Plenty proof a chap call Jesus existed, Romans were strict record keepers. The rest of the story is open to interpretation and disbelief.
Wow, how bad of scholarship this is showing... Those theories (they were nothing more) were debunked between the 50s and the 70s, and no serious scholar believes for a second that Christianity borrowed any of its ideas-they all show up elsewhere 200-300 years after the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. But, I didn't come into this with hearsay, my sources are eminent researchers in their fields, and all the sources I'm quoting can be found and read for more information. First, the claim that Christianity is all borrowed is a rather new one, from Tom Harpur, former Anglican priest and reiterated by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, authors of The Jesus Mysteries. They linked Jesus to Osiris, Dionysius, Attis, Adonis, Serapis, and Mithras, to quote the most known. However, contemporary scholarship holds that this theory is pretty much all washed up. Historian Michael Licona took up the challenge of the resurrection of other gods versus that of Jesus. Aside from the historical evidence for the resurrection (in a nutshell, why, within hours of His death, with his sealed tomb guarded by Roman legionaries, under threat of their own death, would His disciples fabricate such a story, and then have it spread by women, who could not even testify in court and were considered to be about as useless as cattle...and why wouldn't the Jewish or Roman authorities just produce the body if he was still there, and if the disciples moved the body, why can't we find it? I have much better stuff, I'm attempting to answer the question at hand, which is not at this particular juncture the historical evidence for the resurrection...) there comes first the fact that in order to dismiss any resurrections, you must be able to refute all resurrections, if you contend that they are all fake. It is not logically possible to historically refute the resurrection of Jesus, so we have to move on to the second piece of evidence. T. N. D. Mettinger, professor at Lund University, and member of the Royal Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities of Stockholm, wrote one of the most recent academic papers on the concept of dying and rising gods in antiquity. In his book, The Riddle of Resurrection, he admits that the consensus among modern scholars is that there were no dying and rising gods predating Christ. They all post-dated the first century. Christianity cannot have borrowed the idea from another religion if it came after them. In closing, he is quoted as saying, "There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world." Also, we have to take into account the qualitative differences in the stories. Baal was swallowed by the underworld, Osiris came back only to rule the dead as a mummy-god, Attis and Adonis both involve transsubstantiation into other living objects-the stories simply have no parallels. In addition, many just plain out don't die and come back. Marduk didn't, and Mithras may or may not have, but either way, there are still no parallels to be drawn. Many people posit that Mithraism, were it not for the advent of Christianity, would be the world's religion today. However, the world's foremost expert on Mithras and the Mithraic cult is Edwin M. Yamauchi, PH. D., authoring seventeen books including Persia and the Bible, Greece and Babylon, Gnostic Ethics and Mandean Origins, The Stones and the Scriptures, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, The Archaeology of the New Testament, The World of the First Christians, andAfrica and the Bible. In 1975, he delivered a paper at the Second International Congress of Mithraic Studies in Tehran, at the behest of the then empress of Iran. His paper showed the evolution of the understanding of Mithraism, from the Religionsgeschischtliche schule, who first advanced that there were parallels to be drawn between Christianity and Mithraism, through the work of Alfred Schweitzer, who counteres that popular writers had made Mithraism and all the other mystery religions into a catholic thing, a universal mystery-religion that spread everywhere. However, by the mid-twentieth century, scholars had estblished that the sources used were far from satisfactory and some were hopelessly out-of-date. He closed with a quotation by Roland H. Nash, who said: "During a period of time running roughly from about 1890 to 1940, scholars often alleged that primitive Christianity had been heavily influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, the pagan mystery religions, or other movements in the Hellenistic world. Largely as a result of a series of scholarly books and articles written in rebuttal, allegations of early Christianity's dependence on its Hellenistic environment began to appear much less frequently in the publications of Bible scholars and classical scholars. Today most Bible scholars regard the question as a dead issue." I have more to post, but as I am ill, I will finish this up later, as well as fully annotate my sources, so as to allow you to go and do the reading I did, but most of this is taken from The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel, former atheist journalist turned Christian apologist by studying the historical evidence for the person of Jesus Christ... Within is all the footnoting as well, and other interviews with leading historians and scholars...
