Jesus myth theories

I don't think so, because I don't think anybody did. These are the kinds of absurd debates that happen when people take allegories too literally. A tendency to sin isn't sin itself. I think the concept of "original sin" is bogus, although I think we all have natural tendencies toward passions or desires that easily get out of control. But Christian doctrine holds that Jesus was special in being conceived without sin. Some theologians think this is because original sin is passed down through the father, and since Jesus didn't have a human father, he was free of original sin. But then why is Eve blamed and punished?

As for Leviticus, that was never tied to original sin. P, the school of scribes who wrote it, were classic anal retentives and had a real aversion to bodily fluids. Besides, he was concerned here with ritual impurity rather than moral impurity. Menstruation and orgasms aren't immoral. They're ritually unclean for Jews under the purity laws--which is a whole other trip.

By the way, this is just my opinion, and in case you haven't noticed, I'm a heretic by orthodox Christian and Jewish standards and am going to hell for sure if they're right. I think Paul and St. Augustine who gave us this doctrine were sick puppies--Christianity's original sins against humanity.

 

A debate is a debate. The debate is not about whether an allegory is a good allegory but about the nature of sin. If all things arise in conception, what do you think sin is?

 

So what significance does that have? What meaning the story of crucifixion? It's meaning is plain and uncomplicated if you consider meaning instead of the potential circumstances, those things that may or may not have happened. Christ is still being crucified, he still being hung up in a sign of warning. The theory is if you don't punish the perpetrator the world will descend into chaos.
It is the roman prefects view and the world accepts it. Christ stops being crucified when the world chooses compassion instead.

 

Not necessarily. I think many were influenced by Judaism, which may have been influenced by other cultures, especially Mesopotamian and Persian. But what I believe is that a great deal of the mythicist case against an historical Jesus, as developed in the sources you cite below, is a crock.[/Quote]

I am. It's a matter of judgment.

I wouldn't grant that they have it "all" wrong--just a great deal of it. The mythicist view is a minority position among scholars, even atheist and agnostic ones. There's a reason for that.

Of course, proving one theory wrong doesn't prove another right. And as for "proof", that's something I never get into. Proof involves persuading others that a position is correct. All the evidence and arguments on the net and the libraries of the world aren't enough to convince people to believe what they don't want to believe. And the evidence I'm talking about is relatively scant and requires making assumptions and inferences. I can guarantee you won't be convinced or impressed. I'm mainly concerned with establishing that a belief in an historical Jesus who walked, talked and was crucified on this planet is reasonable, based on substantial evidence and not contrary to science and sound scholarship. Keep in mind that I won't be arguing that the Jesus of the creeds is real: Son of God, part of the Trinity, born of a virgin, died for our sins, rose from the dead on the third day, etc. But I need to wrap up my discussion of the mythicist case.

 

The disciples and the zodiac. Jesus' twelve apstoles were chosen to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. In fact, He promised his apostles that they would be put in charge of twelve regional divisions after the Kingdom of God came about on earth. Did the Israelites get their twelve tribes from the Babylonian zodiac? It could have simply been a coincidence. The zodiac was developed by the Babylonians, but it had 18 signs. The twelve signs of the Greek zodiac weren't identified until around 520 B.C., by Cleostratos. While the Greek zodiac does contain 12 signs, that would mean that if the Israelites made up the twelve tribes based on the zodiac, it would have to have been after that time. I'm not about to research when the scriptures referring to the twelve tribes of Israel came to be. I'll leave it to those alleging that it was after 520 to come up with the evidence. but it's pretty much irrelevant concerning the point that Jesus drew his apostles to represent the twelve tribes, not the twelve signs of the Greek zodiac.

The number twelve does keep coming up in a number of different cultures; twelve gods of Egypt, twelve Olympains, 12 sons of Oden, 12 labors of Hercules, etc. But as for retinues of twelve disciples for other gods, that seems to be a misconception based on the work of Gerald Massey and Edward Carpenter in the early part of the twentieth century. Poet and amateur Egyptologist Massey saw twelve reapers depicted on a mural and concluded that they were twelve disciples of Horus--without any particular connection to Horus than his own free association. Horus had four to six demigods and sixteen human retainers in his retinue. To my knowledge, no other deity had twelve disciples. Mithra had three divine associates Varuna, Cautes, and Catopatres. If we want to include non-humans, he was also associated with a snake, dog, scorpion, and lion. So that's seven at best.
Much of what we think we know of Mithras is inferred from artwork. There is a stone carving depicting Mithras slaying a bull with two vertical rows of figures on each side looking on. Nothing to indicate they're disciples, but some have made that inference, obviously with Jesus in mind. Yet the carving dates well after the time of Jesus, so if there was any copying, it might have been from the Mithraists.

