The Origins of Christianity.

[BlackSheep]

Of course, for you to call the scriptures of the Bible "drivel" just proves that you haven't really read it with an unbiased mind or heart. It's foolishness to you because you WANT it to be.

I strongly disagree with this statement. I was raised a Christian and wanted to make sense of the bible and have read more of it than most Christians and I have read it with an open and unbiased mind. For the most part I would say it is nonsense. With an opened mind and unbiased point of view and comparing it to the world and history in general I suggest it seems no batter than any other mythology.

[Angry Citizen]

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?

Actually, it shows that things written prior to an event hold no significance if they mysteriously 'come true', like the so-called fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus. Anything can be interpreted (and even edited in the most malicious cases) in hind-sight to fit the needs of Christian apologists.

That having been said, given that the Titanic was far more mundane than the story "Wreck of the Titan" (considering it involved polar bears and jumps onto icebergs), we can also note how much more mundane real life is to supposedly prescient writings. For instance:

"Jesus dies to save us" - Jesus, a cult leader, gets executed for heresy.
"Jesus is the son of God" - Jesus thinks he's the son of God, or is revered as such.
"Jesus rose from the dead" - Jesus' grave is robbed or dishonored.

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.

Why should we presuppose something that is scientifically and logically impossible, given that there is an insufficient amount of water for a global flood, when perfectly logical explanations arise? Civilization, and thus the beginnings of culture in the modern sense, came about during the end of the Ice Age when water levels were rising. Surely it makes more sense to assert that many cultures experienced inundation by water as a result of natural dam breakage, glacial melting, changing local climate, flash floods, and other perfectly common examples, than to suggest that a sky daddy magicked unnatural levels of rain as punishment for our supposed wickedness.

Come now. This is the 21st century. We all know that the Bible contains enormous falsehoods which, while not casting certain doubt on its credibility, do provide a logical reason to require more and ideally newer evidence from Christianity. Does it not strike you as odd that God supposedly hasn't intervened in any noticeable way since Jesus, who was born into one of the least educated areas of the globe at the time?

[ALIHAYMEG]

To disprove the existance of Christ one must actually go back to the actual person that the Christian Gospels are describing, which is the Buddha.

Jesus is Buddha

[Anguspure]

My favorite part was when you kept using sources from after his death, a fact I've covered and the book linked in the OP covered at length.

So all sources that come after an event or person has passed are to be discounted? Or only those that refer to something you don't believe in? l suspect you would only apply this reasoning to sources that refer to Jesus.

Yea, except all of Krishna's siblings were born of a virgin birth as well. Just goes to show how frequently that phenomenon was in mythology.

l think somebody needs to give you a lesson on female physiology.
Notwithstanding your failure to understand the workings of the female body, the following addresses the similarities between Krishna and Jesus:

In Hinduism, Krishna is believed to be the eighth avatar of Vishnu, the second aspect of the Hindu trinity. Almost every correlation between Krishna and Jesus can be traced to Kersey Graves, a 19th century author who believed Christianity was created from pagan myths. Though his works have been proven by scholars to be false and poorly researched (Source), many still ignorantly refer to his arguments not knowing they are easily disproved by simply comparing the Bible to the Hindu texts.

THE DEFINITION OF KRISHNA Although many critics allege Krishna means Christ, Krishna in Sanskrit actually translates as Black (One) as Krishna was believed to have blackish-blue skin. The word Christ literally translates as Anointed One. When skeptics, in turn, spell Krishna as Chrishna or Christna, this is a blatant attempt to
spread more misinformation and reinforce their erroneous theories.