I'm not saying that Christianity borrowed from anybody. I am saying that certain ideas are archetypal. They crop up in the human consciousness time and again. Like the bow and arrow which was invented independently in different cultures at around the same time. People think alike. I'm not going to quibble about which source is more reputable. That would make for a very long and difficult discussion and would go exactly nowhere. An alternative explanation is that nobody set out to fabricate anything. But Jesus had made an impact, and people want to believe. People also like to gossip and embellish stories. And nobody keeps the fabric of gossip in the community going better than women. Because nobody felt like encouraging the rumours by giving them any attention. Jesus and his disciples were small-fry to the Romans. The Jewish authorities just wanted people to forget about him. They were not going to give the stories any more credibility or a longer half-life by even appearing to pay them any attention. You know how it is with people: the more you try to disprove a conspiracy theory, the more they believe it must be true. Else why would you try so hard to disprove it? That could just be anyone's body you're showing there (even if it was the body of Jesus, people would see what they wanted to see). All this assumes of course that Jesus even existed, and was crucified. If his story is just a composite archetypal myth, then there is no body for us to find today (except the one buried in India, but hey, we don't believe that one, do we?). Yeah, we have a by then thousand-year old religion (Hinduism) with an elaborate belief system around reincarnation, we have cyclical resurrection myths associated with the seasons. We have tons of stories of life, death and rebirth in deities. But nobody ever came up with the notion of resurrection before Jesus? Don't bother. At the end of the day, it is more stories. Just like the sources you challenge, just like the story of Jesus in the scriptures. We will never know for sure. That's why it is called faith. I think you can believe in the idea(l)s of Jesus without having to agonise about whether he actually existed. At the very least, he is a shared archetypal ideal of humanity. More than the son of God, he is the son of Human.
That's another thing, actually. We live in a biological world in which survival involves competition and often the killing and consumption of other life forms. Survival instincts are strong drives, and they are by necessity selfish (unless it involves your offspring, in which case your drives by necessity prioritise them). But humans are also tribal beings, so they can't think only of themselves all the time. Sometimes they have to prioritise the needs of the tribe because they are dependent on its survival for their own. They have to be, like, socially sensitive and altruistic and all that. Being a human involves a constant balancing of these drives: looking out for oneself vs. looking out for others. So we learn to hypothesise about other people's thoughts and feelings, and consider our own behaviour (and its possible impact) from other people's point of view. We develop orders of intentionality in our thinking (First order: "I think that..." ; Second order: "I think that you think that..."; Third order: "I think that you think that I think that..." etc.). We can manage about seven orders; the fifth level is enough to develop religion in a group context ("I know that you and I both believe that God wants us to live virtuously"). Things like empathy, conscience, shame, trust (and indeed lying and deceit) develop in this social context. We have to have very strongly ingrained internal constructs to override our base, selfish immediate survival instincts and play nice within the group for our long-term survival; so constructs like conscience, guilt and shame are right at the root of our psychosocial development right from the moment that we are born. Hey, you mentioned science. So what does this mean? It means that people are primarily selfish animals (except, generally, when it comes to our kids), because that is how biological nature works, not because we are innately bad. In case you hadn't noticed, nature is neither "good" nor "bad"; it is amoral. But people are also group animals, so we've had to reign in those instincts. To do this, we developed strong internal inhibiting constructs like conscience, guilt/shame and altruism right from early childhood (we start out as pretty self-centered babies, but that doesn't make babies bad, doesn't it?), and we develop them in a social context. Indeed, we are taught them as they are vital to living in human society. But that doesn't make us "good"; that makes us socially well-adapted. You have to understand that "good" and "bad" are, in the end, social human constructs. We internalise them, so we do the good thing even when nobody is watching, but in the end we worry about being judged by other humans, our human selves, or by (a very anthropomorphic) God, not by the animals we eat or the plants we weed (unless you are a Buddhist, but then again they are a thousand years ahead on the other main religions in sophistication).
Possibly shortening some of Nexxo's excellent brain farts, no human is born good, we all do what we can to survive, this is described very well by Game theory and it is because that 'being good' keeps us alive longer that we do it.
