The Origins of Christianity.

[Questatement]

As they say... nothing new under the sun.

Here is a little bit more of what Martyr said. If you don't understand what I mean by shooting himself in the dick, this is exactly what I mean. Proving that Christianity is true while mentioning all the ways it's exactly the same as various religions that aren't true.

I think you missed Justin Martyr's point which, strangely enough, is included in your link meant to defame his faith.

"In the first place [we furnish proof], because, though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ, and though we do no wrong, are put to death as sinners “

I expanded on Martyr's point somewhat - starting here...

Historical Jesus - page 2

Personally, I can think of at least a few good reasons for the similarities between various pagan myths/lore and a historical Jesus as described in the four Gospels besides forgery and a related cover-up.

BTW, do you have evidence for this supposed conspiracy?

[Walrus]

Christianity with its godman and the trinity seems to be a rather incongruous mixture of Judaism and pagan. Did Jesus the man live? There is no contemporary evidence for this, possibly the best evidence are his ethical teachings as related in the Gospels. I think it possible that there may well have been a Rabbi Joshua Ben Joseph, whose teachings would suggest that he was influenced by Rabbi Hillel, although whether he made any messianic claims and was crucified could be open to doubt.

[BlackSheep]

From your link, page 1: "...Shocking as it may seem to the general populace, the most enduring and profound controversy in this subject is whether or not a person named Jesus Christ ever really existed."

Maybe English is not his first language and perhaps logic is not his strong suit but, as I have already stated, Jesus was a very common name in 1st century Palestine and 'Christ' is a translation for the Hebrew title "Messiah" or the "Anointed One". In that period of history, messiah figures were a dime a dozen so the author's contention that the historicity of Jesus Christ is in question is absolutely ridiculous. He may question as to whether Jesus was really who He said He was (the Son of God) but no more. It's just more wishful thinking...and self-delusion.

You are simply nit picking. It is very clear what he is saying. You are simply side tracking the debate.

[CarlPilkington]

I think you missed Justin Martyr's point which, strangely enough, is included in your link meant to defame his faith.

His point was that the similarities between Jesus and other pagan gods were the result of devils trying to sway followers from Christianity.

How do you explain what most historians claim to be over 100,000 Christian martyrs prior to the 4th century AD? There was no apparent political or military strategy to refusing to deny Christ and/or refusing to pay tribute to Caesar - just torture leading to a drawn-out death.

I'd really like to see where this is claimed, because as with everything else in historical science, there probably another hypothesis with equal credibility. But 4th century AD you say, so long after his death. In other words it would have been faith-based martyrdom. But good argument, big numbers and self-righteous suicide are common themes to Christian apologetics.

Do we agree on the strength of survival instincts?

Depends on how strong you think they are. Our instincts and genetics actually are heavily influenced by our environment, in fact certain events in early life and childhood can cause genetic mutations. This of course requires an "epigene" to be present to cause mutation to a certain stimulus. But I digress, religion and delusion have overpowered our "survival instincts" many times. 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Jesus himself would have had a human body and thus human genes.

What comparison do you present to substantiate that the reason was not what these Christians claimed as they surrendered their lives... that being Jesus was living in them and life paled in comparison to being unfaithful to their Lord, God and creator. Heck, some under Nero would have even been eye witnesses to this same Jesus.

Ug, that's a toughy... What about the Muslims in 9/11? (It's tough because I hate being redundant, oh well.) Wasn't that in the name of their Lord, God and creator?

What other "itinerant preacher upon whom the mantle of godhood was posthumously draped" had such a faithful following?

*cough*Muhammad*cough*Oracle of Delphi*cough*
How is that supposed to prove anything? You are aware that appeal to populum is a logical fallacy, yes?

Personally, I can think of at least a few good reasons for the similarities between various pagan myths/lore and a historical Jesus as described in the four Gospels besides forgery and a related cover-up.

My absolute favorite part here is how you don't actually demonstrate those few good reasons.