A VIRGIN BIRTH A virgin birth is never attributed to Krishna as his parents bore seven previous children.
Furthermore, the virgin birth was not a new concept invented by Christians. The book of Isaiah (written about 700 B.C.) spoke of a Messiah who would be born of a virgin. This prophecy was in circulation 700 years before Jesus and at least 100 years before Krishna. (Isaiah 7:14) Critics claim Krishna was born to the virgin Maia but according to Hindu texts, he was the eighth son of Princess Devaki and her husband Vasudeva: "You have been born of the divine Devaki and Vasudeva for the protection of Brahma on earth." Mahabharata Bk 12, XLVIII

INFANT MASSACRE Critics claim a tyrannical ruler issued a decree to kill all infant males prior to Krishna's birth but the Hindu legend states Devaki's six previous children were murdered by her cousin, King Kamsa, due to a
prophecy foretelling his death at the hands of one of her children. Unlike Herod who issued a decree to slaughter all the males under two years old, the Hindu version tells us Kamsa only targeted Devaki's sons. He never issued a decree to indiscriminately kill male infants: "Thus the six sons were born to Devaki and Kamsa, too, killed those six sons consecutively as they were born." Bhagavata, Bk 4, XXII:7

PARENTS FLEE Critics claim while Krishna's parents fled to Mathura to avoid Kamsa, Jesus' parents fled to Muturea to avoid Herod. But the Bible tells us Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt- not to some unknown place called Muturea. Furthermore, the Hindu texts tell us Krishna's parents never had a chance to flee- they were
imprisoned by Kamsa so he could kill Krishna once he was born: What faults had [Vasudeva] and his wife Devaki committed? Why did Kamsa kill the six infant sons of Devaki? And for what reason did [Vishnu] incarnate Himself as the son of Vasudeva in the prison house of Kamsa? Bhagavata, Bk 4, I:4-5 and Source

SHEPHERDS, WISEMEN, A STAR, AND A MANGER No mention of shepherds or wisemen appear at Krishna's birth. Krishna was born in a prison (not a stable as critics suggest) where his parents bore him in secret. It is unlikely such visitors would arrive only to alert Kamsa to Krishna's presence!

CARPENTER FATHERS Like Jesus' earthly father, Krishna's father was also said to be a carpenter. Yet nowhere in the Hindu texts does it say Vasudeva was a carpenter. In fact, we are told he was a nobleman in the courts of Mathura as he was married to Princess Devaki. When Krishna fled the wrath of Kamsa with his foster parents, we are told his foster-father Nanda was a cow-herd: "Thou art the most beloved of Nanda, the Cow-herd" Bhagavata, Bk 8, I, pg 743

And isn't Jesus with his subjects in a post death state

Jesus is in a physical, post earthly resurrection state in heaven (if you can understand the concept) but his subjects are dead, awaiting the promised resurrection into the same state as Him.

'fraid knot. By that logic, since the Jews created that god and that god made the sun, that means the Jews created the sun.

'fraid knot, the Jews already covered that one. When all of the gods line up for an assessment as to who worships who, the Jews will only recognise the I AM who they call HE IS i.e.the pre-extant one the creator of the universe, as their god. If a god could be created by them he is by definition not the god of Abraham.
Jesus specifically identifies himself as being from this god and it is this charge brought by the religious leaders (blasphemy) that lead to His crucifixion.

Actually the "New Age Zodiac" was well in use by the mid 1st millennium BC. (Wiki.) Just as well, the crux constellation was observed by the ancient Greeks.

Quite possibly in use from the time of Enoch, after all it is probably a way of remembering and telling the prophecy of redemptionof mankind, in a similar way to the 5th chapter of Genesis.

That was mighty humble of you, Chuck.

Where else do you get the idea of 3 wise men? Certainly not from the Gospels.

Because false idols are better than invisible gods? Look, solar-theism came long before Judaism, in fact that's where ancient astrology came from.

This is a bald assertion based on one reading of some evidence and not backed by fact.

Well you should try convincing me the way you were convinced, tell me it's true from early on in life and then later on, once I believe it, start telling me the stuff that "proves" it's true. You know, give me the conclusion then go look for the evidence to confirm it.

