patrick.net

I tend to believe that Jesus really existed and said most of the things attributed to him in the gospels. Is there some reason I should not?

I just don't know whether to believe the "weird" stuff like the miracles. That stuff is about a 10 out of 10 on my 'weird-shit-o-meter' as Will Smith said in MIB.

wthrfrk80 says

I tend to believe that Jesus really existed and said most of the things attributed to him in the gospels. Is there some reason I should not?

Right. Well, look, I'm open to the idea of an HJ, though I am slowly leaning to MJ.

We'll never know the truth, in all likelihood.

There is some evidence that Jesus could be the Jesus who was stoned and hanged, which led Paul to mention he was talking about another Jesus (or an interpolator to clarify that in the face of later criticism while evangelising), and the later Gospel authors made the hanged Jesus into Judas. And a thousand other stories that could be likely about a real HJ.

What makes me lean towards MJ slightly is that if you strip out all the later interpolations, Paul is talking only about a Messiah (Christ), who appeared to him in a vision, of whom he is a messenger of "Mysteries". The Gospels come decades after Paul.

But that's not 100%, either. I do think that the Jesus of the Bible is definitely related to the Platonic Logos in some way.

I don't know what you mean by MJ or HJ? Myth Jesus and Hippie Jesus?

You didn't really answer my question about whether the gospels are an accurate recording of the words of Jesus. What are the problems that prevent an ordinary reading of the gospel texts? Yes, the miracle stuff is weird, but what about the teachings of Jesus?

wthrfrk80 says

I don't know what you mean by MJ or HJ? Myth Jesus and Hippie Jesus?

Sorry. Myth Jesus versus Historical Jesus.

wthrfrk80 says

You didn't really answer my question about whether the gospels are an accurate recording of the words of Jesus.

No.

We don't even know who wrote them. For example, nowhere in earliest Mark copies does it say "I, Mark, wrote this Gospel".

But that's just the beginning. They are packed with alternate phrasings, ommissions, and interpolations. Here's one of the most well known ones:

Our earliest whole copies of the Gospel of Mark from the 3rd Century ends at 16:8.

Then, there are three (!!!) other alternative endings, a short one and a long one, and another found in one other 4th C text.

Here is the Shorter additional ending:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16%3A8&version=NIV

Here is the Longer additional ending:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016:9-16:20&version=KJV

And there is yet another ending:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/16/

Was Mark appended to by later pious forgeries? Did they copy margin notes a minister made into the text? Maybe the earliest copies are incomplete and one of the three other longer versions are correct?

There's no way to know.

This is just the biggest and most obvious example from the NT. There are many more examples of pious forgery and interpolation and varying texts. Some of it is not doubt attributed to mundane, honest causes. But some of it deals with things we know early Christians debated fiercely amongst themselves.

I'm aware of the different endings of Mark, yes. Most educated Christians are as well. Yes, there was fierce debate in Christianity, especially over Christ's nature (and all of the related "heresies" like Arianism, Modalism, etc.). That is not denied by most believers I know.

Are there other examples of "pious forgery" in addition to the ending of Mark?

Many, many examples. Here's a few:

One major pious fraud is Matthew 28:16
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

That's almost certainly a pious fraud. Why? Because if the early Christians knew of this passage, what were they fighting about for 200-300 years regarding Christology and the Trinity?

An Orthodoxy Christian could simply point out Mark 28:16 to a heretic and be done with it, if it had existed at the time.

(Or, if it did exist, why wouldn't a heretic accept it? Maybe because there were so many versions of various writings, people only believed the versions they wanted to believe. Some in the Jesus Seminar think the whole chapter was a later interpolation).

There are several other famous interpolations, of which there is plenty of consensus.

1 Thess. 2:14-16 Paul says God's wrath is on Jews; yet elsewhere (in Thessalonians and Romans) states God's wrath is in the future, that Israel will be expressly saved by God, and that Jews are congregants in his Church. Likely an anti-Jewish interpolation later.

1 Cor. 14:33-25 Paul contracts his writings just a bit earlier from Chapter 11, where he states women can pray and prophecy, so long as they wear hats. Anti-female interpolation, much like the next one...

Here's another biggie:
The entire John (7:53 onwards) episode with the adulteress may be a forgery. It doesn't exist in the two earliest whole gospels of John we have, or in fragments prior that. That would be the "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone... sin no more" type stuff.

Now Jerome says some bad eggs took that out (Jealous Husbands!) of the Gospel of John, but again, the earliest copies don't have it. It could be as Jerome says, or it could have been added in one place and then migrates to another, or then disappears in the first place where it was original (or originally interpolated) and is reinserted later. And we have an admission by an Early Christian Leader that taking things in and out of the Bible happened!