BTW, do you have evidence for this supposed conspiracy?

What exactly are you asking for here? My source already gave the similarities, and the fact that the other religions came first. It's not a conspiracy at all, it's just people being idiots and getting stories mixed up. I guess you could say the attempts by early Christian apologists to cover it up is a conspiracy, but I doubt it was a unified effort where they had meetings and actually *conspired*.

[Anguspure]

There is a brief pdf excerpt that this post is based here.

The book debunks the common apologetic records for the historicity of Jesus.
Then it show the similarities between Jesus, Buddah, Horus, Mithra, Krishna, and Prometheus.

The logic is...well, illogical.
Even if these other characters can be shown to be strongly similar to Jesus, which once the facts are known they cannot (for example legends of Mithra post date Jesus by 100 odd years), the assertion that similar stories exist to the one narrated does not in any way alter the factual basis of that story.
lf I can find other people in history by the name of Carl, if I could find 20 people called Carl, would this prove in anyway that the Carl that wrote this post was just a constructed persona taken from the previous Carls? Of course not.
There is a book called The sinking of the Titan, written about a ship that hits an iceberg on its maiden voyage and sinks. lt predates a very similar historic event by 14 years.
Does this mean that the story of the Titanic is a myth?

It then goes to show that early Christian apologists destroyed early records of the similarities between Christianity and other Pagan religions, while shooting themselves in the dick by writing things like "You say we worship the sun; so do you."
Next, it explains how the Jesus myth and other myths were based from the sun.
It says the book of Revelations is just a reiteration of the Egyptian book of Zoroastrian.

This shows you just how dumb some people are, Christian apologists included, and how ridiculously Anglocentric the Christian religion has become.
ln how many languages do you suppose the pun on Son and Sun works? Certainly doesn't work between Coptic, Hebrew and Greek in any stretch of the imagination.

Then, and you probably already knew this, that the Saints were often based off of gods from other religions.
Christmas and Easter were originally pagan holidays

All true, its what happens when a pagan state realises that the only way to beat Christianity is to pat it on the head, make it the state religion and thereby render it fat and useless.

And the last part being that the 12 disciples where just the 12 signs of the Zodiac.

Wouldn't be anything to do with 12 sons of Jacob would it? l mean, being a Jewish group of guys, trying to show that their Rabbi is the Jewish Messiah King, its only logical that they would find meaningful reference in Pagan cults instead of their own cultural history isn't it?

and the Flood story of Noah was just a reiteration of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Or perhaps around the other way. ln any case the repetition of this story is global, not just Middle Eastern. Surely this should be regarded as an attestation to some factual basis rather than a negation to mythology.

My point being, Christianity is a plagiarism of various Pagan cults

You have not shown your point at all. What you have done is assumed that Christianity is non-factual and then proposed a way in which the myth may have been created.
What l find amusing about this sort of argument is that everyone of the authors (and movie producer) that presents it misses the starkly obvious source of every single element of the story of Jesus, that is if the non-factual basis of the story could be first demonstrated.
And it ain't necessary to troll around in obscurePagan mythology to do it.
Me? l think he is for real.

[frosty6731]

I'm not religious, I'm certainly not defending the veracity of Christianity, but there is a lot wrong with those assertions.

Firstly, there are Roman records, written by Pagans, of Jesus existing. See Suetonius writing on Claudius for one example. The man isn't a myth. Secondly, as Christianity spread it did not replace Paganism so much as graft with it. This explains a lot of the similarities, especially those claims of the Saints having the same role as Pagan deities. Lastly, the Old Testament is similar to ancient Pagan religions, so if you point is that religions are all related if you go back in time far enough, well, I guess you are correct.

