Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Goodness me. Whatever makes you think Christianity owes its existence to Mithraism, of all things?Durandal wrote:I think it's pretty clear that when looking at all the other Messianic religions of the day that Jesus was pretty clearly created out of thin air from parts of Mithraism among others. If he ever did exist, his life was probably nothing like what the Gospels describe.
The gospels were written after Jesus died. So what?There's a documentary called The God Who Wasn't There done by a former fundamentalist Christian which deals in part with the historical absurdities of Jesus' story. The Gospels were all written decades after Jesus' supposed crucifixion.
Its not plausible at all, and very likely did not occur. What does that have to do with the rest of it (his being crucified, his brother James, his Kingdom of God message, and so forth)?And a Prefect of Rome letting a murderer and insurrectionist go free instead of Jesus (after he tried to free Jesus) just doesn't seem very plausible.
All the parallels in mythology, perhaps?God Fearing Atheist wrote:Goodness me. Whatever makes you think Christianity owes its existence to Mithraism, of all things?Durandal wrote:I think it's pretty clear that when looking at all the other Messianic religions of the day that Jesus was pretty clearly created out of thin air from parts of Mithraism among others. If he ever did exist, his life was probably nothing like what the Gospels describe.
DECADES after he supposedly died. Therefore, it can't be first-hand accounts.The gospels were written after Jesus died. So what?There's a documentary called The God Who Wasn't There done by a former fundamentalist Christian which deals in part with the historical absurdities of Jesus' story. The Gospels were all written decades after Jesus' supposed crucifixion.
Looks like someone can't read between the lines here.Its not plausible at all, and very likely did not occur. What does that have to do with the rest of it (his being crucified, his brother James, his Kingdom of God message, and so forth)?And a Prefect of Rome letting a murderer and insurrectionist go free instead of Jesus (after he tried to free Jesus) just doesn't seem very plausible.
Which parallels are those, and why do you think they showcase Christian dependence on Mithraism?DPDarkPrimus wrote:All the parallels in mythology, perhaps?
Of course. Then again. I dont recall anyone saying the gospels were composed by eyewitnesses.DECADES after he supposedly died. Therefore, it can't be first-hand accounts.
I still dont understand. Specifically, how does the ahistorical nature of the Barabbas tradition cast doubt on the others? Which others? Why?Looks like someone can't read between the lines here.
The entire bit with Pilate and Barabus is a lie. That makes the rest of it suspect, since it hinges on the people condeming Jesus.
Which is one of the things that indicates that it's likely to be an interpolation.God Fearing Atheist wrote:What is the evidence for this? I seriously doubt that "tou legomenou Christou" is a gloss, considering:
-Josephus simply does not use adelphonymics without further specification when the name is common or the figure is Palestinian (and not, for example, Roman, like in Wars 2). It would be unprecedented if the identification were to occur only at the end of the paragraph, particularly when we consider that, had his audience had a high priest in mind, it would be impossible to distinguish between the son of Damneus and the son of Gamaliel. Josephus just didn't write like that.
There couldn't have been a very widespread knowledge about Christianity when Josephus wrote the Antiquities. And, as I've pointed out earlier, why would Josephus mention Jesus only in passing when he's not mentioned elsewhere? The character should've been introduced somewhere. What's not saying that it's an elaborate forgery to make it seem more authentic? As I mentioned earlier, Origen stated that Josephus didn't believe Jesus to be the Christ (out of all the fourteen different Jesuses that Josephus mentions and Rye correctly points out that he thought Emperor Vespasian was the Messiah) so wouldn't it be strange if a wording that indicated that Jesus indeed was the Christ would suddenly appear? Contrary to your claim, "tou legomenou Christou" (or closely worded variants thereof) appears in Christian sources such as in Matt 1:16 (as you pointed out) which isn't by any stretch of the imagination a pagan document, and also in the writings of St. Justin Martyr's (The First Apology, chapter 30).God Fearing Atheist wrote:-The language is very unchristian. Without exception, James is always refered to as "ho adelphos tou kyriou" or "ho adelphos tou soteros," the brother of the Lord or the brother of the Savior respectively, in Christian literature. If the gospels are any indication, "tou legomenou Christou" is spoken primarily by nonchristians, the single exception being Matt 1.16.
God Fearing Atheist wrote:-It is known as early as Origen, e.g. Contra Celsum 1.47, 2.13, Commentary on Matthew 10.27.
Right, like Luke Skywalker was based on Spiderman because they share several themes (hero born of family tragedy, special powers including super jumping, often seen swinging in urban settings, the love interest, precognition) and Spiderman came before. One mythology or fiction existing before another doesn't imply that one is descended from the other.Durandal wrote:I think it's pretty clear that when looking at all the other Messianic religions of the day that Jesus was pretty clearly created out of thin air from parts of Mithraism among others.
It's obvious there are mythologised parts, but it's pretty clear also that Luke and Matthew use an extra biblical source for the sayings of Jesus, and we don't really have any reason to go "someone must've made Jesus up!!!" and these sayings aren't from him.If he ever did exist, his life was probably nothing like what the Gospels describe.
Yeah, it also lies multiple times. Especially in concerns to Paul. He says Paul didn't think Jesus was real, and that's a total lie, Paul refers to Jesus as the seed of David, flesh, says has a brother called James, etc. The historical arguments in that video are fucking dire, hell, just check half the bible parts he references, he actually does quote them out of context. The "moderate christian" arguments I wasn't totally opposed to, however.There's a documentary called The God Who Wasn't There done by a former fundamentalist Christian which deals in part with the historical absurdities of Jesus' story.
