The Christian Myth Is Based on Pagan Myths

[Plu]

He spoke, forgave sins and acted as though he himself had the authority of God. So certainly if he didn't have that kind of authority he was mentally unhinged in quite a serious way. Or he did have that kind of authority it's one or the other.

I'm pretty sure that, like everyone in modern times (and most in ancient times) who claims to speak for god, it's the "mentally unhinged" one.

[Passion of Christ]

The Easter Bunny is a pagan symbol of fertility. But ya know, those dang Christians always have to steal everything and claim it's theirs.

Oh and the Jesus fish is the pagan symbol for vagina. ^-^

Christianity started within Judaism and Jesus/Yeshua was a Jewish man not a pagan god of some kind. Other than the fact that he came back to his followers after his death there is no connection between him and the pagan deities at all. Perhaps what people experienced would be similar to what Saint Paul experienced on the Road to Damascus which is a little different to the gospel accounts written later. Though the gospel accounts of the resurrection seem to have varying different portrayals of his risen form in one he appears in a locked room, one where he is encountered on the road and disappears when he is recognized, and another has him on the beach barbecuing fish. Whatever happened it isn't the same thing as the vegetation dying god myths, perhaps his three day journey into hell was cross over but it hinges on the historicity of Jesus being a real man, or largely based on a real man. Historians 99% agree that he was even going back to 1st century they agreed even when they were denouncing Christianity as a vile superstition.

In any case even at a push and he wasn't a historical man there were Christians who didn't believe Jesus had an Earthly human form and that he was 100% divine in some way. This type of Cosmic Christ would be compatible with Saint Paul's blinding vision and his claims there hundreds of people like him still living at the time of writing who had experiences of the risen Christ. The gospels will then bring this form of Christ into a historical setting. It would still mean Christianity is a true though not quite in the traditional conventional way. Or perhaps you have some kind of combination or bleeding of the two into one. You can be sure that a real experience of some kind lays at the heart of the Jesus movement.

[Drummer Guy]

http://youtu.be/sD9f0XU_S78  If this video and three others on the subject don't prove Jesus is a myth I don't know what it takes  to convince believers  it's a myth also. :roll:  Solitary

Isn't this just the zeitgeist videos with a different name?  Terrible videos....just terrible.

Though it is true that Christianity derives from other pagan myths, this video misses the mark in so many areas.

[Passion of Christ]

Though it is true that Christianity derives from other pagan myths, this video misses the mark in so many areas.

If there is a universal theme in common then there is a universal theme in Christianity there is a historical man who happens to be a man seems to have tapped into the universal theme of the resurrection with a resurrection of his own. The resurrection account we have was added in late the original account ended at the empty tomb. There are other historical accounts of various ascended masters and Holy Men who didn't leave much in the way of physical remains after they had died. I'm not sure if any of them later appeared to their followers in the way Jesus apparently did but I'll have to look into that.

http://www.gosaiji.com/sadhanapath/lifemahaprabhu.htm

There are others besides this so Jesus may have been "one of those guys" though he was in the Jewish setting and culture of 1st century Palestine.

[FrankDK]

> If there is a universal theme in common then there is a universal theme in Christianity there is a historical man who happens to be a man seems to have tapped into the universal theme of the resurrection with a resurrection of his own. The resurrection account we have was added in late the original account ended at the empty tomb. There are other historical accounts of various ascended masters and Holy Men who didn't leave much in the way of physical remains after they had died.

As best as I can tell, you are claiming that Jesus was an historical figure, and the story, through the empty tomb, is historically correct.  Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Hint: there isn't any.  If there were, it would have been offered centuries ago.

> I'm not sure if any of them later appeared to their followers in the way Jesus apparently did but I'll have to look into that.

What makes you believe that it is "apparent" that Jesus appeared to his followers?  The evidence is quite the contrary.  Everyone remembers where they were during singular events.  Yet, all the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus recorded in Matthew are in Jerusalem, while all the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus recorded in Luke are in Galilee.  Clearly, these can't be eye-witness accounts, because they would have at least gotten the places right.