Sorry, that not how it happened for me. Nor is it happened for many people that l know. Nevertheless it is true that I was convinced at a time where I was willing to trust first and ask questions later. This is the basis of all relationship however. If a person cannot trust another they will not have a relationship with them.

[Anguspure]

To disprove the existance of Christ one must actually go back to the actual person that the Christian Gospels are describing, which is the Buddha.

Jesus is Buddha

How absurd. The similar description of things says nothing about whether any of the things actually exist or not.
Apart from the fact that the prophetic story of the Jewish Messiah pretty much dates from pre-Budha times, Do you really suppose that orthodox Jews would be convinced or even entertain the idea of an Atheistic reincarnate "enlightened" one as their messiah?
Anyway thanks for the opportunity to address this one.

Gautama is believed to have lived between 563 - 483 B.C. Gautama was born into the warrior class under the caste system of India and later achieved enlightenment to become the Buddha (or enlightened one) and founder of Buddhism. Like Zoroaster (below), very little was written about him during his lifetime, with the accounts
becoming more incredible over time.

VIRGIN BIRTH Gautama's birth may be found here. Though Maya is portrayed as being virtuous and pure-minded, a virgin conception is never mentioned regarding the birth of the Buddha.

The most Excellent of all Bodhisattvas fell directly from his place among the residents of Tushita heaven, and streaking through the three worlds, suddenly took the form of a huge six-tusked elephant as white as Himalaya, and entered Maya's womb. Buddha Karita 1:18

WISEMEN An ascetic (not wisemen) visits the king to relay the information he received from the gods that his child will become a great religious leader. After hearing this, Brahmans (not wisemen) decide to dedicate their sons depending on the outcome of the prophecy.

"A son has been born in the family of Suddhodana the king. Thirty-five years from now he will become a Buddha...Whether the young prince become a Buddha or a king, we will each one give a son: so that if he become a Buddha, he shall be followed and surrounded by monks of the warrior caste; and if he become a king,
by nobles of the warrior caste." Jataka I:55,57


PRESENTED WITH GOLD, FRANKINCENSE, AND MYRRH
"As soon as he was born the thousand-eyed one took him gently, bright like a golden pillar. Two pure streams of water fell from heaven upon his head with piles of Mandara flowers. The yaksha-lords stood round guarding him with golden lotuses in their hands. The great dragons gazed with eyes of intent devotion, and fanned him and strewed Mandara flowers over him. And from a cloudless sky there fell a shower full of lotuses and water-lilies, and perfumed with sandalwood." Buddha Karita 1:27,36,38,40

ROYAL LINEAGE Like Krishna, Gautama was an immediate royal descendant born into privilege. Jesus was a distant descendant of King David born into poverty

MILESTONE AGES Contrary to Jesus who taught in the temple at the age of 12, began his ministry at 30, and died at 33, Gautama's milestone ages differ from what the critics claim. He finished his education at 15, married at 16, became a monk at 29, reached enlightenment at 35, and died at 80. Source

CRUCIFIXION

"'Be so good as to spread me a couch... I am weary and wish to lie down...' Then the [Buddha] fell into a deep meditation, and having passed through the four jhanas, entered Nirvana." Source

RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION
"And they burned the remains of the Blessed One as they would do to the body of a king of kings." Source Gautama was said to transcend all meditation levels upon his deathbed before reaching Nirvana. But according to Buddhism, Nirvana is not a physical place, but a mental state. Like we mention with Krishna, the concept of
Buddha transcending into Nirvana differs greatly from the Christian Heaven.

