 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
upg validator
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 10/16/2003 5:30 AM (GMT -6) |   |  I saw Greg Boyd at UMD on Wednesday, October 15th at 7 p.m. He invited me to send him some information as to why I don't believe that Jesus Christ is an historical figure. I promised him that I would, so here is a basic start.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/
This website belongs to Acharya S., author of "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold," "Suns of God," and others. It proves without a doubt that the Jesus story is myth, and pure myth. I must qualify this by adding that that is not to say that it is not true; it is just not historical. (Things do not have to be historical to be true.)
Description from the back of "Christ Conspiracy":
"Contrary to popular belief, there was no single man at the genesis of Christianity but many characters rolled into one. The majority of these characters were personifications of the ubiquitous solar myth, whose adventures were well known, as reflected in the stories of such popular deities as Mithra, Hercules, Dionysus and many others throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. In reality, the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is nearly identical to that of the earlier savior-gods Krishna and Horus. These redeemer tales are similar not because they reflect the actual exploits of a variety of men who did and said identical things, but because they represent the same extremely ancient core of knowledge that revolved around the celestial bodies and natural forces.
In this highly controversial and explosive book, archeologist, historian, mythologist, and linguist Acharya S. marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence to demonstrate that Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman empire under one state religion. In making such a fabrication, the multnational cabal drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era, and reworked them for centuries into the story and religion passed down today."
Do yourself a favor: check out this website and read this book!
![]() [
Filomena Sophia | | Back to Top | | |
 |
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 10/16/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/16/2003 7:50 PM (GMT -6) | | | A Theist: thanks for the heads up. Checked them out. Looks like UPG has some readings to do...just might be that Jesus was a historical figure after all... | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/16/2003 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Validator: In reality, the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels is nearly identical to that of the earlier savior-gods Krishna and Horus. These redeemer tales are similar not because they reflect the actual exploits of a variety of men who did and said identical things, but because they represent the same extremely ancient core of knowledge that revolved around the celestial bodies and natural forces.
Doc: Nearly identical? Could you give some specifics? I know these stories and, in my estimation, aside from vague salvation themes, common in many myths (as explained last night) they have little in common (more below).
Also, validator, do you really believe that first century Palestinian Jews would have shared this "anceint core of knowledge that revovled around the clestial bodies and natural forces"? They were repulsed by pagan astrology.
Also, if their claims about Jesus were mythological, along the lines of Krishna and Horus, how do you explain their claims that Jesus lived in the recent past, that they knew him personally, that he did miracles and rose from the dead and they witnessed these things? How do you explain their willingness to lay down their lives for these claims? Unlike all other myths, they aren't telling a story that happened "long long ago and far far away." They're talking about a contemporary, sentenced under Ciaphas the high priest, Pilot the governor, buried in the tomb of a member of the Sandherin.
Also, the Gospels simply do not read as myths. They read like ancient biographies. And they give all the usual evidence we look for to indicate that they are passing on eyewitness testimony. NONE of the myths you cite are anything like this.
Validator: Acharya S. marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence to demonstrate that Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman empire under one state religion.
Doc: This is a most interesting thesis, since we have [i[]no evidence of secret societies or mystery religions even existsing in the first century -- let alone in first century PALESTINE. Moreover, the idea of unifying the empire under a common religion didn't occur to anyone until the fourth century. The public official religion (The Roman Pantheon) had sufficed up to that time.
Validator: In making such a fabrication, the multnational cabal drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era, and reworked them for centuries into the story and religion passed down today."
Doc: Yet Paul is writing 20 years after Jesus lived. The Gospels are written (even on a liberal dating) 30 to 60 years after Jesus lived. So... I don't see how you have "centuries" for the story to be reworked.
But I'm glad your interested enough to read on the topic and inquirer about it. KEEP READING.... ALL SIDES.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hrimamaer
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 10/17/2003 6:08 AM (GMT -6) | | maquote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
Also, if their claims about Jesus were mythological, along the lines of Krishna and Horus, how do you explain their claims that Jesus lived in the recent past, that they knew him personally, that he did miracles and rose from the dead and they witnessed these things? How do you explain their willingness to lay down their lives for these claims? Unlike all other myths, they aren't telling a story that happened "long long ago and far far away." They're talking about a contemporary, sentenced under Ciaphas the high priest, Pilot the governor, buried in the tomb of a member of the Sandherin.