[CarlPilkington]

The logic is...well, illogical.
Even if these other characters can be shown to be strongly similar to Jesus, which once the facts are known they cannot (for example legends of Mithra post date Jesus by 100 odd years), the assertion that similar stories exist to the one narrated does not in any way alter the factual basis of that story.
lf I can find other people in history by the name of Carl, if I could find 20 people called Carl, would this prove in anyway that the Carl that wrote this post was just a constructed persona taken from the previous Carls? Of course not.
There is a book called The sinking of the Titan, written about a ship that hits an iceberg on its maiden voyage and sinks. lt predates a very similar historic event by 14 years.
Does this mean that the story of the Titanic is a myth?

It's not that these people had the same name, which they didn't, it's that they had the same story and unlike the Titanic, it's not once backed up in fact.

This shows you just how dumb some people are, Christian apologists included, and how ridiculously Anglocentric the Christian religion has become.
ln how many languages do you suppose the pun on Son and Sun works? Certainly doesn't work between Coptic, Hebrew and Greek in any stretch of the imagination.

It has nothing to do with the homophones you mentioned. The original story all the Jesusesque myths was based on astrology where the god that was worshiped was the sun, the twelve disciples were the twelve constellations, the crown of thorns was the sun rays depicted in a glyph, the cross itself came from the glyph for the zodiac, the three wise men at the birth are the three "wise men" of Orion's belt, at the alleged time of this religion, the sun rose in the constellation Virgo, hence the virgin birth. In-summation, it's not the "Sun" "son" thing, it's the roots in solar-theism.

Wouldn't be anything to do with 12 sons of Jacob would it? l mean, being a Jewish group of guys, trying to show that their Rabbi is the Jewish Messiah King, its only logical that they would find meaningful reference in Pagan cults instead of their own cultural history isn't it?

Or maybe there was never 12 disciples in the story of Jesus until his story got mixed in with other pagan stories.

Or perhaps around the other way. ln any case the repetition of this story is global, not just Middle Eastern. Surely this should be regarded as an attestation to some factual basis rather than a negation to mythology.

It's not global at all, are there any Native American's with a similar story?

You have not shown your point at all. What you have done is assumed that Christianity is non-factual and then proposed a way in which the myth may have been created.
What l find amusing about this sort of argument is that everyone of the authors (and movie producer) that presents it misses the starkly obvious source of every single element of the story of Jesus, that is if the non-factual basis of the story could be first demonstrated.
And it ain't necessary to troll around in obscurePagan mythology to do it.
Me? l think he is for real.

Yea realize that assuming Christianity is non-factual is the same thing as not assuming Christianity is factual, yes? There fore, if you make the claim it is factual, you have to provide evidence.

[CarlPilkington]

I'm not religious, I'm certainly not defending the veracity of Christianity, but there is a lot wrong with those assertions.

Firstly, there are Roman records, written by Pagans, of Jesus existing. See Suetonius writing on Claudius for one example.

Where does Suetonius say he saw Jesus? Suetonius and many other historians mention Christians and even what people say he did, but not one historian claims to have seen Jesus/ Chrestos/ Yesu/ Whatever.

[grandpa]

Where does Suetonius say he saw Jesus?
Suetonius and many other historians mention Christians and even what
people say he did, but not one historian claims to
have seen Jesus/ Chrestos/ Yesu/ Whatever.

People only celebrate Christ's birth on "Christmas" because it was near the winter solstice, which was pagan. The pagans are a people that many Christians still claim to despise. Think about that for a minute, and try not thinking, "Man, screw this country!"

Taken collectively, the Christians were exposed as a liar long ago.

Grandpa h.

[frosty6731]

Where does Suetonius say he saw Jesus? Suetonius and many other historians mention Christians and even what people say he did, but not one historian claims to have seen Jesus/ Chrestos/ Yesu/ Whatever.

This is true, he only mentions that Claudius had to expel Jews from Rome because of the controversy over "Chrestos". This would have been in about 60CE. I'm just curious, when do you think the "Jesus" conspiracy began? Do you think the apostles got together and invented him? Do you think they were real people? How about Paul (St Paul)?