Yeah, that bit was bullshit. Like Unas eating the gods was bullshit. OMG Unas was invented based on the other leader demigods of the time!!!The Gospels were all written decades after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. And a Prefect of Rome letting a murderer and insurrectionist go free instead of Jesus (after he tried to free Jesus) just doesn't seem very plausible. Pilate was a Prefect of Rome. Like he had to have a fucking vote on his executions.
Another theory for your case that they both have a common ancestor, even if they are not directly related (a relatively minor view is that both christianity and mitrhaism are descendended from a hellenisation of Osiris and Zoroastrianism). But the parallels are a bit closer than that. There is nothing particular about your commonalities between Spiderman and Luke that isn't common to numerous other stories.Rye wrote:Right, like Luke Skywalker was based on Spiderman because they share several themes (hero born of family tragedy, special powers including super jumping, often seen swinging in urban settings, the love interest, precognition) and Spiderman came before. One mythology or fiction existing before another doesn't imply that one is descended from the other.
You're right--strictly speaking, the enormous resemblance of the mythological parts is not enough to conclude that there was no historical Jesus. However, if such large fractions of the story were lifted from pre-existing sources, the question whether or not Jesus is completely made up or simply had these stories later attributed to him is frankly moot.Rye wrote:With Jesus, as well as the multiple sources attesting to him (which is frankly, as much as we could hope for, given a historical character and not the mythological one) there's nothing to imply his whole existence was made up. ... It's obvious there are mythologised parts, but it's pretty clear also that Luke and Matthew use an extra biblical source for the sayings of Jesus, and we don't really have any reason to go "someone must've made Jesus up!!!" and these sayings aren't from him.
Commonalities with mithraism include some of accounts of his manner of birth (virgin mother, although this is sometimes disputed), early childhood (shepherds and visiting wise men bearing gifts), same miraculuous works and number of disciples, method of sacrament (mass involving bread and wine), resurrection (except that Mithras does it every year), outlooks on the nature of good and evil (the God/Satan duality was not a jewish concept), ultimate fate of the world (although Revelation is not part of jesus' history, this commonality does help the case that there was a significant amount of adoption of mitrhaistic concepts). There are others, included ones clearly made after the fact (such as the adoption of Mithras' birthday to be Christmas). Adding to that the fact that mithraism was relatively common in the Roman empire at the time, it strains credulity to think that there was no significant genetic link in their respective mythologies.Rye wrote:If it's "pretty clear" why don't you give a coherent mythicist argument for all the prior mentioned evidence, that gives a better explanation of said evidence than a historical basis, and doesn't look like ad hoc rationalisation?
Yes, but that doesn't prove the existence of Jesus. Just because Paul claims that James the Just was the brother of Jesus doesn't necessarily have to mean that he really was. Take a look at 1 Galatians 1:18-19:God Fearing Atheist wrote:First of all, "the NT" is not a single document; it is a collection of several first and century second documents, plenty of which are literarily independent of each other. Paul and GMark independently attest to Jesus' crucifixion and having a brother James, for example.
Paul also calls his fellow Christians "brethren" in Galatians, here's an example:1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
An other example can be found in 3:15 as well as in the other epistles. I've seen it suggested (although I don't fully buy into it: I'm not a Biblical scholar) that the James that Paul refers to was a convert and that Paul used "brother" to distinguish him from the apostles (indeed, two of the apostles were named James. However, IIRC James the Great was dead by that time and the background of James the Less is confusing to say the least)?Galatians wrote:4:12 Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.
Leaving the Christian sources aside, Tacitus who was a Roman historian, apparently couldn't get his facts straight. "Tacitus" refered to Pilate as a procurator, but Tacitus should've known that Judea was under military rule and that Pilate's title was prefect and not procurator (which was a civilian title). There are many other problems with the Tacitus quotes, but it's sufficient to say is that it's not an eyewitness account and is, at best, hearsay (oh, not even Eusebius referred to the "Tacitus" quotes nor did Tertullian who based his works extensively on Tacitus. Furthermore, the work containing this passage was "discovered" in the 15th Century. It was first suggested in a book published in 1878 that the discoverer, Gian Francesco P. Bracciolini, forged the entire work: [url=http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8tcbr10.txt]Tacitus and Bracciolini, by John Wilson Ross - txt file[/url). Ross refers, among other things, to the language quality (or rather lack thereof), the use of specific words ("Imperator" being one) etc. Of course it should be quite clear to everyone that even if it isn't a forgery made by that specific person, it had been missing for more than one millennium to begin with).God Fearing Atheist wrote:To this we can add some noncanonical Christian sources and the Roman historian Tacitus. These are not contemporary, obviously, but that hardly matters.
I'm not quite sure I'm following you. There were quite a few early Fathers who tried to find evidence for Jesus in non-Christian sources. We've discussed Origen (who never referred to the TF), but there are others as well such as Clement of Alexandria (who referred to Josephus, but never to the TF), Saint Justin Martyr (who I've mentioned earlier made no reference to the TF) and Tertullian. Photius (who we'll come back to later) wrote a revision of Antiquities and wrote that Josephus never mentioned Christ. The TF seems to be nothing but "CliffsNotes" of the Gospels which, in a few lines that doesn't add anything that wasn't already known, pretty much confirms everything what the Gospels had to say about Jesus Christ, but still none of these people cared to mention it?God Fearing Atheist wrote:Let me ask you this: what occassion would the early Fathers familar with Josephus have to quote the (reconstructed, ala Meier 1991) Testimonium? Its not enough to simply say they didnt.
Why "is it to be expected here"? He never refered to the followers of other Messianic characters (characters that Josephus loathed) in this way and the TF had already established his Jewish origin. As you correctly point out, Josephus refers to women and locusts as tribes, but the other times that he refers to tribes, he refers to nationality or race, never to cults.God Fearing Atheist wrote:Josephus uses that language for alot of things. Women (13.16.6), locusts (2.14.4), gentile nationalities and communal groups, and so forth. The only thing unusal about it is its coupling with "Christians," which is to be expected here and no where else.