What else happened to John - not to mention the other Gospels and Letters - that we nor Jerome, nor any other scribe, knew about?

If additions or omissions happen in later copies we can verify, it almost certainly happened earlier when we can't verify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6
http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Here's another problem, a textual variation, not an interpolation, but one with massive theological implications:
1 Corinthians 15:51
1. “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (majority text from Latin Vulgate lineage)
2. "We shall not all sleep, nor shall we all be changed" (Chester Beatty Papyrus)
From the various versions of the Sinaicitus and Vaticanus Bibles (300-400AD):
3. "We shall all sleep, but we shall not all be changed”
4. "We shall all sleep, and we shall all be changed”
5. "We shall all rise, but we shall not all be changed”

Which one is the correct version? Each one entails some pretty major big deal differences in theology. Items 2-5 are found in some of the oldest fragments and whole NTs we have.

thunderlips11 says

"We didn't rip off Mithra, the Devil anticipated Jesus and invented a Religion with a similar communal meal, so as to head off Christianity and mislead mankind!"

This is known among Theologians as "Diabolical Mimicry". They had to acknowledge that it had been done already by Mithra prior to the Jesus followers. They deduced that the devil came to earth prior to Jesus to throw people off the path of salvation.

wthrfrk80 says

I tend to believe that Jesus really existed and said most of the things attributed to him in the gospels. Is there some reason I should not?

I just don't know whether to believe the "weird" stuff like the miracles. That stuff is about a 10 out of 10 on my 'weird-shit-o-meter' as Will Smith said in MIB.

Again, I think Christian scholars who are objective have long recognized that ALL that Jesus did or said had been done or said before he "existed". They have reasoned that this should not affect your faith.

The words we attribute to Jesus had long been recorded as the words of others prior to the NT.

thunderlips11 says

The entire John (7:53 onwards) episode with the adulteress may be a forgery. It doesn't exist in the two earliest whole gospels of John we have, or in fragments prior that. That would be the "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone... sin no more" type stuff.

I have heard of that one yes. Many bibles have a note saying "the earliest manuscripts don't have the following" just like they do for the ending of Mark.

thunderlips11 says

That's almost certainly a pious fraud. Why? Because if the early Christians knew of this passage, what were they fighting about for 200-300 years regarding Christology and the Trinity?

I thought they were arguing about the true nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and not whether those "beings" existed. They argued if the Son was equal to the Father. They argued if the Son was created by the Father in time, or if the Son had always existed for all eternity.

CL says

Again, I think Christian scholars who are objective have long recognized that ALL that Jesus did or said had been done or said before he "existed". They have reasoned that this should not affect your faith.
The words we attribute to Jesus had long been recorded as the words of others prior to the NT.

That's a pretty staggering claim. Where were these words and sayings recorded? Is there evidence for that?

I tend not to believe in Christianity because of the miracles. That's weird stuff. But all of these "conspiracy theories" regarding early Christianity are new to me.

thunderlips11 says

1 Thess. 2:14-16 Paul says God's wrath is on Jews; yet elsewhere (in Thessalonians and Romans) states God's wrath is in the future, that Israel will be expressly saved by God, and that Jews are congregants in his Church. Likely an anti-Jewish interpolation later.

There's a distinction between the Jewish authorities (the Pharasees and Saducees that opposed the early church) and ordinary Jews who joined the Christian movement. Could that account for the difference? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested. This is interesting stuff, at least to me.

Toe jam says

What about the 'Yahweh Freaks'? The Jews. Do they catch any flack for being religious meddlers? Or is it just their exported religion, Christianity?

Hey, I've always firmly held the ground that there is no god, no god of any type. And then people like Marcus bitch and moan that I'm over-generalizing. Now that I disproved a specific mythology, you guys are bitching and moaning that I'm being to specific?

Yes, all religious beliefs are wrong. Yes, all religions are false. Yes, all gods are false. Yes, all superstitions are false. Yes, all religious beliefs are dangerous because they reduce rationality and can be used to make people do horrific things like -- well, normally I'd give about 100 examples, but I've done that in so many other threads. Let's just say it ain't a coincidence that the religious tend to hate gays and oppose gay rights.

As for Jews in particular… Religion, like all evils, can be throttled. Prior to 100 A.D., the Jews were pretty damn nasty with the warfare and tribal fighting and all. But they've been pretty quite for two millennia, so they are hardly the threat to freedom that Christianity is, particularly in the United States.

The worst case you can make is, of course, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but that whole region of the world is totally fucked up, and it's because of religion.

YesYNot says

Technically, I'm an agnostic, but for expediency, I say atheist in conversation.

Yeah, guess what, it's also available everywhere else on the web!

When your ready to come out of the closet, we'll be ready to support you!

Take that sucka!

thunderlips11 says

There is no evidence that there was a Jesus, not even a wholly mortal, hippie preacher Jesus. None.