 

[FONT=&quot]Born on the Winter Solstice [/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is an easy one to dispose of. Nobody knows when Jesus was born, and the earliest Christians didn't accept it. Some argued that it shouldn't be celebrated at all, but by the third century, many were celebrating it on January 6 (Epiphany). It wasn't until the fourth century that Christians in Rome picked December 25 to commemorate the event, because that was the date set by the Roman Emperor for the worship of the official sun god Sol Invictus, and it was convenient and acommodating to pagan converts to celebrate the holidays at the same time. The practice spread to the east by the end of the fourth century. Apparently, Christians weren't the only ones. Horus's birthday was in the month of Khoik (October/November) but in Rome some celebrated it on December 25. The birth date of Attis is unknown. Because of the secrecy surrounding the Mithras cult, it's hard to say for sure when he was born, but since he was a solar deity, December 25 is plausible.

[/FONT]

 

[FONT=&quot].
[/FONT]

 

QUOTE: from this list of ideas for seeking proofs for God, the God we believe in. "So much for the search for truth. The aim of scholastic inquiry is to determine truth to the best of our ability. The more outside of the convention, the greater the required proof. I agree that many will never be persuaded from what they wish to believe, but that doesn't mean that the search for truth should be abandoned."

We have so many Lords to follow for the beliefs for the true God on on Earth. From the Koran the original Believers were the Israelites. There was the lord to follow to bring the Jews out of "bondage" in Egypt. The original Believers were also sinners (ha, ha, ha: why the ten commandments), and sinners were uniquely Sinners. seeking universal human rights. That may be truth, proven in the way of tautology, but just the same the Lord represented the form of representation on Earth.

Is this myth?: I get it now: the myth was that God had and has a son, and we believing had to be hindered by the sinning. From the Israelites in the Q'uran.

 

According to what source?

 

The idea of the Son of God is old. However, the Bible as I understand it is about Adam, the first prophet, and, after that, the further genealogical and pathological development for the son of "Man". :sunny:

 

I was thinking Matt 19:28; Luke 22:28-30.

 

Source? I ask this because it's generalizing about Egyptologists and it's very difficult to respond to without knowing who is talking about whom and when.

The quotation from Justin Martyr indicates that he thought, or wanted the emperor to think, that Christianity was not greatly different from other religions. That's certainly something to consider. Not enough detail to determine which ones he was considering. But as I previously mentioned, Caesar Augustus, son of a God, was supposedly a virgin birth. As for rising from the dead, you might check out what I previously said on that subject. Mettinger found only three cases, and all are dubious, for reasons I explained. Possibly, Justin was thinking about those. But we don't know. We also don't know when those deities acquired the powers attributed to them, and whether or not Justin knew that. We can't rule out copying, but who was copying from whom.

 

Of course. But the issue was whether the December 25 date is evidence that Jesus was made up. I think I've explained that it isn't.

I'm not sure I can make it clearer than I already did, but summing up what I said: (1) Christian use of December 25 is entirely conventional, and has always been acknowledged by Christians to be so; using that as evidence that Jesus, himself, was made up seems lame. (2) as I said, Horus was born in October/November until the Romans started celebrating the birth of Sol Invictus on December 25. We don't know for sure when Mithras was born, but December 25 seems like a good bet, because he was a solar deity and the 25th was regarded by the Romans as the Winter Solstice.

 

The thrones are at his table, tribes are peoples not districts. Very much an esoteric solar zodiac reference. Talking about twelve tribes and thrones. Instead of believing in prophecy understand what prophecy is. The evidence is we can predict astronomical events.

 

I'd think that Christianity itself is not based on any old Son of God; that is it's idea of accurately dating the sons of humanity from generation to generation. Christianity was only worked out by the unique genius, Jesus Christ, this way. Was Jesus such a genius? It is important to distinguish truth from illusion, fact from opinion. But illusory opinions are welcome.

 

Read the passages again. Jesus is talking to the apostles, and sitting on twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel seems to be pretty clear and non-zodiacal.