Yes, I know. Josephus states that up to fivehundred Jews were crucified per day by Titus. However, that people were crucified doesn't mean that a Jesus Christ character, as portrayed in the Gospels, has ever existed or was crucified himself.God Fearing Atheist wrote:Let me also sorta switch gears and add something else about the crucifixion: it is a very improbable thing to invent since it was, in an honor/shame culture like theirs, an ignoble way to meet your end. Josephus (in Wars 7) describes crucifixion as "a most miserable death," Paul (Gal 5.11) calls it an "offense" and Seneca, in his 101st epistle, says he "should deem [Maecenas] most despicable had he wished to live up to the very time of crucifixion." Even suicide were preferable to the cross and its "long drawn-out agony.
If I'm not mistaken, Octavius was written in the mid 2nd Century, right? By then, the Gospels existed as did other Christian writings. Otherwise I refer to my answer above (about Paul).God Fearing Atheist wrote:It was a source of dispersions cast on Christians by critics. The pagan Caecilius in M. Felix's Octavius claims "the objects of their worship include a man who suffered death as a criminal, as well as the wretched wood of his cross," and that these two deserve each other; the wretched man, punished for wicked crime, and the equally wicked Christians who worship him. This sort of depiction was appearently widespread. Even Paul admits (1 Cor 1.23) that the crucifixion of Jesus appears "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." I could go on.
Considering how early and frequently his crucifixion is attested to, and taking into account these other considerations, just what exactly can better account for the evidence?
Because Justus seems not to only have covered the kings, but the general Israeli history as well (as a fuller Photius quote shows). The work you mentioned wasn't the only one Justus wrote (IIRC, he wrote over 80 books, among others a book named A History of the Jewish War, which is lost, with a different inclination than Josephus. Josephus himself refers to Justus).God Fearing Atheist wrote:Why would we expect Justus to have mentioned Jesus? As Photius tells us in his Bibliotheca, Justus' work was entitled "A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy," and dealt with the "history with Moses" and subsequent rulers all the way down until "the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews."
Photius also tells us that he suffered from "the common fault of the Jews." Justus was a Jewish non-Christian and, presumably, would not have thought of Jesus as kingly. Why then should Justus have included him in a work that appears to detail Jewish royal history?
Thanks Mange.Mange the Swede wrote:Welcome to the board, God Fearing Atheist! (It was a very interesting username BTW!)
My point here is that 20.9.1. without "called the Christ" would be very unusal for Josephus. It's a signal of its authenticity, not of an interpolation.Which is one of the things that indicates that it's likely to be an interpolation.
Why not? Pliny the Younger and Suetonius matter-of-factly wrote about Jesus and Christians shortly after Antiquities was published. Tacitus does the same, and if we take him at his word (15.44), Christians were widely known to pagans as early as Nero's time.There couldn't have been a very widespread knowledge about Christianity when Josephus wrote the Antiquities.
Assuming for a moment that the whole of 18.3.3 was interpolated, just why "should" Jesus have been introduced before? Off the top of my head, Josephus does the same thing with Felix' brother Pallas in Jewish War.And, as I've pointed out earlier, why would Josephus mention Jesus only in passing when he's not mentioned elsewhere? The character should've been introduced somewhere.
Haha. What if the earth were created 6,000 years ago but made to look several billion years older? Like in this creationist case, "the undetectable interpolation" is just unfalsifiable special pleading.What's not saying that it's an elaborate forgery to make it seem more authentic?
But the wording doesnt indicate that Josephus thought Jesus was the Christ. As Origen understood in his quotations, "called the Christ" meant just that; a title people used to refer to Jesus.As I mentioned earlier, Origen stated that Josephus didn't believe Jesus to be the Christ (out of all the fourteen different Jesuses that Josephus mentions and Rye correctly points out that he thought Emperor Vespasian was the Messiah) so wouldn't it be strange if a wording that indicated that Jesus indeed was the Christ would suddenly appear?
My point was not that "called the Christ" was never written by a Christian pen, but that its atypical. When we couple this with the James language, it makes (I think) a very strong case against interpolation.Contrary to your claim, "tou legomenou Christou" (or closely worded variants thereof) appears in Christian sources such as in Matt 1:16 (as you pointed out) which isn't by any stretch of the imagination a pagan document, and also in the writings of St. Justin Martyr's (The First Apology, chapter 30).
The idea is not that Origen misquoted "Jesus called the Christ," but that he (quite reasonably) misunderstood its context.That's still more than a century after the book had been written. That leaves plenty of time for a scribe to interpolate it. It has also been suggested that the passage in 2.13 is a misquotation made by Origen which later church fathers (read Eusebius) used. Another hypothesis is that one scribe in the 2nd or 3rd Century made a note in the margin and the next scribe thought it belonged to the text and included it. It's a really small change which is needed.
But Paul isnt saying the Christians of Galatia are Jesus' brothers. He's saying they are his brothers.Mange the Swede wrote:Yes, but that doesn't prove the existence of Jesus. Just because Paul claims that James the Just was the brother of Jesus doesn't necessarily have to mean that he really was. Take a look at 1 Galatians 1:18-19:
Paul also calls his fellow Christians "brethren" in Galatians, here's an example:1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
An other example can be found in 3:15 as well as in the other epistles. I've seen it suggested (although I don't fully buy into it: I'm not a Biblical scholar) that the James that Paul refers to was a convert and that Paul used "brother" to distinguish him from the apostles (indeed, two of the apostles were named James. However, IIRC James the Great was dead by that time and the background of James the Less is confusing to say the least)?Galatians wrote:4:12 Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.