Acts 5:30 says, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye (the Jews) slew and hung from a tree."  This clearly refers to Jesus ben Pantera, who was born during the reign of King Herod the Great (i.e., prior to 4 BC), and was slain by the Jews for heresy, and his body hung from a tree.

There is no evidence to support any of the New Testament claims.

Frank

Frank

[Hydra009]

Christianity started within Judaism and Jesus/Yeshua was a Jewish man not a pagan god of some kind. Other than the fact that he came back to his followers after his death there is no connection between him and the pagan deities at all.

[youtube:2np1ik7q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/youtube:2np1ik7q]

You can be sure that a real experience of some kind lays at the heart of the Jesus movement.

And why exactly does this have to be the case?   :-k  I seriously doubt you would make such an ass-umption about any other religion.

[Passion of Christ]

As best as I can tell, you are claiming that Jesus was an historical figure, and the story, through the empty tomb, is historically correct.  Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

You can't obtain archaeological evidence for the resurrection taking place so you will have to put your faith/trust into the people who accounted the story orally at the time. The main difference between Jesus and the pagan gods is that he is in specific location/s and time period while you can't do that with Mithras who appears to be more symbolic. Another point is that all the other resurrectional gods were torn to pieces before being reassembled back into their whole and this represented the souls reintegration after death as ancient people believed this to be the only way for someone to be brought back from death.  Nothing like that happened to Jesus however instead his body vanished from the tomb and he later appeared to his followers in some way.

Hint: there isn't any.  If there were, it would have been offered centuries ago.

The evidence is in the New Testament. You can reject it and believe something else that's up to you. Though I don't think you really just say it was a copy of the pagan cults it doesn't fit the archetype and even secular scholars accept that Jesus/Yeshua actually existed.

What makes you believe that it is "apparent" that Jesus appeared to his followers?

Christianity wouldn't be true if he didn't, though Islam could still be true for example as they reject Jesus was ever killed at all so it's a matter of faith. Just because we can't prove it happened doesn't mean it didn't as it's not something you can ever know. But there is some kind of event in a geographical and historical location when the Jesus Movement within Judaism suddenly appeared and the resurrection was at the core of that not something that was added in later.

The evidence is quite the contrary.  Everyone remembers where they were during singular events.  Yet, all the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus recorded in Matthew are in Jerusalem, while all the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus recorded in Luke are in Galilee.  Clearly, these can't be eye-witness accounts, because they would have at least gotten the places right.

The gospel account of the resurrection was added in later and wasn't written by people who had experienced it themselves but if you go back to the very first writings of Saint Paul the resurrection was always at the heart of the message. It wasn't something exclusive to Jesus but something everyone will receive from God that's the underlying message.

Acts 5:30 says, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye (the Jews) slew and hung from a tree."  This clearly refers to Jesus ben Pantera, who was born during the reign of King Herod the Great (i.e., prior to 4 BC), and was slain by the Jews for heresy, and his body hung from a tree.

From what I've heard it's supposed to tie in with the "Tree of Life" from Genesis. The tree of life was the key to immortality and Jesus on the cross represents that tree which God has given us through his grace. St Paul mentions that Jesus was killed by the Roman practice of crucifixion which was just the standard form of humiliating execution fit for common criminals.

"From the various passages we can be sure that Paul included the following elements in his
understanding of the passion: betrayal to and arrest by the Jewish religious leadership the
previous night; the Roman authorities executed Jesus by crucifixion; he was buried. In addition,
for Paul, this ghastly event had cosmic significance as an action that provided (in fulfillment of
the Scriptures) a sacrificial death through which sins could be forgiven and reconciliation
achieved between the estranged elements of the universe."


This was written within living memory of the events described so this wasn't a later embellishment but was central to the story from the very beginning.

There is no evidence to support any of the New Testament claims.