Actually there is. They found his bones!

New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

Five of the 10 discovered boxes in the Talpiot tomb were inscribed with names believed to be associated with key figures in the New Testament: Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph and Mary Magdalene. A sixth inscription, written in Aramaic, translates to "Judah Son of Jesus."

In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary." Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."

Of course, you'll never get acceptance of this fact because it completely disproves the resurrection of Jesus, and without the resurrection, the whole scam of Christianity in all its sects is off. So there will never be acceptance of this fact no matter how much physical evidence there is.

I've always suspected that most Christians don't believe in Christ, but they want to continue the lie at all costs. The lie is what gives them power, and that's all that matters to them.

wthrfrk80 says

Is there a way to tell, in an unbiased manner, who ripped off who?

Carbon dating.

The older myths are thousands of years older. It's not subtle.

wthrfrk80 says

Is there some reason I should not?

So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.

Does that sound like the words of a god, or some asshole trying to get the peasants to pay their taxes?

Let's bring this conversation back into focus. I've given four videos that completely discredit the Jesus myth and all of Christianity. No one is even attempting to refute the facts presented in them.

Acceptance of those indisputable facts demands an utter rejection of Christianity. So, unless you want to convert to Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism, can't we all just admit that all religions are scams and that no person has ever talked with a god, any god?

The evidence against Christianity is more than overwhelming. And since the religion you really want to protect is indefensible, why would you be interested in defending religion in general?

Whatever you think you're getting from religion, can be gotten from much better places.

wthrfrk80 says

That's a pretty staggering claim. Where were these words and sayings recorded? Is there evidence for that

Jesus was a good Jew. As such, nearly everything he said was in the Hebrew Scriptures (especially when the authors targeted Jews as their audience).

But a lot is an amalgam of famous sayings that came before him, including the famous Greek philosophers.

Even resurrection is not new in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Let me ask you, what DID he say or do that was new?

savethepopulation says

You have to have greater faith to be an atheist than believe in Jesus Christ. The "rational" choice based upon the evidence would lead one to belief in Jesus Christ.

ehhh, there is no evidence that "Jesus Christ' as depicted in the Gospels of the New Testament ever existed.

Did man create God or did God create MAN? hmmm

CL says

Jesus was a good Jew. As such, nearly everything he said was in the Hebrew Scriptures (especially when the authors targeted Jews as their audience).

Well yes he quoted from the Hebrew scriptures. No one denies that. Examples of that are recorded in the gospels. I haven't studied every Jewish writing though, so I can't really comment on exactly what things Jesus said was new. I suppose I should get a history or theology degree.

Dan8267 says

When your ready to come out of the closet, we'll be ready to support you!

If this is directed at me, I don't care all that much about figuring out the difference between agnostic and atheist. I freely admit that I'd bet against god at 9:1 odds without thinking twice. On the other hand, I appreciate your gusto & the links to Egypt were great.

The door to door atheist video was great too.

YesYNot says

If this is directed at me

Just trying to show support. I was in the closet all during high school, even accepting Pascal's Wager as an excuse.

But now I'm out and flaming, and I couldn't be happier! It's very liberating.

Let's bring this conversation back into focus. I've given four videos that completely discredit the Jesus myth and all of Christianity. No one is even attempting to refute the facts presented in them.

You might like to do a Google search. Those videos come from the crank end of the internet. The statements made in them do not belong to history, and are not accepted by reputable historians. You can find this out very easily, if you try! Zeitgeist and its ilk are not reputable, because the facts are either wrong, or selected to mislead.

Be sceptical.

The evidence against Christianity is more than overwhelming.

You're entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately the position you talk for seems to be to believe what is convenient; and it would be hard to think of any position for which there was less to be said. This is, indeed, so much the case that most people who hold this position take refuge in evasions like "I don't have to prove anything/I don't have any beliefs/Prove to me that I believe that" and the like.

Whatever we believe, it should be possible to state it, and offer evidence for it. Most of those who post stuff from Zeitgeist can do neither.

Again, be sceptical.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse says

The statements made in them do not belong to history, and are not accepted by reputable historians.

Evidence? The Horus myth is very well-documented on Egyptian ruins. Those ruins predate Christianity.

Now, I have heard before that we should discard all fossil evidence because paleontologists don't actually believe that dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago. I've also heard that scientists don't agree that global warming is happening. But I tend to be skeptical about those statements.

Roger Pearse says

You're entitled to your opinion.

Whether or not Jesus Christ was a god, and whether or not the Christian myths were plagiarized from earlier myths is not an opinion but a matter of fact. Whether or not Jesus looked fat in those robes is an opinion.