There are some instances where Paul's silence is odd, and it is in those instances that I doubt the gospel account (e.g. the silence about Jesus' overturning the food laws, as he supposedly did in Mark, during the debate in Gal 4).In regards to Paul, it's also interesting that the gospels and epistles in general rhymes very poorly with each other (compare Jesus' message in the Gospels to how it's treated in the epistles of Paul, for example. There are claims that directly contradicts what Jesus is supposed to have said.). Strangely enough, the crucifixition seems to be pretty much everything that Paul seems to have had knowledge about as he never mentioned anything about the virgin birth, Jesus' childhood, none of the supposed miracles that Jesus performed, none of the parables that Jesus used (he never referred to anything that Jesus is supposed to have said according to the Gospels), the other circumstances around the death of Jesus Christ (such as Peter's denial etc.) or any other specific events from the Gospels in his epistels. This is very odd considering the fact that he could've gotten first-hand accounts of Jesus from Peter (among others).
Is the use of anachronistic titles unusal for Tacitus? No, I do not think it is (Annals 3.24.25; 4.62.9; 11.14.15; 13.32.13; 13.42.3.).Leaving the Christian sources aside, Tacitus who was a Roman historian, apparently couldn't get his facts straight. "Tacitus" refered to Pilate as a procurator, but Tacitus should've known that Judea was under military rule and that Pilate's title was prefect and not procurator (which was a civilian title). There are many other problems with the Tacitus quotes, but it's sufficient to say is that it's not an eyewitness account and is, at best, hearsay.
But this isnt true. The early Fathers werent going around looking to establish Jesus' historicity with non-christian documents because no one in antiquity had any doubts that he lived.I'm not quite sure I'm following you. There were quite a few early Fathers who tried to find evidence for Jesus in non-Christian sources.
Why would we expect Origen to reference the Testimonium?We've discussed Origen (who never referred to the TF)
Why would we expect Clement to make reference to the Testimonium? Are you quite sure Clement even knew Antiquities? Stromata 1.21 isnt very clear, and scholars disagree.but there are others as well such as Clement of Alexandria (who referred to Josephus, but never to the TF)
There is no evidence that Justin knew Josephus.Saint Justin Martyr (who I've mentioned earlier made no reference to the TF)
Did Tertullian know Josephus, or is he dependent on Theophilus? If he isnt, what occassion would he have to mention the Testimonium?and Tertullian.
Where does Photius write that "Josephus never mentioned Christ"? So far as im aware (and i've read all the codices available in English), this widely circulated internet rumor is confused.Photius (who we'll come back to later) wrote a revision of Antiquities and wrote that Josephus never mentioned Christ.
Which accounts are those? The Roman mystery seems to have believed Mithras sprang from a rock.Kuroneko wrote:Commonalities with mithraism include some of accounts of his manner of birth (virgin mother, although this is sometimes disputed)
What is your pre-christian evidence for "wise men bearing gifts"? The shepherds are true enough (and they offered gifts), but the details are considerably different.early childhood (shepherds and visiting wise men bearing gifts)
"Miraculous works" are religiously universal and hardly make a case for dependence.same miraculuous works and number of disciples
We know that initiates were given meat, bread, water and wine, but fellowship meals of this sort were common all over the Roman world in the first century.method of sacrament (mass involving bread and wine)
The common ancestor is plausible, and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that judaism was immune to influence from the surrounding pagans. Everyone borrowed from one another, archetypal hero worship happened then and produced such mythology as it happens now in the forms of film or comic book.Kuroneko wrote: Another theory for your case that they both have a common ancestor, even if they are not directly related (a relatively minor view is that both christianity and mitrhaism are descendended from a hellenisation of Osiris and Zoroastrianism). But the parallels are a bit closer than that. There is nothing particular about your commonalities between Spiderman and Luke that isn't common to numerous other stories.
Not really, there's no call to assume Q came from Mithraism, is there? Or his family or his crucifixion? I would say it's certainly not moot in a thread about whether there was a historical Jesus or not.You're right--strictly speaking, the enormous resemblance of the mythological parts is not enough to conclude that there was no historical Jesus. However, if such large fractions of the story were lifted from pre-existing sources, the question whether or not Jesus is completely made up or simply had these stories later attributed to him is frankly moot.
Yeah, that part where Jesus emerged from a cosmic egg rock was my favourite part of the nativity.Commonalities with mithraism include some of accounts of his manner of birth
Link wrote:That the rock from which Mithras is born does indeed represent the cosmos is proven by the snake that entwines it: for this image evokes unmistakeably the famous Orphic myth of the snake-entwined "cosmic egg" out of which the universe was formed when the creator-god Phanes emerged from it at the beginning of time. Indeed, the Mithraists themselves explicitly identified Mithras with Phanes, as we know from an inscription found in Rome and from the iconography of a Mithraic monument located in England.