Also, the Gospels simply do not read as myths. They read like ancient biographies. And they give all the usual evidence we look for to indicate that they are passing on eyewitness testimony. NONE of the myths you cite are anything like this.
Hello!
I'm new to this forum and came upon this thread. I am curious to know if you believe that the Bible is a literal book as well....or is it just the Gospels that are literal and the rest of the book is myth?
Curious,
Hrim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 10/18/2003 4:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by upg validator
Laika:
You have skirted around Hrimaraer's question.
I didn't skirt. She said "the rest of the book is myth?"
The rest of "the book" is not myth. It's poetry, history, genealogies, medical instructions, dietary laws, proclamations, correspondence, etc.
quote:
Let me clarify:
She is asking whether or not you take THE *EVENTS* IN ALL OF THE OLD AS WELL AS ALL OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO BE LITERAL EVENTS THAT OCCURRED IN HUMAN HISTORY, or whether to you, all of those EVENTS are mythological in nature, EXCEPT for the birth, death, and ressurrection of the alleged Jesus Christ, Son of the One True God and/or God himself.
Has the world been created? Looking around I'd say "yes". So the event of creation must have happened and not be mythological.
Was there a large flood in pre-historic times? There's lots of physical evidence for a large scale flood way back and debate on it's extent. But something happened that caused biblical authors, chaldean authors, etc. to write about a large-scale flood. Not mythological.
Was there a Babylonian king named Nebuchadnezzar? Yeah, they found his palace at Babylon in present day Iraq. Not mythological.
Did the Persians under Cyrus invade the area of Palestine? Yes, secular history records this as well. Not mythological.
One of the oldest cities ever discovered is at Jerico, walls there date back 10,000 years. Not mythological.
The old testament mentions the Hittite people but secular history had NO record of them. It was one of the arguments used AGAINST the bible for a long time, a mythological people, the Hittites. Then in the 1830s their capital Hattusas was discovered. Not mythological.
King Solomon had a large stable at Megiddo? They've been found. Not mythological.
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/
Are there particular events you're interested in?
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hrimamaer
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 10/18/2003 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by upg validator
Laika:
You have skirted around Hrimaraer's question.
I didn't skirt. She said "the rest of the book is myth?"
The rest of "the book" is not myth. It's poetry, history, genealogies, medical instructions, dietary laws, proclamations, correspondence, etc.
quote:
Let me clarify:
She is asking whether or not you take THE *EVENTS* IN ALL OF THE OLD AS WELL AS ALL OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO BE LITERAL EVENTS THAT OCCURRED IN HUMAN HISTORY, or whether to you, all of those EVENTS are mythological in nature, EXCEPT for the birth, death, and ressurrection of the alleged Jesus Christ, Son of the One True God and/or God himself.
Has the world been created? Looking around I'd say "yes". So the event of creation must have happened and not be mythological.
Are there particular events you're interested in?
First off, let me say thank you for your response. I understand that the Bible is a conglomeration of several types of literature. As the daughter of a Lutheran minister, I understand a lot about it. However, I was particularly interested in whether or not the O.T. is considered "myth" by those in this forum...or if they feel that the O.T. is based on fact and is in it's entirety considered to be a factual historical account. I know the Psalms are more poetic. Not a problem. I guess I should have been more specific. Sorry.
I am wondering about what you said above:
"Has the world been created? Looking around I'd say "yes". So the event of creation must have happened and not be mythological."
So, can I take this to mean that in your mind the story of creation is not myth, but is factual in nature?
Thanks!
Hrim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 10/19/2003 3:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Hrimamaer
I am wondering about what you said above:
"Has the world been created? Looking around I'd say "yes". So the event of creation must have happened and not be mythological."
So, can I take this to mean that in your mind the story of creation is not myth, but is factual in nature?
From observing nature, I ask "where did all this stuff come from?" I conclude there's something outside this creation that put all this stuff here. From our observation of nature we see that you don't get something from nothing, so something had to make all this stuff or start the stuff-making process.
Next I look at the link of causal actions, every effect has a cause and if you work backwards far enough, you have to have some first cause that started this
whole chain of cause->effect.
So how do we discover the 'thing' outside of creation that made all this stuff and was the first cause? I believe it had to be revealed to us, we couldn't discover it ourselves since we're lodged within creation. That's where the books of the bible come in, they're God's revelation to us that He is the one who created everything and started it all.