I happened to see this discussion, and Mithras is one of my interests. I wonder if I might contribute? There is a fearful amount of rubbish on the web about Mithras, most of it inspired by religious malice rather than interest in the subject. It can be hard for ordinary people to know when they're being gulled.

wthrfrk80 says

"Well that depends on who you talk to. Who should I believe?"

No one. ;) But I think it's important to consider that Bible Scholars aren't historians nor archeologists, and the vast majority of them were educated as, by, and because of Belief and Belivers. (etc)

Just as a side note, you appear to be accepting that bible scholars in secular universities don't agree with you?

This, IIUC, is all about whether Jesus of Nazareth existed. If so, all you would need to do now is produce some ancient historians and archaeologists who DO agree with you, and some quotes (with references) that indicate that they speak for the consensus in their discipline, and discussion can proceed.

But I rather think that you will find this difficult, since none of them do. It's a crank view.

wthrfrk80 says

"Well Justin Martyr seems to be claiming that Mithraism ripped off the ritual from the Christians. Is there a way to tell, in an unbiased manner, who ripped off who?"

I would have thought that, unless there was evidence to the contrary, that Justin's statement stands. He was, after all, there. There is no other evidence. However it should be remembered that his statement probably only applies to Rome. Perhaps a group of Mithras cultists celebrating one of the seven ritual meals had, for some reason, decided to take the mick out of the Christians. It is, after all, not unknown for people to do this now.

Good question. First mention of Mithras is 300s BC. First temple of Mithra and first written mentions of Mithraic rites is middle last century BC.

Erm, no. First mention of Mithras is 80 AD, in Statius. First archaeology is ca. 100 AD. There is no evidence that Mithras existed prior to this (although of course the cult must have had time to come into being, so say 50 AD).

The "mention of Mithraic rites" in question is in Plutarch (ca. 110 AD), who says that the Cilician pirates in 68BC worshipped Mithras and that his mysteries have been celebrated ever since. But unfortunately the archaeology in Cilicia for Mithras suggests that the cult arrived there only much later. So modern scholars tend to think that Plutarch was confusing Zoroastrianism (including the cult of Persian Mitra, followed by semi-Persian rulers like Mithradates V of Pontus) with the Roman cult. The two are distinct, and older literature did not always realise this. Zoroastrianism is, of course, much more ancient, but certainly did not feature ritual meals of bread and water!

By the 1st Century AD, Mithraism in it's classic form (communal rites, grades of initiates, etc.) is widespread around the Roman World.

There is no evidence for this claim. The heyday of the cult is the 2nd century, from the archaeology.

Earliest Christian texts are believed to be no earlier than 50AD. First Christian churches don't appear for another century. The population of Christians around 100AD is believed to be quite small.

I note no evidence offered for these claims -- perhaps they are true? -- either, although I don't see the relevance.

But what is much, much worse, is that the argument made is unstated, and instead insinuated: that Mithras came first, therefore the Christians must have borrowed from it, despite their hostility to paganism.

Quite why we should believe this we are not told. It's telling that the argument is NOT made explicitly; generally arguments that are not made explicitly are arguments which the author knows will not stand examination.

When we look at the argument, it looks weird. Paganism was syncretic. The temples of Mithras include things borrowed from other pagan cults. Christianity was not and is not syncretic. Those who claim it is, mostly are making this kind of argument so their claims are circular. Indeed the claims tend to be made only by people who evidently know very little about ancient paganism, but are determined to stick it to the Christians by accusing them of something that they know the Christians won't like and don't do.

The argument type looks very bogus to me. It seems to be derived from old 19th century extreme protestant arguments against Catholicism -- that catholic rites and saints were sometimes borrowed in late antiquity from pagan cults. There actually IS some evidence for this, in the transition from paganism. But the argument has been chopped down and repositioned as an argument against Christianity; and the evidence is all fake. It's quite amusing, tho, to see atheism as the heir to fundamentalist protestantism in this way, isn't it!?

I hope that helps. I would refer readers interested in Mithras to the Wikipedia article for more information. Unfortunately it was vandalised by a troll in 2011 who fought a long edit war to drive off the real contributors, and then interspersed it with rubbish referenced to unreliable and elderly sources, and deleted useful content. The version from December 2010 is probably a good source, fully referenced and with links through to sources.

Your best modern scholarly account is Manfred Clauss, "The Roman cult of Mithras", translated by Richard Gordon. It's the standard undergraduate handbook on the subject.

Pagan cults were not like Christianity, in type. They were themselves, funnily enough! Christianity replaced them precisely because it offered something that they did not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dan8267 says

Roger Pearse says
The statements made in them do not belong to history, and are not accepted by reputable historians.

Evidence? The Horus myth is very well-documented on Egyptian ruins. Those ruins predate Christianity.