Where is Mithras' mother covered at all? The "virgin birth parallel" seems to be grasping at straws, to be honest. Divine children with similar themes appear in jewish myth of the time, in the book of Enoch, for instance ( I don't have the exact references on me now, but I could probably turf them out later at some point if required).(virgin mother, although this is sometimes disputed),
I honestly don't know much of Mithras' early life, can you post these similarities?early childhood (shepherds and visiting wise men bearing gifts), same miraculuous works and number of disciples,
That certainly already existed in judaism. The bible mentions resurrection several times, especially associated with messianism.resurrection (except that Mithras does it every year),
The jewish encyclopedia doesn't seem to agree with you there, as well as the NT, that view appears in jewish apocrypha:outlooks on the nature of good and evil (the God/Satan duality was not a jewish concept),
Jewish Encyclopedia wrote:The evolution of the theory of Satan keeps pace with the development of Jewish angelology and demonology. In Wisdom ii. 24 he is represented, with reference to Gen. iii., as the author of all evil, who brought death into the world; he is apparently mentioned also in Ecclus. (Sirach) xxi. 27, and the fact that his name does not occur in Daniel is doubtless due merely to chance. Satan was the seducer and the paramour of Eve, and was hurled from heaven together with other angels because of his iniquity (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxix. 4 et seq.). Since that time he has been called "Satan," although previously he had been termed "Satanel" (ib. xxxi. 3 et seq.). The doctrine of the fall of Satan, as well as of the fall of the angels, is found also in Babylonia (Schrader, l.c. p. 464), and is mentioned several times in the New Testament.
Mithraism may have had some influence on the judaism that preceded christianity, and i'm sure on the catholic church (the whole elitist male society and secrecy seems very mithraic, compared to christianity) but the mythic themes in the gospels are taken from jewish lore, rather than mithraism, so I've heard.ultimate fate of the world (although Revelation is not part of jesus' history, this commonality does help the case that there was a significant amount of adoption of mitrhaistic concepts). There are others, included ones clearly made after the fact (such as the adoption of Mithras' birthday to be Christmas). Adding to that the fact that mithraism was relatively common in the Roman empire at the time, it strains credulity to think that there was no significant genetic link in their respective mythologies.
That's a weak comparison, and you know it. Jesus came after Mithra, and both happened to be the son of God, had 12 followers, sacrificed themselves for human salvation, performed miracles and were born from virgins. All when Mithraism and Christianity just happened to be competing religions in the Roman Empire. Boy, what a huge coincidence that the competitors both came up with the exact same ideas, completely independently.Rye wrote:Right, like Luke Skywalker was based on Spiderman because they share several themes (hero born of family tragedy, special powers including super jumping, often seen swinging in urban settings, the love interest, precognition) and Spiderman came before. One mythology or fiction existing before another doesn't imply that one is descended from the other.
You've got strong parallels with a competing religion. Is it really that hard to believe that the Christians did what they've historically done and borrowed parts from another faith to make accepting theirs easier? This has been Christianity's modus operandi for centuries. Jesus may have been someone who actually existed, but his story is so like so many other allegories that came along. Hell, they already borrowed Mithra's birthday for Jesus'. It's not like Mithraism had no influence on Christianity whatsoever, which is what you seem to be claiming.With Jesus, as well as the multiple sources attesting to him (which is frankly, as much as we could hope for, given a historical character and not the mythological one) there's nothing to imply his whole existence was made up. That is just internet atheist bullshit, like ID is internet christian bullshit.
If it's "pretty clear" why don't you give a coherent mythicist argument for all the prior mentioned evidence, that gives a better explanation of said evidence than a historical basis, and doesn't look like ad hoc rationalisation?
Both Luke and Matthew wrote their accounts decades after Jesus' supposed death. Do I really need to remind you of what happens when you play "telephone" in a classroom? How accurate do you really think they are? Hell, the Gospels aren't even consistent with each other half the time.It's obvious there are mythologised parts, but it's pretty clear also that Luke and Matthew use an extra biblical source for the sayings of Jesus, and we don't really have any reason to go "someone must've made Jesus up!!!" and these sayings aren't from him.
The documentary's argument was that Paul wrote of the events of Jesus' life as taking place in some sort of higher realm, like on Mount Olympus or something. And to my knowledge, Paul never does mention anything except the crucifixion and resurrection. He never talks about John the Baptist, the virgin birth, Judas' betrayal, etc ...Yeah, it also lies multiple times. Especially in concerns to Paul. He says Paul didn't think Jesus was real, and that's a total lie, Paul refers to Jesus as the seed of David, flesh, says has a brother called James, etc. The historical arguments in that video are fucking dire, hell, just check half the bible parts he references, he actually does quote them out of context. The "moderate christian" arguments I wasn't totally opposed to, however.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that humans borrow ideas from each other? Are you saying that it's purely coincidence that so many of the same themes appear in the popular mythologies and religions of the world?Yeah, that bit was bullshit. Like Unas eating the gods was bullshit. OMG Unas was invented based on the other leader demigods of the time!!!
Read my previous post and the post preceding that. It was an intentionally shaky comparison, like, oh, I dunno "a man coming from a cosmic stone egg in a cave is really similar to a virgin birth in a cowshed!"Durandal wrote: That's a weak comparison, and you know it. Jesus came after Mithra, and both happened to be the son of God, had 12 followers, sacrificed themselves for human salvation, performed miracles and were born from virgins.
Wow, what a retarded strawman. Did I say I was opposed to common ancestry, or perhaps Mithraism or another religion impacting on judaism prior to the advent of christianity? Don't think I did. I do remember saying that the mithraic comparisons are either weak (like the ones you posted without reading the posts that have already refuted them) or existed in jewish lore already, so we have no reason to jump to mithraism as the primary source for christianity.All when Mithraism and Christianity just happened to be competing religions in the Roman Empire. Boy, what a huge coincidence that the competitors both came up with the exact same ideas, completely independently.
To the point of inventing independently attested to family members and historical conspiracies? Not really, no. Remember, like you claimed when you said "I think it's pretty clear that when looking at all the other Messianic religions of the day that Jesus was pretty clearly created out of thin air from parts of Mithraism among others. "?You've got strong parallels with a competing religion. Is it really that hard to believe that the Christians did what they've historically done and borrowed parts from another faith to make accepting theirs easier?