Now you're probably wondering if we believe there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal garden of Eden. Christians have different beliefs about this, some believe in it literally, others believe in it as allegorical, but all are still Christians because they recognize the central truth that the God revealed to us in scripture is the one who made all of creation.
My point was to show that scripture is tied to history (Cyrus, Egypt, Nebuchenezzar, Jerico, Megiddo, Hattusas, Pilate, etc.) unlike myth. Myth doesn't tie itself down in any way.
For example, Japanese tales usually begin, "mukashi, mukashi", which means "a long time ago". Scripture ties itself to history by phrases such as "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it."
How are you going to verify the Japanese tale that starts "a long time ago"?
But scripture challenges itself to be verified when it name checks historical figures.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/19/2003 9:08 PM (GMT -6) | | u.p Could you then please point out plausible historical data OUTSIDE OF THE CANNONIZED GOSPELS which identify "Jesus Christ" (which, by the way, is a priestly title and NOT a name) is mentioned in other than swift passing?Can you identify why, if he were the "world-renowned known savior of all of humankind," he had to be identified by Judas with a kiss?
Doc: "Jesus" is a proper name. "Christ" is his messianic tite (meaning annointed). Now, he was not a "word-renowned known savior of all of humankind" during his life. To Roman historians he would have been a nobody, significant only because he was executed by an official order, and significant later on only because the movement he began was causing "trouble". When this is combined with the fact that most of what ancient historians wrote has not survived, it 's surprising that there is ANY mention of him in secular accounts.
More significant, there's many non-canonical writings that speak a great deal about Jesus Christ within a century of his life. They are Christian -- but then, as I just said, no one else would have been very interested in the man. Even more significantly, however, why the prejudice against Paul, the four Gospels, and the other Epistles written shortly after Jesus' life just because they became the rule of faith (the "canon") for believers? Treat them like you'd treat any other ancient historica document. And when you do, u.p., well, its hard avoiding the conclusion that we know a GREAT DEAL about the historical Jesus.
If we dismiss Jesus as historical, with all these sources written between 20 to 60 years of his life, what should we conclude about (say) Alexander the Great when most of what we know about him comes from ONE source (Arrian) written four centuries after his life?
u.p. Can you please tell me the EXACT DATE of his birthday?
Doc: No. Why is that significant?
u.p. Can you explain to me the VERY PAGAN motifs of the Virgin birth, the changing water into wine, and the dying and resurrecting godman (in addition to others) in what is supposed to be a Jewish story?
Doc: Well, there's no getting around the fact that the Gospels are written by Jews in a Jewish mileiu. And that raises problems for your position. For Jews were extremely resistant to myths in the first place. And if there is one myth they most certainly would NOT have invented or accepted, it is one that involved a god-,man. The greatest puzzel in history is how a bunch of Jews came to believe that one of their contemporaries was GOD. They tell us WHY they came to believe this: his claims, his miracles and especially his resurrection. If you don't accept their claims, WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION?
Blessings,
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
philalethian
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 37
| Posted 10/19/2003 9:28 PM (GMT -6) | | come on such a thesis is absurd. I'm not a christian but i realize that Jesus himself fits squarly in the apoclyptic vision of second temple judaism. I assume to hold such a view you are not at all familiar with second temple judaism. Have you read Josephus? Have you read any of Pseudepigraphal books? Any of the qumran scrolls? I assume youo must not have to hold such a view.
First Jesus, in the synoptic gospels is put in line mostly with deutero-Isaian themes, and while some of his works have pagan and mythic parallels most are not direct parallels but ones with many contingents. There are direct parallels to most of what jesus does in second temple jewish messianic hopes. See the stories of jesus and the temple in relation to other messianic claimants such as yeshua ben ananias, or yeshua ben gamelial or even later look at simon bar kochba.
Jesus Christ is never used as a name but a title. So what? He is called Iesous in greek which is a hellenized form of the hebrew yeshua which is translated Joshua. and yes christ is a tranlation of messiah which means the anointed and at the time of jesus it was used to denote the one who would come redeem Israel.