What I'm hearing though is: "Christianity stole these ideas from others" - a claim which can be refuted. (depending on which sources you are willing to accept) True but did you check into the people behind your sources? Checking into the religioustolerance.org site you pointed at lead me to pages like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religioustolerance.org & http://www.xenu-directory.net/opinions/hill-20070109-ocrt.html. (Not that they may be any more reputable but...) People often do the same on any subject they don't want to believe in (conspiracy or no). The historical evidence for his existence and death is greater than what we have for many figures in history yet we accept those with little question. There's a Huge difference between a belief in cyclical reincarnation with every being in the universe supposedly heading towards some form of godhood and the idea of The Creator of that universe entering it and dying. There's also a massive difference between the reason for, and the accomplishment of, that self-sacrifice and that of other "gods". Nexxo, I want you to understand that what I am about to say comes from a person who has a great deal of respect for you, (& your intelligence, your attempts at a balanced approach, your attempts to keep the conversation respectful, ...) and appreciates your participation in the conversations we've been involved in. However, on this topic I believe that your mind is closed as much as you would say mine is. You have already chosen what you will (and won't) accept. As long as that situation stands you are correct: further evidence will be merely "stories" to you. Then you have totally ruled out the possibility that we were constructed. It's prayer time now for me. May you find Truth (not mine, not yours, but that which is). If not, may it find you. (and me) May you never settle for less. - And even then may you find what every truth seeker (and any scientist) should know: For every answer there may be more questions but they pale in the face of that answer.
With out saying Christianity stole these ideas (I wouldn't say stole but incorporated but thats my opinion), but simply accepting the fact that humans come up with the same ideas to explain life when left to it. Why is it that established Christian doctrine is accepted but the ancient Greeks laughed at, despite having fairly similar mythology? You blindly accept one set of stories but deny another fundamentally similar set to the point where if you were having the discussion with an ancient greek or roman you would accuse them of exactly the same thing you accuse nexxo of being.
^ Steve. I have the book from which you quoted in your signature. "Matrix Warrior: Being the One" by British writer, Jake Horsley. Great stuff.
I'd refute that. Such as who? In any case most of those historical figures are not claimed to have walked on water or performed miracles. People are a bit sceptical about that bit. Again, I'd disagree. But even if the story was unique, that doesn't prove it was fact. It is all stories. I'm not saying that alternative interpretations are any more factual than the story of Jesus. I'm just saying that the scriptures cannot be taken as "evidence" any more than stories/scriptures of other religions. You claim that the story of Jesus is unique, and therefore must be fact; I'm saying there is nothing new under the sun (and uniqueness does not equate fact in any case). A story is not true just because it is a good story, even though we are more likely to wish/take a good story to be true. Moreover, I'm saying that it doesn't really matter. Stories are meant to inspire; you take from them what is useful for you. That is your interpretation. I don't see how that necessarily follows. "The truth is that there is no spoon, and that it is you that bends." -- The Matrix
In a world without a creator everything is constructed by that world & things within that world - no outside source exists - just as you claimed. In a world with a creator an outside source exists. In that case you have chosen the blue pill. Go back to your safe world. This never happened. I don't need to bother with the rest.