I well seem to be claiming that with all 0 of my posts saying so.This has been Christianity's modus operandi for centuries. Jesus may have been someone who actually existed, but his story is so like so many other allegories that came along. Hell, they already borrowed Mithra's birthday for Jesus'. It's not like Mithraism had no influence on Christianity whatsoever, which is what you seem to be claiming.
I don't think they're terribly accurate at all, however, Q has been determined through the sayings that come across with extreme similarity. As already noted from the start of the thread, given Q says things not in line with the known teachings of first century judaism or christianity there is no basis to conclude it's not from a real person. What basis have we got to claim they didn't come from Jesus? Well, none really, so we give them the benefit of the doubt.Both Luke and Matthew wrote their accounts decades after Jesus' supposed death. Do I really need to remind you of what happens when you play "telephone" in a classroom? How accurate do you really think they are? Hell, the Gospels aren't even consistent with each other half the time.
Yeah, that's that big lie I was talking about.The documentary's argument was that Paul wrote of the events of Jesus' life as taking place in some sort of higher realm, like on Mount Olympus or something.
Right at the start of this thread I posted where Paul mentions Jesus' human family, independent of the gospels and Josephus, talks about him being the flesh of David, etc.And to my knowledge, Paul never does mention anything except the crucifixion and resurrection. He never talks about John the Baptist, the virgin birth, Judas' betrayal, etc ...
Why is it so difficult for you to read the fucking thread? Do you think Unas is invented like Jesus? If not, why not? You can't trust the mythic writings, and he looks like he could just be an invented king, based on Gilgamesh.Why is it so hard for you to accept that humans borrow ideas from each other? Are you saying that it's purely coincidence that so many of the same themes appear in the popular mythologies and religions of the world?
Doherty says alot of things there is no evidence for, including the notion that the crucifixion occured in some fleshy Twilight Zone world that overlaps our own. Where is the evidence for this, Durandal? Please be specific.Durandal wrote:The documentary's argument was that Paul wrote of the events of Jesus' life as taking place in some sort of higher realm, like on Mount Olympus or something. And to my knowledge, Paul never does mention anything except the crucifixion and resurrection. He never talks about John the Baptist, the virgin birth, Judas' betrayal, etc ...
Did he? How early are our sources for the Roman mystery, Durandal? Do you think the Persian deity is continuous with the Roman cult? If so, why?Durandal wrote:That's a weak comparison, and you know it. Jesus came after Mithra,
Where is the ancient evidence for this Durandal? Im not aware of any evidence to suggest Mithras sacrificed himself, had 12 followers, or was born of a virgin.and both happened to be the son of God, had 12 followers, sacrificed themselves for human salvation, performed miracles and were born from virgins. All when Mithraism and Christianity just happened to be competing religions in the Roman Empire. Boy, what a huge coincidence that the competitors both came up with the exact same ideas, completely independently.
First of all, I disagree that the (reconstructed) Testimonium "pretty much confirms everything" in the gospels. Indeed, as Meier (1991, pg. 79) writes, it " hardly supports the mainline Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God who rose from the dead," and instead "simply testified, in Christian eyes, to Josephus' unbelief -- not exactly a useful apologetical tool in addressing pagans or a useful polemical tool in christological controversies among Christians."Mange the Swede wrote:The TF seems to be nothing but "CliffsNotes" of the Gospels which, in a few lines that doesn't add anything that wasn't already known, pretty much confirms everything what the Gospels had to say about Jesus Christ, but still none of these people cared to mention it?
The expectation I was refering to was its coupling with the word "Christians," since its about, well, Jesus and Christians. The fact that he never refers to the followers of other messianic/prophetic figures in this way is a natural consequence of the fact that he never refers to them as a group. We are told about "the hearers" of the Egyptian, "a great part of the people" who were persuaded by Theudas and some unnamed "followers" of the anonymous prophet.Why "is it to be expected here"? He never refered to the followers of other Messianic characters (characters that Josephus loathed) in this way and the TF had already established his Jewish origin. As you correctly point out, Josephus refers to women and locusts as tribes, but the other times that he refers to tribes, he refers to nationality or race, never to cults.
Yes, I know. Josephus states that up to fivehundred Jews were crucified per day by Titus. However, that people were crucified doesn't mean that a Jesus Christ character, as portrayed in the Gospels, has ever existed or was crucified himself.
I think you missed my point here. My argument is that crucifixion was extremely embarassing to first century Palestinians, and therefore something unlikely to have been ascribed to a fictional person, let alone a fictional messiah. This is why I bring up Octavius; to show that the form of Jesus' death was a source of ridicule and disbelief.If I'm not mistaken, Octavius was written in the mid 2nd Century, right? By then, the Gospels existed as did other Christian writings. Otherwise I refer to my answer above (about Paul).
Here is the full quote from Bibliotheca, codex 33:Because Justus seems not to only have covered the kings, but the general Israeli history as well (as a fuller Photius quote shows).
He did write a history of the Jewish war, but we know next to nothing about it. As far as im aware, only Eusebius (HE 3.10.8 ) and Jerome (DVI 14) make (brief) reference.The work you mentioned wasn't the only one Justus wrote (IIRC, he wrote over 80 books, among others a book named A History of the Jewish War, which is lost, with a different inclination than Josephus. Josephus himself refers to Justus).