ERRONEOUS SIMILARITIES CLAIMED BY CRITICS:

• He fed a multitude with a basket of cakes. There is no mention of this in any Buddhist text.
• Transfiguration on a Mount. Though Gautama reached spiritual enlightenment, he did not experience a physical transfiguration. Nor did this occur on a mount- Buddha obtained his enlightenment beneath theBodhi tree.
• Crushing the Serpent's Head. Like Krishna, Buddha is never referred to by this title but a tale does surface in a later text which mentions him literally slaying a serpent. But as stated, this was a metaphorical title of Jesus.
• Poverty Vows. Though some Christians may take vows of poverty, this was never taught by Jesus. He only warned how the love of earthly possession could turn our focus away from eternal things. Matthew 6:
  19-24
  
• Similar titles: Good Shepherd, Carpenter, Alpha and Omega, Sin Bearer, God of Gods, Master, Light of the World, Redeemer, Everlasting to Everlasting, etc. But Gautama never claimed to be a deity, rendering these titles obviously false. The only titles he shared with Jesus that I could find mentioned in Buddhist texts were Lord, Teacher and Holy One.

IN CONCLUSION Because Buddhism shares many concepts with Hinduism (and originated in the approximate
vicinity), there are actually more similarities between the stories of Buddha and Krishna than Buddha and Jesus.

[ALIHAYMEG]

How absurd. The similar description of things says nothing about whether any of the things actually exist or not.
Apart from the fact that the prophetic story of the Jewish Messiah pretty much dates from pre-Budha times, Do you really suppose that orthodox Jews would be convinced or even entertain the idea of an Atheistic reincarnate "enlightened" one as their messiah?
Anyway thanks for the opportunity to address this one.

Orthodox Jews don't accept that the Messiah has come at all. It should also be pointed out that the link I posted shows a direct “translational” correlation from the Sanskrit to the Greek for the Gospels. In other words, the stories were adapted from the original Sanskrit writings regarding the Buddha and used to create the story of Christ. The similarity is too striking to ignore. So, if you really want to know who Christ is, you need to look at the Buddah.

[Anguspure]

It should also be pointed out that the link I posted shows a direct “translational” The similcorrelation from the Sanskrit to the Greek for the Gospels. In other words, the stories were adapted from the original Sanskrit writings regarding the Buddha and used to create the story of Christ.

The mind boggles.
I don’t quite know where to start, there is so much that is fundamentally incorrect about the suggestion that Sanskrit writings underlie the story of Jesus.

The sort of thinking that eventually lead to Hinduism, Buddhism or Krishna is just completely removed from the thinking of the authors of the gospels.

It’s crazy enough that Christian theologians have applied Greek philosophical thinking to the interpretation of Jewish writings; in doing so they created a whole different theology from the Apostles and twisted the simple message of the Cross into something that it doesn’t represent.

Come to think of it this is typical of many fields; that whenever Jewish authorship of something should be acknowledged there are many who are hell bent on cleaning the record of their memory.

I maintain that the gospels are a true and unadulterated account of real historical events and in particular the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth who was a Son of Man and also Son of God.
And yet if this is not true and if the story is contrived it is quite obvious that all of the main elements and many of the minor elements of the story are laid out plainly in the Jewish books that make up the Old Testament.

Orthodox Jews don't accept that the Messiah has come at all.

The reason why the Jews did not receive Jesus as Messiah is because they could not see how the Messiah King could find victory in death.

The Jews were looking for someone to set them free from the tyranny of empirical domination and when Jesus failed to come up with the goods, when he failed even to defend himself to the point of crucifixion they, along with Jesus' disciples adbandoned him to his fate.

They also missed the point.
From:

Man... Appointed... Mortal... Sorrow... The Blessed God... Shall come down... Teaching... His Death shall bring... Mourning... Peace.
Genesis 5

To:

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. "
Micah 5:2

From:

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you. He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey."
Zechariah 9:9

To:

"My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and My tongue clings to My jaws. You have brought Me to the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded Me. The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet;"
Psalm 22:15-16

And:

"It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication, then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. "
Zechariah 12:9-10

It is clear that the Jewish Messiah was foretold a long time before any possibility of strange philosophies was able to sully the special nature of His coming.