Why would so many 1st century Jews, and some pagans, believe the story about Jesus? They lived in the same area at the same time that Jesus supposedly did. Why would they believe a story about a guy who had a large following and then a very public execution for extraordinary crimes? Remember, if Jesus never existed, they would have lived through this period and seen first hand that this didn't happen. So how do you explain so many early converts that by the year 60, just three decades after the earliest point that the religion could have started, there was already a controversy so major within Judaism that it was being noticed and reacted to all the way over in Rome City?

I'm really curious to know how you think this religion started without a real person named Jesus existing.

[ozzie666]

i've used this example before but it runs well with this.

In this movie, (spoiler alert!!!) it eventually turns out the she wasnt a messenger from god at all. she heard voices like a schizo and was basically leading an army into war, all for the power and attention. and when you watch it played out, its pretty accurate and convincing (not suggesting its what happened, just that its plausible). basically, from a neutral perspective it could be very plausible. what was written down as divine intervention, was merely a case of a crazy girl exploiting peoples beliefs, one of which people believed in so much, that they would die for it. when the french realised she was crazy, they sold her to the english for revenge and as a peace offering just to cover it all up, rather then taint the church, or "the name of God".[1]

a man claiming to hear voices, and not knowing any better than what people believed at the time, could have very well believed he was talking to god. he could have been so deluded in fact that he thought he was Gods son. and a woman who had been tainted with sex couldn't possibly be the mother of the son of god so they lied. happened all the time. when the church realised it couldnt support or back a crazy person anymore they found an excuse to execute him, did the deed, and wrote it down however they saw fit for people to believe, and if you didn't you were executed.

think about it, how on earth could a baby be born from a virgin? has it happened since? apart from infection, shock and blood loss (just to name a few), people in those days were barely prepared to treat women during childbirth and mortality rate was low, for the mother's and the babies. and thats for women who werent virgins. now imagine a virgin having a baby? things change for girls as sex progresses for them, making it easier to deliver a child. basically it would mean certain death. [2]

also in the second link, under the heading "The history of childbirth has been recorded since A.D. 98" in the third paragraph, it says:

Men were not allowed anywhere near childbirth situations... Dr. Wertt of Hamburg, in 1522, who had the idea to dress up in women’s clothes to gain entry to a labor room. He was discovered and was burned at the stake for his effort!..

dont think for a second that executions werent performed often. if i lived on 100 acres of another mans land, and he told me "you can live here, as long as you work for me and believe what i believe or i will burn you alive" i'd do what he says and believe what the fuck he told me! taking it even further if he said "as a knight i've been called up to fight for God and i need all my people to suit up and come with me or ill kill you" i'd be fighting for god also...

[1] The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (1999) - IMDb

[2] The History of Childbirth – Ouch! | TheHistoryOf.net

[CarlPilkington]

This is true, he only mentions that Claudius had to expel Jews from Rome because of the controversy over "Chrestos". This would have been in about 60CE. I'm just curious, when do you think the "Jesus" conspiracy began? Do you think the apostles got together and invented him? Do you think they were real people? How about Paul (St Paul)?

Why would so many 1st century Jews, and some pagans, believe the story about Jesus? They lived in the same area at the same time that Jesus supposedly did. Why would they believe a story about a guy who had a large following and then a very public execution for extraordinary crimes? Remember, if Jesus never existed, they would have lived through this period and seen first hand that this didn't happen. So how do you explain so many early converts that by the year 60, just three decades after the earliest point that the religion could have started, there was already a controversy so major within Judaism that it was being noticed and reacted to all the way over in Rome City?

I'm really curious to know how you think this religion started without a real person named Jesus existing.

There probably was someone, a spark to Christianity. I doubt very much he did much or anything described in the gospels. You would think if there was very public executions that, instead of thirty years, the controversy would happen instantly. Thirty years is plenty of time that the majority of people who heard the story of Chrestus wouldn't have been eye witnesses and there fore would be going on hear-say and group mentality.

Think about it like this, how do you think the stories of Zeus or Apollo got started? Now some how imagine that's how Jesus got started.