There was indeed a lot of borrowing going on--and that's the problem. Yes, some of it pre-existing in judaism, but only if you count what would have been imports from the mithraism/zoroastrianism mythos. Mithras was originally a deity in zoroastrianism, after all. Your proposed interpretation of Satan, for example, is found nowhere in judaism prior to the Babylonian Exile. I can certainly agree that christianity was not 'just' mithraism redux, but holding that some were not of mithraism, either Roman or Persian, and still accepting a zoroastrianist origin helps the case of non-pagan origin very much. In cases of christian doctrine such as this, it is rather disputable whether the source is actually judaism. And it still is important--one can summarize the problem like this: how can one be worshipping the God of Abraham if Abraham's God was something completely different?Rye wrote:The common ancestor is plausible, and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that judaism was immune to influence from the surrounding pagans. Everyone borrowed from one another, archetypal hero worship happened then and produced such mythology as it happens now in the forms of film or comic book. However, much of the Mithras-Jesus similarities, and then the following claim that Christians took from Mithraism when similar themes already existed within judaism I don't buy.
It's an interesting question, true, but, if taken only by itself, it has little significance. Whether or not his recorded history can be trusted is a much more important issue--without that, all we have is 'that man probably existed, but we know absolutely nothing of what he did or taught'.Rye wrote:I would say it's certainly not moot in a thread about whether there was a historical Jesus or not.
I did note that this can be disputed, but not significantly so. The rock/cosmic egg story was Roman, but some of the eastern mythos is different. Jews at the time would have had much more lasting contact with the latter. According to that version, Mithras was born of the virgin Anahita, who was also a deity in zoroastrianism (but not mitrhaism).Rye wrote:Yeah, that part where Jesus emerged from a cosmic egg rock was my favourite part of the nativity. Not too many pictures of the baby Jesus like that, are there?
Enoch is not only a post-Babylon book, but the influence of zoroastrianism is so significant that the Persian sect of Mani actually claimed that Enoch and Zoroaster to be one and the same. Enoch's authority on what would have been judaism at the time is not just suspect--it can be seen as evidence for the contrary.Rye wrote:Where is Mithras' mother covered at all? The "virgin birth parallel" seems to be grasping at straws, to be honest. Divine children with similar themes appear in jewish myth of the time, in the book of Enoch, for instance ( I don't have the exact references on me now, but I could probably turf them out later at some point if required).
I don't remember much about it, but the story of the magi following a star to the birth of a god in human form is definitely mithraic. Etymologically, Greek μαγος: astronomer/astrologer. Incidently, astrological connotations were much more important in mitrhaism, but are found nowhere else in christianity that I'm aware of.Rye wrote:I honestly don't know much of Mithras' early life, can you post these similarities?
Well perhaps we may grant that much, but I don't think it is adequate alone.Rye wrote:That certainly already existed in judaism. The bible mentions resurrection several times, especially associated with messianism.
Again, please note that all the references were written post-Babylonian exile, prior to which nothing of this interpretation of Satan can be found in judaism, that Enoch is a near enough copy of Zoroaster that many at the time saw them as one and the same. I'm not certain of the "Babylonia" source, but the title alone makes me very suspicious of it.Rye wrote:The jewish encyclopedia doesn't seem to agree with you there, as well as the NT, that view appears in jewish apocrypha:...
Could we please please please start citing our sources folks?Kuroneko wrote:I did note that this can be disputed, but not significantly so. The rock/cosmic egg story was Roman, but some of the eastern mythos is different. Jews at the time would have had much more lasting contact with the latter. According to that version, Mithras was born of the virgin Anahita, who was also a deity in zoroastrianism (but not mitrhaism).
Mange the Swede wrote: There are serious doubts that Testimonium Flavianum is genuine to begin with. There are a dozen different Jesuses in Antiquities and Origen (3rd Century) stated that Josephus didn't believe any of them to be the Christ.
Quite correct.Rye wrote:Ineed, as I recall, Josephus thought the Emperor was the messiah.
The Jewish writer Hayyim ben Yehoshua states that:
Rye wrote:I have no idea who this person is or why their view is important. All I can find on him is he wrote the thing you quoted, and it's made the rounds on antimissionary sites.
Hayyim ben Yehoshua wrote:In the Christian edited versions of the Jewish Antiquities there are two passages dealing with Jesus as portrayed in Christian religious works. The first passage (XVII, 3, 3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E. and so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the Jewish Antiquities and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX, 9, 1) was added in. Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief.
Yes there is. To name one example: Why would Josephus mention "our" Jesus in 18.3.3 when 18.3.2 deals with a massacer on Jews and 18.3.4 starts with "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder"? The killing of Jesus wasn't a Jewish tragedy and doesn't fit in the context.Rye wrote:The bold part is frankly a non sequitur. There's nothing in the text to suggest it, and it's certainly not a majority-accepted view as far as I've seen.
Yes, I agree, that's why I reacted so strongly to this documentary. After all, being publically funded, BBC aims for being "impartial and honest" and as such, they should've produced a documentary that at least had mentioned the fact that the authencity of T.F. is disputed instead of using it as an undisputed fact that "proves" the existence of Jesus as told in the gospels.
Well, I'll give the rerun a second chance.Rye wrote:The documentary ends on something akin to "did Jesus exist? Probably, did he raise from the dead/perform miracles/be the son of god? That will remain an item of faith."
But you can't use the pyramid to prove itself!As you've implied, mythical elements doesn't negate the existence of a character. In the case of Unas, we at least have artifacts that shows his existence (the pyramid which is rather well preserved IIRC),
Am I right? from Jesus we have nothing, no contemporary, independent accounts.
According to the NT, the word of Jesus spread as far as Syria, but still no contemporary writer seems to have heard anything about him. Then there's also the fact that people interested in Jewish sects etc., such as Philo of Alexandria who, among other things, wrote about the Essenes and Pilate (Legum allegoriae Philo) but not a word about Jesus.An argument from silence would only work where we would expect to find such evidence. As it stands, there is still no reason to conclude he was mythical. How many independent, contemporary accounts do we have of Unas? Why does contemporary material matter so much to you anyway? It's a brainbug, nothing more.