One good way to establish the position that eastern philosophers take on the gospel story is to consider what becomes of Karma and Reincarnation when a person of no negative Karma is born and lives on earth in this state, volunteers His life in order to remove all the consequence of negative Karma from the earth and then Resurrects into another super physical state 3 days later.

I am pretty confident you will find no parallel with this story line in any text or tradition anywhere apart from in Jewish texts, and yet it is the very core of the teaching and demonstration of Jesus.

The teaching of Jesus is that all people are saved from the 2nd death and have eternal life before them. There is no reincarnation for another chance and nor is there on opportunity to out weigh the evil by being good.

However because of what he did eternal life is on the table, freely given for all. But if one does not make a positive move to accept it (by open verbal confession and a positive symbolic act of taking up the gift), it is still not yours.

Unless you pick up and unwrap the gift before you leave the room you cannot enjoy the contents, and you will miss out on what could have been.

[CarlPilkington]

Humans are not as imaginative as they are given credit for. Most fables are based on real events. When we find flood stories everywhere across the planet (even places isolated from the rest), it makes much more sense to suspect that ALL of these accounts are based on real, factual events.

People are more imaginative than you seem to give them credit for. Who's to say what parts, if any, are real when there's no evidence to support the claim it was aliens. I agree there is usually some realistic elements in a myth, like there being a flood that the flood stories are based on, but in most cases there isn't the evidence to say which part is real.

[Sean989]

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.
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.
Then, and you probably already knew this, that the Saints were often based off of gods from other religions.
And the last part being that the 12 disciples where just the 12 signs of the Zodiac.

And a few things you probably already know, but add to my point;
Christmas and Easter were originally pagan holidays and the Flood story of Noah was just a reiteration of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

My point being, Christianity is a plagiarism of various Pagan cults, knowing this, how do you rationalize staying a Christian? (Because I know this isn't going to change anyone's mind.)

Early Christians saw Christianity not as an independent religion from the past but a continuation of it.

Many similarities are to be found between Jesus and others, I do concede that point. What I would ask you is why you give this information more credibility than that of Christian believers? You can't have it both ways, you can't discredit Judea-Christian information and use even older texts to make your point. How do you know the writers of this information are any more 'stable' than the gospel writers?

Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December, the Bible itself betrays this:

NIV Luke 2:8-14 ' 8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.'

The only time shepherds ever watched their flocks at night was during Spring (or Lambing season)

Christian and Hindu (esoteric) text describe dances with Jesus or Krishna at the center and their followers (or apostle) dancing round in a 'Sun dance'. In my opinion, many founders of religions are considered to be Sun Gods sent to give humanity new understanding and be 'reborn'.

I am sorry but can you name a religion which hasn't at some point been accused of plagiarism? I would also say Rationalization of Religious belief is impossible.

[CarlPilkington]

So all sources that come after an event or person has passed are to be discounted? Or only those that refer to something you don't believe in? l suspect you would only apply this reasoning to sources that refer to Jesus.

You don't seem to understand basic English, I'm saying that none of those sources are eye witness reports of Jesus. They area all accounts of what Christians believe, not one source claims witness to the messiah described in the NT. You could pull Josephus out of your ass, but there is great doubt to the validity of the TF; It wasn't mentioned in the table of contents to Antiquities of the Jews, it seemed to just be randomly placed in a story between the Jews and Pontius Pilates, Josephus never again quoted or mentioned Jesus, and no apologists referenced the passage until after 3rd or 4th century AD.

l think somebody needs to give you a lesson on female physiology. Notwithstanding your failure to understand the workings of the female body, the following addresses the similarities between Krishna and Jesus:

I understand female physiology, we're talking about myths here.