As for the who, Socrates. The only evidence we have of him that is concrete is "The Trial and Death of Socrates" and some quotations of his by Plato. Yet we fully concur that he was real. One thing that these "stories" have going for them is you can go visit an archaeological site and what it said happened, happened. That by itself means there is more to it than just a story, that elevates large parts to the realm of history. You can go to Jericho, and the walls (and city) were completely destroyed par on the timeline given in the Bible. In the valley where Sodom and Gomorrah were, there is evidence of a huge rain of bitumen-a burning tar rain, much like what was described in the Bible. There is evidence of the Egyptian captivity on Egyptian stele, The Babylonians have records of the subjugation of Israel, in short the Bible is a book of where to look for great archaeology. Many times we believe that an event didn't happen, until we find that the site was just a mile or two down the valley, or the name of the mount is changed now, and we find yet another site proving a story of the Old or New Testament. In addition, as to the evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ as a person, we have Flavius Marcellus Josephus, who explicitly states there was a Jesus, who came from Nazareth in Galilee, who attracted many followers, was put to death in the time of Pontius Pilate under Herod, and whose following has not still not died out, but grows yet larger every day. Tacitus, also writing in the time frame in which eyewitnesses would still have been alive, confirms the same thing. Records found in the tomb of Pilate (very recently discovered) show that Jesus was listed as those crucified under Pilate, as do other Roman records. As far as the cyclical rebirth is no different than a single atoning sacrifice, that's like saying there is no difference between dissociative disorder and seasonal affective disorder-they just happen to have the name disorder in there. There is no inherent atoning in a cyclical story, it's to explain something they consider to be inexplicable. Judaism and Christianity neither have "just so" stories, stuff to explain why the seasons change or the sky is blue-much of it is told explicitly, and what is not nobody deems important enough to worry about. With the lack of those archetypes, there is no precedent for adding in a story to explain anything, which means that borrowing from other religions, or syncretism was a horrible thought to them-their ideal was to remain unpolluted, and every other religion was either a pale imitation or just plain abhorrent. With all of the explicit teachings against syncretism, there is no way that in the timeframe provided that bias would have been overcome-but that still ignores that the other stories came later. That once again is a scientifically proven fact, that most of these "parallels" are postdating the close of the Christian canon by at least 100 years. In that time period, there was quite enough time to "add in" a resurrection story to draw away those who were tired of the straight and narrow road. One cannot change the mind of another, no matter how big a mallet you use. I will leave you with this thought, and it is one that has been touched on briefly and then dropped. To some, this is a collection of stories that you can believe if you want, but to me this is my job. Whether or not these stories are true in your reckoning, my livelihood hinges on their propagation and exegesis. I have the utmost respect for your line of work, though many believe it's crap as well. The difference is that one is easier to research than the other one. For ages, the doctor and the minister worked hand in hand, each agreeing that he could not treat all the maladies of man. I believe that I am not a man of medicine, though I have some bit of training in the area, and that it is in my best interest to keep an open, clear rapport with those in the medical field. Even though I counsel, I may neither prescribe medication nor recommend courses of treatment. I would hope that in the case of a patient's crisis of faith, you would extend the same professional courtesy to me. Nexxo, if nothing else, I enjoy the verbal sparring. Keeps me sharp, something I should work at more often.
His existence, perhaps, the way he died, no, his alleged actions, no, no proof but fairytales put in false scriptures presented to the masses of sheep as the truth. Hence the sheep has been taught that the truth shall set them free. However; it's knowledge that shall set you free, not the truth since that begs the question; whos truth? I recommend you read Egyptian history and than compare them to biblical events, it's very interesting to say the least.
Many of the stories in ancient greece are based in real places with historical site (that still stand). The stories of the loch ness monster is based on a real place it doesn't necessarily make it history. A story with a proven location doesn't make it history. Sounds like just so to me, Peasant: "Father why is the sky blue" Preacher "Because god created it that way" The only difference is in greek mythology there would be a back story to why a god (Zeus?) made the sky blue.
There is no such thing as personal truth, and knowledge is an advancement towards the truth, therefore truth does indeed set you free. However, that truth is not Christianity, there's not enough evidence to show that.
There has been presented a classic mistake-that there is more than one truth. If that were true, then two people could be walking on the ceiling since that would be gravity to them. The concept of no absolute truth is laughable, especially since saying there is no absolute truth means A. This statement is false, as there is no absolute truth, but even funnier B. This is an absolute statement that there are no absolute statements. Our very human society is based off absolute truth, in the form of laws, norms and mores. Otherwise, it would be a normal event to let murderers, rapists and thieves go free cause that's OK in their eyes. Your statement, whether you realize it or not, is no different. It's very much like the flawed argument that perception is reality-while you will act according to your perception, if we don't all share it it's not really there, no matter what you think. If it's not true for all, it's not true for one. 2+2 never equals 3 unless it's cups of water and rubbing alcohol.
That was my point. Truth matters. There is. The question is: What evidence will you accept as true and which will you declare to be merely "stories"? It is a common, maybe even necessary, condition that once we have accepted a thing as fact it takes a great deal of evidence to change that. Until that happens we tend to think of the opposing evidence as having to be in some way flawed.