If the influences indeed are so strong, then it's hard near impossible to seperate the elements of Christiany from pagan themes, isn't it?Rye wrote:So? Why does that mean then, that the ENTIRE accounts are mythical? Why does it mean we can ignore everything in them, even when they agree with other independent sources?As I mentioned above, I'm not aware of a single source that agrees with the Gospels.The Josephus thing is interesting. As I've already alluded to, there seems to have existed copies of Josephus without these passages as late as the 9th Century. It becomes even more interesting if we factor in the claim that J.G. Vossius, a Dutch who served as librarian (he was also a theologian) to the Swedish queen Kristina in the 18th Century, in the equation. Vossius had a handwritten copy of the Antiquities in which none of these two references to Christ existed. After Queen Kristina abdicated her throne, Vossius sold many of the books and IIRC this copy was one of the books that were sold (among the other books that Vossius sold was the so-called Silver Bible, which in part was stolen from the display in Uppsala, Sweden 1995, but which was recovered after a month). I'll have to look for what Vossius wrote though.Rye wrote:I've already given two (Paul and Josephus) that independently agree with the gospels to the extent of his area of activity, his brother, and his death.
In any case, I'll get back to Josephus reference to James in my response to GFA.
If we look at known facts in the gospels, there are some facts which are correct (such as the existence of certain characters such as Herod and Pilate) and other times when facts screws up badly (for example the Gospel of Luke 2:1-2 and 3:1 which specifies the time of Jesus' birth. Lysanias, which is referenced to in Luk 3:1, had been dead for more than thirty years when the census, which also Josephus refers to, took place in 6 AD).Yes, and I have explained why.Rye wrote:So, when the gospels say Herod existed, and Josephus agrees, it's admissable, but when the same applies for Jesus, you're unconvinced?
Rye wrote:Look, the synoptic gospels, Luke and Matthew, copy heavily from Mark, and a hypothetical second document called Q, the collected sayings of Jesus, now, some of these sayings do not fit with first century judaism or christianity. So, how would you explain that, from a mythicist stance? There is a reason that jewish NT Scholars conclude Jesus was based on a real person, you know. They're not just giving in to "peer pressure" or some such bullshit. The mythicist arguments are just not solid, and thus are fringe bullshit, like ID.I'm not an expert on first century judaism. However, the article by ben Yoshua I referred to earlier elaborates on this.I agree that it's biased towards an orthodox (?) Jewish position, but as I've already stated, we don't have very much non-Christian corroboration.It appears to be propaganda rather than the accepted view in ancient history. Fringe antichristian bullshit, as I already said.
The Elvis example is outstanding as it shows how quickly myths develops even in modern times. I've discussed earlier how the gospels lacks independent corroboration.As I mentioned earlier, I'll elaborate on this in my response to GFA later (hopefully later today).They don't though, Paul predates the gospels, and Josephus attested to a Jesus (called Christ) and his brother James, as well as the information in the arabic TF, and later on as the christians were more visible, Jesus gets more famous.
Let's face it, it's not very much that Jesus does or elements surrounding him as told in the gospels that are unique. I fully agree that the mythology surrounding Jesus is mostly Jewish in origin (such as the Messiah myth etc.), but that there are other elements as well. I'll have to get back to you on this one.Rye wrote:Remember there was a whole load of apocryphal jewish folklore around at the time preceding Jesus and the writing of the gospels, that includes divine children, and a whole host of other christian gospel themes. If there exists a supposed pagan theme in the gospels, and it already existed in jewish folklore of the time or close to it, there's no reason to jump to the CHRISTIANITY = PAGAN camp.
The God of Abraham, frankly is a non-issue. The issue is the origins of themes within christianity, and the historical context of those themes. Yes, many themes traverse religions, but when we have them existing in jewish mysticism and folklore of the time, we have no justification to jump to "the christians must have got it from the pagans and not the jews."Kuroneko wrote: There was indeed a lot of borrowing going on--and that's the problem. Yes, some of it pre-existing in judaism, but only if you count what would have been imports from the mithraism/zoroastrianism mythos. Mithras was originally a deity in zoroastrianism, after all. Your proposed interpretation of Satan, for example, is found nowhere in judaism prior to the Babylonian Exile. I can certainly agree that christianity was not 'just' mithraism redux, but holding that some were not of mithraism, either Roman or Persian, and still accepting a zoroastrianist origin helps the case of non-pagan origin very much. In cases of christian doctrine such as this, it is rather disputable whether the source is actually judaism. And it still is important--one can summarize the problem like this: how can one be worshipping the God of Abraham if Abraham's God was something completely different?
I see no reason to doubt most of the message repeated through the gospels, especially not the parts attributed to Q.It's an interesting question, true, but, if taken only by itself, it has little significance. Whether or not his recorded history can be trusted is a much more important issue--without that, all we have is 'that man probably existed, but we know absolutely nothing of what he did or taught'.
Why would they have more contact with the Persian Mithra, rather than the Roman Mithras, since they were in the empire? Who corroborates this?I did note that this can be disputed, but not significantly so. The rock/cosmic egg story was Roman, but some of the eastern mythos is different. Jews at the time would have had much more lasting contact with the latter.
Since all I was using it for was to show that yes, these ideas existed within judaism of the time, and that we have therefore no justification to jump to "the christians stole it from the pagans rather than the jews," which, as I noted at the start, is an agenda-driven smear campaign, historical revisionism.Enoch is not only a post-Babylon book, but the influence of zoroastrianism is so significant that the Persian sect of Mani actually claimed that Enoch and Zoroaster to be one and the same. Enoch's authority on what would have been judaism at the time is not just suspect--it can be seen as evidence for the contrary.