The cult of Horus appears on ancient Egyptian ruins. But quite how that is relevant, or helps your case, you do not say. The internet claims about Horus are, in the main, either false, or else deliberately selection of minor late items which bear no resemblance to the details given in the main handbooks.

But you've chosen to defend your claim -- what was it, precisely? -- about Horus. Well, may I suggest that you do just that? -- write it out, and reference it to the ancient sources. Then we can see what, if any, evidence there is.

And ... have a look around the web. There was a very long thread on Internet Infidels about the Horus claims of Acharya S, which delved into the detail and concluded that -- as usual -- she was engaged in telling a fairy-story.

By the way, it isn't accidental that people pushing these ideas try to use videos. They run much less risk of knowledgeable people picking up their tripe in Google and intervening. :)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dan8267 says

I've always suspected that most Christians don't believe in Christ, but they want to continue the lie at all costs. The lie is what gives them power, and that's all that matters to them.

Hey! I must have been swindled!! I go to church, and I don't have any power. Where do I go to get *my* "power"?!?

If I get a choice, I want power over attractive young women. To make them go away and leave me alone. Obviously.

:-)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Don't know much about Mithras, but the Horus myth is closest to the Jesus myth, way too close for coincident unless you believe in "atheists planting fossils to fool Christians".

So, let's see exactly where we disagree on Horus, if at all. I hold the following to be true and verified about Horus, check which ones you think are false and cite why.

1. The Egyptians did have a myth of Horus.
2. The Horus myth predated 1 A.D., i.e., Christianity.
3. According to the myth (assume this for all points), Horus was the son of the god Osiris.
4. Horus was born of a virgin.
5. Horus had a foster father named Seb, a.k.a. Jo-Seph.
6. Horus was born in a cave.
7. By an angel told Horus's mother she would conceive the son of a god.
8. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice around December 21st.
9. Horus's birth was witness by shepherds.
10. Three stars foretold Horus's birth.
11. Herut tried to have Horus murdered, but failed.
12. Horus came of age at 12 and started teaching in a temple.
13. Horus was baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptizer, who was later beheaded.
14. Horus walked on water.
15. Horus had twelve close followers.
16. Horus was tempted in the desert by Sut or Set, the precursor of the mythological character Satan. Horus resists the temptation.
17. Horus raised Asar from the dead, and Asar is translated as Lazarus.
18. Horus is known to heal the sick, cast of demons, and cure blindness.
19. Horus was crucified.
20. When Horus was crucified, he was accompanied by two thieves.
21. Horus was buried in a tomb but rose three days later after descending into hell.
22. The empty tomb was announced by a small group of women.

So, ignoring all the connections to astronomy and astrology which explains where these myths originated and why, let's just take a took at the similarities.

Give me a check or an X for each of those 22 points above. And if you give an X, provide some references to back up that the point is incorrect. I'm anticipating a lot of checks.

And the Horus myth alone discredits Christianity as being true. Moral of the story: if you're going to make up a story and presented it as fact, don't choose something that's already copyrighted.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/PWWEPq1qlio

thunderlips11 says

There is no evidence that there was a Jesus, not even a wholly mortal, hippie preacher Jesus. None. The only thing we have is [snip list of evidence interspersed with reasons to ignore it]

One of the things I find hardest to understand is when people decide to believe something that they know isn't true. Whether Christianity is true or not, Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, and every professor of ancient history at every university in the world will tell you so, if you can't work it out for yourself.

The claim is:

1. There is no evidence.
2. All the evidence can be ignored because it was (a) written by people there at the time (b) not written by people there at the time (c) written by people who knew the guy (d) not written by people who knew the guy (e) written by people who thought the guy was God (f) not written by people who thought the guy was God, or (g) all of the above.
3. Unless someone can produce some evidence that we decide to accept, there is no evidence.

Whether Christianity is true or not, it isn't false because of tosh like this. (The answer to #2 is g, by the way).

It's not very hard to see why people make this claim, either. Imagine that we wanted to run the Moslems around. All we need to do is claim Mohammed never existed; and find some excuse to ignore whatever evidence they come up with. They get to run around, and we just change the rules whenever they come close. Meanwhile the real issue -- whether our beliefs are right, or whether theirs are -- never gets discussed. It's a wonderful game for us to play, so long as we aren't very honest. But no honest person wastes time on such stuff.

Tradition is a bitch.

Scholarship likewise, eh?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse says

Hey! I must have been swindled!! I go to church, and I don't have any power. Where do I go to get *my* "power"?!?

You have to be bitten by a radioactive pope.

Roger Pearse says

Whether Christianity is true or not, Jesus of Nazareth certainly existed, and every professor of ancient history at every university in the world will tell you so

Like I said, they found his bones. Of course, he never walked on water or turned water into wine or rose from the dead.