Your question about the kiss of Judas has nothing to do with the historicity of the person of Jesus. There is a lot in the Bible which doesn't add up. this is due to source, form, redactional and textual issues. See the gospels were not simply written. They took from an already formed oral tradition about Jesus and put it together in a narrative. These "forms" of oral tradition were put in and don't always fit. But it has nothing to do with the historicity of the person of Jesus.
No one knows the exact date he was born. can you tell me the exact date, with certainty, that caligula was born? i don't think so, therefore, did he not exist either?
Can you explain the constand allusion, echoes and quotations of the Old Testament? How do you explain the fact that the gospel writers contstantly align Jesus with the Old Testament. There were many many miracle workers and healers in ancient Israel. This is well attested by josephus and other primary sources. Jesus was another one. It may have some vague pagan parallel but it fits perfectly within the world he would have lived in.
Now let us look at the primary sources which mention Jesus:
Josephus is a Jewish Historian who wrote from Rome in the 70's A.D.
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. "
Cornelius tacitus who was a Roman Historian in the late first and early second century A.D. wrote:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"
The Talmud which was written sometime between 70 and 200 A.D. says:
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, `He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover"
This isn't even to mention the other Gnostic sources such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the hebrews, the gospel of the ebionites, the gospel of Mary etc...
I think you get the point that the historical person of Jesus is well attested in christian, jewish and roman sources.
Dana
Capitalism is organized Crime!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
philalethian
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 37
| Posted 10/29/2003 5:42 AM (GMT -6) | | upg i would still like to see a reply. You made some very serious claims about Jesus that you felt confident about and i challenged them all. What do you think now, realizing that apealing to an authority is a fallicy and only arguments count (i.e. i doubt the fact that two "scholars" believes something makes it so).
Have you even read my post above?
Jesus does not fit into mythology but into second temple Jewish mesianic expectation.
Jesus is mentioned in Gnostic, Christian, Roman, and Jewish sources all within 40-100 years after his death. Furthermore you have similar actions being down by other historical figures. John the baptizer, Jesus ben ananias, which are mmentioned by christians, Jews, and Roman sources. Where they made up too.
To seriously contend that Jesus didn't exist. YOu have going to have to say that every messianic claiment in the mishnah, talmud and josephus is part of your conspiricy, and every mention is pliny, and tacitus is also part of your conspiricy theory. So you are going to have to prove that two famous historians (who didn't like christians), the mishnah (not exactly pro-christian), the talmud (even less so)and the gospel of Thomas, and other gnostic gospels are all lies and part of your conspiricy. Thats a lot of different sources to prove all lied to be part of this conspiricy.
Capitalism is organized Crime!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
upg validator
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 10/29/2003 8:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Dana:
First of all, in your rush to negate me, you haven't even gotten my GENDER right! (Again, I say to you, "Ah, the wisdom and folly of youth.")
Secondly, you fail to understand Gnostic texts. Gnostic texts are mythical by crede and by nature, which is why they were suppressed by the early Catholic Church.
Last of all, I would like to know where YOU are getting YOUR information from, if not from scholarly studies. Either you researched this all yourself, or you relied on the text(s) that is/are already out there. If the former is true, I'd like to know what YOUR credentials are for making such claims. If the latter is true, then YOUR entire argument against scholarship is non-sensical.
My guess on as to why you "won" all of your arguments with scholars is because they saw through your youth and gung-ho innerrancy; and just decided to throw you a bone because YOU are too dogmatic to play with.
I also want to lay a disclaimer that I *never* claimed my view to be unbiased--in order to be religious, one has to be biased toward their religion--and by doing so, biased AGAINST other religions. This goes for monotheist and polytheist alike. If you inferred otherwise, then you had better look back and read all of my posts. The Christians are not the only ones who claim inerrancy: the Etruscans did as well. Being their descendant, I, too, claim inerrancy. It is in my nature. Furthermore, I am no less dogmatic and no less logical than you are--it's just that I am from a theist, and you come from an atheist point of view. To be perfectly honest with you, frankly, I don't care for atheists: the put-down toward all religions really torks me off. Just because you haven't had a religious experience, what right (or reason) do you have to negate ANYONE ELSE'S religious experience(s). Trust me, hon, you are just as blind as you claim ME to be; only in your case, you can safely hide behind "pure science." Pretty easy, isn't it? You don't have to stick your neck out there and risk having it chopped off for any conviction, do you?
Growing with you...
Filomena Sophia | | Back to Top | | |
| 30 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:38 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|