's temple and wasn't doing all those things that the "popular" messiah figures probably should have been doing (if we close our eyes to what messianic figures *could* be and focus on this one image of the messianic figure). Nope. He didn't none of those things but died an "embarrassing" death and that was the *one* thing that messed it all up for this group. I guess the Jews were pretty easy going on the rest of the requirements or figured he'd just get around to them later had he not died? If this is the case then they shouldn't judge the "second coming" so harshly.

 

If it was known that the early Christians were stealing from Greek myths and fabricated the character of Jesus, why didn't the pagan critic Celsus argue against the historicity of Jesus? Even Celsus believed there was a historical Jesus but he argued that the virgin birth myth was made up to cover up that Jesus was an illegitimate child and that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier.

I don't know why. We only have what Origen cites and so I have no idea where Celsus learned his information beyond what Origen says. We can look at it I guess:

 

Chapter XXVIII.

 

And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."

So Celsus wrote a rhetorical dialog where his main character, a Jew, had a little chat with Jesus.

 

Chapter XXXII.

 

But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;" and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage.

This is very familiar to most people.

 

Chapter XL.

 

After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our Saviour at His baptism by John[...]

This is just to show that G.Matthew is used as a source (here it also says "perhaps also from the other Gospels" but in other places prior to this it only mentions G.Matthew). Apparently, even though Celsus seems to have mentioned teaching the religion, he didn't say where he learned it (that I can see offhand) and it appears that Origen assumes the gospels as those sources.

 

I would imagine that stating that the leader of your ex-cult being born from an adulterous relationship and then teaching magic would be somewhat of a nasty thing to say. But since Celsus didn't technically say it but his proxy-Jew in a made up discussion and we only know of that what Origen has written it's unclear exactly what went on in the imaginary conversation. It says the Jew states this. Does his Jesus concede it? Does he offer an alternative? I don't see anything from my quick scan. I have no idea what this story is ultimately about beyond these snippets. For all I know his Jesus waves his wand and the beautiful boat is gone (quick, call Puff-n-Stuff).

 

So Celsus "knows" of a human "jesus" but that makes sense if he was once a believer since many believers cum apostates still accept a historical "jesus." Or he "knows" of a human "jesus" simply in the pages of his rhetoric since he has nothing to write without one. His Jew would have no one to speak with if there was no "jesus." So the "jesus" from G.Matthew, a fabrication since it's straight from the pages of a text and only a text, is invoked by him to be "grilled" by his imaginary Jew character. Two totally imaginary "people" having at one another. The Jew can say "<Pointing at Jesus> Isn't it true you're a complete bastard?" A charge Jesus would have to defend. Rather than "<Pointing to the empty chair> Isn't it true you're imaginary?" In which case the Jew is insane (especially if the chair answers back).

 

mwc