You know, I'm going to start a new religion based on Xenomorph mythology. Why not? In two thousand years people will claim that my myth is original and the truth despite the well-preserved DVDs with the FBI warnings.

Meet your new savior.

Dan8267 says

Don't know much about Mithras, but the Horus myth is closest to the Jesus myth, way too close for coincident unless you believe in "atheists planting fossils to fool Christians".

Well, I haven't paid a lot of attention to the Horus story since it was taken apart in Internet Infidels. My knowledge of the subject comes from a general background in Egyptology.

But you might like to know that, say five years ago, the Horus argument wasn't really being deployed. Back then it was all "Mithras=Jesus". It didn't survive investigation. So those pushing this -- I don't mean you -- switched to Horus. That shouldn't give any of us confidence.

So, let's see exactly where we disagree on Horus, if at all. I hold the following to be true and verified about Horus, check which ones you think are false and cite why.

1. The Egyptians did have a myth of Horus.
2. The Horus myth predated 1 A.D., i.e., Christianity.
3. According to the myth (assume this for all points), Horus was the son of the god Osiris.

Broadly so.

The Egyptians had several deities known as Horus. To which are we referring?

What ancient source are we using, to verify what the myth of Horus is?

4. Horus was born of a virgin.

Let's recap the myth of Osiris, shall we?

Osiris was married to Isis. His brother Set was jealous, and wanted to shag Isis, so he murdered Osiris, chopped up his body, and scattered it the length of Egypt. Osiris's wife travelled up and down the Nile, collecting the bits. She found them all, apart from his willy, which had been eaten by a crocodile, and for which she substituted an artifical one. She reassembled Osiris, magically partially reanimated him, and had sex with him to conceive Horus. Then Osiris died again, and became -- these people are all gods and goddesses, remember, not mortals -- god of the dead. Horus grew up, and offed his wicked uncle Set.

Some, I admit, may believe that this is what the Christian gospels contain with the names changed. If so, they must have changed what they teach in Sunday school.

So no, the existence of Horus arises from the fact that Isis is NOT a virgin, but a wife.

To get around this, I believe some of the headbangers have taken to looking into Greek texts from the Ptolemaic period. I can't remember whether or not they managed to find one in which Isis -- in the export version -- was described as a virgin. (The claim is made, but I don't recall from Internet Infidels whether the text actually existed, or whether it was made up.) But at this point we're not dealing with the myth of Osiris and Isis and Horus at all, but with something else.

5. Horus had a foster father named Seb, a.k.a. Jo-Seph.
6. Horus was born in a cave.
7. By an angel told Horus's mother she would conceive the son of a god.
8. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice around December 21st.
9. Horus's birth was witness by shepherds.
10. Three stars foretold Horus's birth.
11. Herut tried to have Horus murdered, but failed.
12. Horus came of age at 12 and started teaching in a temple.
13. Horus was baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptizer, who was later beheaded.
14. Horus walked on water.
15. Horus had twelve close followers.
16. Horus was tempted in the desert by Sut or Set, the precursor of the mythological character Satan. Horus resists the temptation.
17. Horus raised Asar from the dead, and Asar is translated as Lazarus.
18. Horus is known to heal the sick, cast of demons, and cure blindness.
19. Horus was crucified.
20. When Horus was crucified, he was accompanied by two thieves.
21. Horus was buried in a tomb but rose three days later after descending into hell.
22. The empty tomb was announced by a small group of women.

This lot is twaddle. Sorry. This is not the ancient Egyptian myth of Horus, son of Osiris, as I have just outlined it. Have a look in any Egyptological reference.

So, ignoring all the connections to astronomy and astrology which explains where ...

Aha! That gives the game away. At this point, I put it to you that you are repeating material by Acharya S. Is this correct?

If so, what do the professional Egyptologists, the scholars who spend all their life in Egyptology, think of Acharya S? (That's a big, honking hint).

And if you give an X, provide some references to back up that the point is incorrect.

Erm, you make any old claim you like, and the rest of us have to research whether you are right? I don't think so! Reference your claims to the ancient sources, if you can. I believe Acharya S gives a lot of references, but you'll find most of them are to secondary sources.

I might start taking some of them apart, actually, if you provide a few. I like tracking down ancient sources.

And the Horus myth alone discredits Christianity as being true.

Assume the statements above were all true (which they are not). What about the material which is not mentioned? What about the parts of the myth which are not included here? Why does this list omit all the key elements of the myth?

And ... how does it "discredit Christianity as being true"? Haven't you skipped a bit in your logic here?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dan8267 says

Roger Pearse says

Hey! I must have been swindled!! I go to church, and I don't have any power. Where do I go to get *my* "power"?!?
You have to be bitten by a radioactive pope.