Krishna's "Virgin" Birth?
Over the centuries, it has been debated whether or not Krishna's mother, Devaki, who was said to be a "chaste maiden," could also be called a "virgin," mainly because she traditionally had given birth to seven children prior to Krishna. However, the evidence points to Devaki—and Krishna—as a mythical character, and myths do not have human body parts and so on, so many goddesses are said to be both mother and virgin, regardless of how many children they produce. For example, according to the myth, Devaki is an incarnation of the dawn goddess Aditi,165 who was the "eternal virgin" or "celestial virgin,"166 despite the fact that she too gave birth to eight children.167
In addition, Krishna’s mother earlier had given birth as an unmarried and presumably virginal teenager, after becoming pregnant from eating half a mango.168 Obviously, the virgin birth vis-à-vis Krishna's mother represents a real Indian tradition, even if it is not strictly applicable to his specific nativity. In other words, at one point before Krishna was born, Devaki was a virgin mother, and the assumption that she remains so throughout the myth is thus understandable.

INFANT MASSACRE Critics claim a tyrannical ruler issued a decree to kill all infant males prior to Krishna's birth but the Hindu legend states Devaki's six previous children were murdered by her cousin, King Kamsa, due to a
prophecy foretelling his death at the hands of one of her children. Unlike Herod who issued a decree to slaughter all the males under two years old, the Hindu version tells us Kamsa only targeted Devaki's sons. He never issued a decree to indiscriminately kill male infants: "Thus the six sons were born to Devaki and Kamsa, too, killed those six sons consecutively as they were born." Bhagavata, Bk 4, XXII:7

King Herod ordered the infanticide because he wanted to make sure he killed Jesus, and he too was going off of a prophecy. Go read Matthew 2.

Jesus is in a physical, post earthly resurrection state in heaven (if you can understand the concept) but his subjects are dead, awaiting the promised resurrection into the same state as Him.

Stop arguing semantics, they're both a place you're believed to go to when you die. Jesus is in Heaven, Horus is in the after-life.

'fraid knot, the Jews already covered that one. When all of the gods line up for an assessment as to who worships who, the Jews will only recognise the I AM who they call HE IS i.e.the pre-extant one the creator of the universe, as their god. If a god could be created by them he is by definition not the god of Abraham.
Jesus specifically identifies himself as being from this god and it is this charge brought by the religious leaders (blasphemy) that lead to His crucifixion.

Not surprisingly, you again missed my point. Anyone can just make claims.

Where else do you get the idea of 3 wise men? Certainly not from the Gospels.

Wise men/ Magi/ kings I've heard it many different ways, I'm sure you have too, don't waste my time with this.

This is a bald assertion based on one reading of some evidence and not backed by fact.

You're right, I can't find a source for the solar-theism origins of astrology, but that's beside the point. (Surprise surprise, you attack my argument on off topic grounds.) The point was, explicitly, that solar-theism came long before Judaism and Christianity.

Sorry, that not how it happened for me. Nor is it happened for many people that l know. Nevertheless it is true that I was convinced at a time where I was willing to trust first and ask questions later. This is the basis of all relationship however. If a person cannot trust another they will not have a relationship with them.

So in what way is that not how it happened for you?

[CarlPilkington]

Many similarities are to be found between Jesus and others, I do concede that point. What I would ask you is why you give this information more credibility than that of Christian believers? You can't have it both ways, you can't discredit Judea-Christian information and use even older texts to make your point. How do you know the writers of this information are any more 'stable' than the gospel writers?

The bible hasn't changed much since the DSS, so all that's nessecary is enough credibility so that people once believed these stories in their present form.

[FriedrichSeneca]

King Herod ordered the infanticide because he wanted to make sure he killed Jesus, and he too was going off of a prophecy. Go read Matthew 2.

No need to go back to India.

"Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: “Every Hebrew boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live". Now a man of the tribe of Levi married a Levite woman, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him for three months. But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile. His sister stood at a distance to see what would happen to him..." Exodus 1:22, 2:1-4

The New Testament is full of such parallels to the Old Testament. What does the reference to the birth of Moses mean here? That Jesus was to be seen as the "new Moses" who would provide new laws for Israel. It's that simple.