The New Testament is the evidence, not of God in general but of the Christian revelation of God in Jesus Christ. You could still come to believe in God through general revelation as many cultures throughout history have managed to do but you would be lacking many of the specific details just a vague general concept of a greater eternal power. Yes they may have been some artistic license and exaggeration by the time the gospels were written but the essential elements of Jesus life, execution and resurrection were present at the very start. Even secular and Jewish historians of the 1st century felt no reason to argue against the claims that Jesus lived and was killed by crucifixion under the orders of Pontius Pilate they just refuted what they saw as the superstitious and backwards beliefs that surrounded a charismatic figure. It's possible that's what it could have been if that's what you would prefer to believe, though of course you can't "prove" anything either way.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

even secular scholars accept that Jesus/Yeshua actually existed.

[citation needed]

[Passion of Christ]

Only really serious hardcore atheist nuts like Richard Carrier deny Jesus actually existed and he was a invention based on pagan mythology. Jesus isn't really that much like a pagan deity if you look at the the supposed myths and even his resurrection wasn't the same. The pagan gods either died in winter and were reborn in spring and that was symbolic for new life from death and the natural cycle or they were torn apart and reconstituted which was symbolic for the restoration of the soul after death, the Ka and Ba and all that sort of thing. None of them had anything to do with a man coming back to life to visit his followers after he had been put to death.

[Plu]

You might be confusing "jesus existed" with "jesus was anything more than a regular dude". A lot of people believe the former. Only christians believe the latter.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Only really serious hardcore atheist nuts like Richard Carrier deny Jesus actually existed and he was a invention based on pagan mythology. Jesus isn't really that much like a pagan deity if you look at the the supposed myths and even his resurrection wasn't the same. The pagan gods either died in winter and were reborn in spring and that was symbolic for new life from death and the natural cycle or they were torn apart and reconstituted which was symbolic for the restoration of the soul after death, the Ka and Ba and all that sort of thing. None of them had anything to do with a man coming back to life to visit his followers after he had been put to death.

[citation needed]

[Passion of Christ]

You might be confusing "jesus existed" with "jesus was anything more than a regular dude". A lot of people believe the former. Only christians believe the latter.

You mean the "historical Jesus" as opposed to the Christ of faith, the one who wasn't resurrected but just died and had his body stolen or a mystical restoration to life myth formed around him by his followers. That tends to be the secular historical account of him that most historians are happy to accept. But if you believe in God and the supernatural or something beyond the world we see you can very easily accept the resurrected historical Christ if you're that way inclined. It doesn't mean the New Testament is 100% exactly what happened particularly not the gospel of John which is a little more symbolic/Gnostic

[citation needed]

I don't see why I need to do the research for you, you're on the Internet you can find what out the consensus of Jesus historicity from the secular view point including historians alive in the 1st century. There is a very small minority who claim he never existed but there isn't a good reason to claim he didn't any more than you could claim Socrates or Hannibal of Carthage didn't exist. Many historians would even accept a historical King Arthur of some kind he just wouldn't be the one in the later medieval myths. Arthurian myths were made many centuries later while the contents of the New Testament were compiled over 20-60 years after Jesus death. There are some gospels that were written say 200 years later like the gospel of Mary or whatever but these weren't accepted in the final canon.

[aitm]

But if you believe in God and the supernatural or something beyond the world we see you can very easily accept the resurrected historical Christ if you're that way inclined.

of course...we usually just call them stupid, ignorant, brainwashed, twits, tardos and generally uneducated.

[Passion of Christ]

of course...we usually just call them stupid, ignorant, brainwashed, twits, tardos and generally uneducated.

If you want to believe everything exists for no reason or purpose at all, that we're some kind of freak unintentional accident,  there's no freewill, basis for morality/ethics, consciousness is created by stacking atoms together you can say that if you like. But that's only what you personally want to believe for no real reason.

[Passion of Christ]

of course...we usually just call them stupid, ignorant, brainwashed, twits, tardos and generally uneducated.

If you want to believe everything exists for no reason or purpose at all, that we're some kind of freak unintentional accident,  there's no freewill, basis for morality/ethics, consciousness is created by stacking atoms together you can say that if you like. But that's only what you personally want to believe though you can't prove it to be true same as a faith. You can at least have some respect for beliefs that may differ from your own atheists don't like it when they get dissed by religious nuts, claiming you're going to hell or you're not a real genuine human with a heart or whatever.