Call me sceptical, but as a method for acquiring secular power, that would seem to be an unreliable method. How many people get bitten by radioactive popes?

If the answer is zero, that would make the original statement somewhat meaningless.

I prefer to be hit by a power-beam from another world, as a way to acquire super-powers. More likely to happen.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I'm going to have to fade out here, as it's now bedtime, I don't post on Sunday, and my internet access in the week is minimal. This is a pity, as this is becoming interesting. It would be nice to take some of Acharya S' claims on Horus apart (she already hates me anyway, for what I did to her Mithras claims, so nothing to lose).

What I would say to readers is this, whether atheist or Christian.

Check your facts. Never believe any claim, just because it is convenient. When someone comes up with something which is "really great evidence", beware: it is probably too good to be true.

For any statement about antiquity, ask to see the ancient sources which justify it. Then go and look at those sources. Not modern research -- ancient texts. Go and look at the context. Go and see what the author of the modern claim left out. These things are mostly online in English these days.

In short ... be sceptical.

You will find that dross like this is just that -- unscholarly rubbish, made up by people with lots of malice but few scruples, and no hesitation in playing the old "selection, arrangement, omission" game by which a lie is presented as facts.

I don't think anyone benefits from the likes of Acharya S. Whatever our religious opinions, surely we all want to have the raw FACTS right?

Atheists: beware the headbangers. It does atheism no good to advocate stuff that any first year student can see is nonsense.

Christians: never accept any atheist claim about authority, that scholars believe X, or Y, or Z. They rarely know, and they never bother to check. At most they will marshall some quotes selected for use rather than accuracy.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse

Roger Pearse says

The Egyptians had several deities known as Horus. To which are we referring?

Any and all. We're not trying to determine whether or not Horus was a real god. We're trying to determine whether or not the Jesus myth was based on the Horus myth or myths. So if any of the Horus myths match, it counts as plagiarism.

Roger Pearse says

What ancient source are we using, to verify what the myth of Horus is?

All ancient sources that predate 1 A.D. It doesn't matter if it's a scroll, a tablet, a wall carving, a statue, or anything else. Why artificially limit the gathering of evidence?

And remember, we're not verifying if the myth of Horus is true, but what the myth or myths were.

Roger Pearse says

This lot is twaddle.

At this point we're getting into he said / she said. The web is clearly full of sites that support and sites that refute the similarities between Horus and Christ. But are you really willing to make a case that Christianity didn't "borrow" any material from older myths? Even my high school Church History class didn't take that position.

Nevertheless, there is certainly at least some consensus that Christianity was heavily influence by Egyptian and other ancient myths. For example,

Of all savior-gods worshipped at the beginning of the Christian era, Osiris may have contributed more details to the evolving Christ figure than any other. Already very old in Egypt, Osiris was identified with nearly every other Egyptian god and was on the way to absorbing them all. He had well over 200 divine names. He was called Lord of lords, King of kings, God of gods. He was the Resurrection and the Life, the Good Shepherd, the God who made men and women to be born again. From First to Last, Osiris was to the Egyptians “the god-man” who suffered, and died, and rose again, and reigned eternally in heaven. They believed that they would inherit eternal life, just as he had done.

http://www.usislam.org/revise/21Egypt.htm

Granted, that was about Osiris rather than Horus, but the whole father/son god myth is the hallmark of the Christian belief as well.

Roger Pearse says

Aha! That gives the game away. At this point, I put it to you that you are repeating material by Acharya S. Is this correct?

I haven't read Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection by D.M. Murdock / Acharya S. But the visual similarities shown in the video

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZZ0LmF4IlkU#!

are quite compelling: the halo, the wall carvings depicting gifts to a child, the repeated dove symbol, etc.

Furthermore, why twelve apostles if not for the 12 signs of the Zodiac? If there were 14 signs of the Zodiac, I strongly suspect that there would have been 14 tribes of Israel and 14 apostles, and we'd have a 28-hour day.

And why is 7 a holy number? There are seven celestial objects that can be seen with the naked eye that are clearly different than the stars: the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. If you could see Uranus with the naked eye, I'm sure that 8 would be the holy number and the mark of the beast would be 777. The "magic" behind these numbers predates Christianity, but was clearly pulled into that religion from others.

We all know that the Christians mixed their myths with pagan myths as a way of converting people. The Christmas tree, Easter at the spring equinox, Christmas at the winter solstice, etc. Some myth mixing came after Christianity was established in the Roman empire, but some myth mixing came from older religions. There were many messiahs in the ancient world, and they all had similar stories: curing the sick, casting out demons, rising from the dead, etc.

Roger Pearse says

Assume your statements above were all true… how does it "discredit Christianity as being true"? Haven't you skipped a bit in your logic here?

If you believe that, then start worshiping the Xenomorphs.

Let's get down to brass tacks. Are you willing to state that you consider it to be factually (not faith-based) true that Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead? If you're that kind of archaeologist, I'd be skeptical of your position.

The Apologetic Press has the best article I can find explaining the similarities and dissimilarities between the Christian myth and more ancient myths. The key parts, in my opinion, are

[T]here are some common threads that weave their way through many of the various legends: a superhuman hero does miraculous things, is killed to save mankind (sometimes even by crucifixion), and is brought back to life in some form or another, thereby defeating death. Although the minute details are quite different, the general similarities are close enough to demand scrutiny—and an explanation.

People around the world—due to a “universal frame of mind”—independently concocted stories that revolved around a god dying and then rising again. These stories span both time barriers and geographical limits; they are—in a very literal sense—“worldwide” and “universal.”

How, then, did the instinct to worship God lead to the concoction of numerous stories about a virgin-born savior-god who dies as a sacrifice for mankind’s wrongdoings? First, it started with the idea of sacrifice.
...
The general rule for the atonement value of a sacrifice was: the more costly and perfect the sacrifice, the more sins it would absolve.
...
A free-will sacrifice of royal blood would come closest to the perfect offering.
...
The only problem with such a concept was the fact that no king ever had lived a perfect life. As the Widdershins writer correctly observed, in an attempt to solve this, “Finally someone came up with the idea of one final sacrifice. One sacrifice to count for all the rest for all time. But who could be offered? It had to be someone very important; even kings were not good enough. Clearly, only a god was important enough to count as the last one” (Andy, 1998). Thus, it becomes clear why even the pagan world demanded a sacrifice that was sinless, royal, and higher in stature than other humans. Doane stated: “The belief of redemption from sin by the sufferings of a Divine Incarnation, whether by death on the cross or otherwise, was general and popular among the heathen, centuries before the time of Jesus of Nazareth” (1882, pp. 183-185).

Once we comprehend the need for the death of the savior-god, it is not difficult to see why humanity would want (and need) to see him defeat death.
…
Death holds more terror for man than perhaps anything else on Earth.
…
So, the idea of a sacrificial savior-god who victoriously defeats death through his resurrection came easily to the minds of people who knew that they needed forgiveness, and who desperately wanted to live past the grave.

The one thing I would add to this analysis is that when people exchange stories, especially orally like in the ancient world, those stories become intermixed by the very nature of being repeated and enhanced by the storytellers. As such, so-called "facts" from one myth can repeated with different details in subsequent myths. The result may be too complicated to untangle, but the process is clear. Every culture's mythology bleeds into adjacent cultures' mythology.

And as the Middle East, particularly the triangle from Egypt to Rome to Jerusalem was a major trading network of roads and sea routes, this mixing of myths was accelerated. The original aspects of Christianity are dwarfed by the influence of far more ancient and universal themes.

Interesting stuff, regardless of one's existing beliefs.

I tend to believe Christianity is too good to be true. And why does god always exist in the past and future, but never NOW when we need him? I'm definitely a "doubting Thomas."

I often hear atheists say "if god exists and is real, why doesn't he give some evidence that he exists? Why doesn't he show up at the U.N. or the White House and do something amazing to prove it?" Well, Christianity claims that god DID JUST THAT (except that it was during the Roman empire and not the U.N.) Essentially, Christianity claims that god is a real historical person, like George Washington or Julius Caesar.

I can't help but find Christianity interesting for those reasons.

wthrfrk80 says

I tend to believe Christianity is too good to be true.

Except the hell part. That's too bad to be true.

No "just" god could ever sentence a human to an eternity of torture and agony. No matter what a human does in life, he can physically only commit a finite amount of evil, and therefore cannot warrant an infinite amount of punishment. Not even Hitler would deserve that.

wthrfrk80 says

"if god exists and is real, why doesn't he give some evidence that he exists? Why doesn't he show up at the U.N. or the White House and do something amazing to prove it?" Well, Christianity claims that god DID JUST THAT (except that it was during the Roman empire and not the U.N.)

Yeah, the whole miracles were routine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, but don't happen today unless they are very subtle and untestable is quite suspicious. That's why the second coming will never happen. Any joker claiming to be Jesus would be laughed at, arrested, or killed.

It's very simple to see when one does not look for the truth with ones eyes. You see and then what? Believe? Do you hear then believe? Or do you read then believe? It's is clear that doubts are many when one does not open the heart to allow the Love of the lamb to bestow it with all the answers one needs. And remember, we are given what we need not what we want when we accept the Love of the Lord. This is far to forgotten in an age of theories and debt in exchange for hedonism. The truth is that Love is for everyone and everyone has and is soon to know of the Lamb. The sooner one accepts him the later down the road one is bestowed with the intelligence of such an incredible Holy one.