-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus Story IS NOT Original.....
- Thread starter MW0082
- Start date
- Status
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
As it stands, this is a baseless claim. You've provided not a single thread of evidence. I can say that the story of Augustus is not original, and as it stands, have just as much evidence proving my point.
Maybe you want to present some of that research. It would probably help you quite a bit.
Maybe you want to present some of that research. It would probably help you quite a bit.
MW0082
Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
I am honestly starting to believe you simply have nothing better to do....
Krishna
Buddha
Horus
Zoroaster
Mithras
Attis
there are 7, yes 7 alone that have eerily similar stories as Jesus Christ...... LOL
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Daniel
Mary
Paul
David
Edgar
Zach
Does that prove anything? Listing names do not prove anything unless you can show why they are "eerily similar" to Jesus. As in posting why they are similar and, ideally, posting sources that back up your claim.
Mary
Paul
David
Edgar
Zach
Does that prove anything? Listing names do not prove anything unless you can show why they are "eerily similar" to Jesus. As in posting why they are similar and, ideally, posting sources that back up your claim.
MW0082
Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
You are aware it was written in 1922? Just a little outdated. There has been a plethora of research done since then. So I won't go into much detail rebutting your resource. Especially since the author is only arguing that the Christ of the Gospels is mythical, but that there may have been a Jewish man named Jesus during the first century who had a following like Jesus, met a violent death, and did the good. So basically, there may have been a person who was the base of the later exaggerations. Exactly what I was saying.
Also, I say nothing about those other individuals you claim were the background of Jesus. I don't think you really read the source very well. Also, again, it is over 80 years old. We have done a lot of research since then.
Maybe you would like to read The Quest for the Historical Jesus. A classic on the subject, by a man who actually shows why the majority of what was posted in that article is wrong.
MW0082
Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
No you want to say it is wrong bc you want to be right. You have given nothing that can confirm anything about Jesus Christ. Your information is vague and sketchy at best.......
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
To answer the OP: DUH
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
This thread is not about me proving anything about Jesus. It is about you showing that the life of Jesus is not original and is plagiarized. That is why you started the thread. Thus again, I have no reason to prove that Jesus existed, especially when it is a generally accepted fact.
Also, I never stated it was wrong. I stated:
One, that your source is grossly outdated.
Two, the author accepts the possibility that Jesus actually existed, but was exaggerated quite a bit and thus the Gospel account is mythological.
Three, that I saw nothing about similarities between Jesus and the 7 figures your listed.
And four, that you may want to read The Quest for the Historical Jesus which actually provides a rebuttal to pretty much everything your source stated.
Please, instead of trying to dismiss what I said outright and trying to switch the focus of this topic, you may actually want to read what I stated carefully and then offer a rebuttal. That would probably be more effective.
Reference transmission of myth over time and across cultures.
Amazon.com: Hamlet's Mill: An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge And Its Transmission Through Myth (9780879232153): Giorgio de Santillana, Hertha von Dechen: Gateway
Amazon.com: Hamlet's Mill: An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge And Its Transmission Through Myth (9780879232153): Giorgio de Santillana, Hertha von Dechen: Gateway
Only one similarity that I can think of: a tyrant who wants Him dead. Even that's not the same, as Kamsa only wants to kill Krishna, and doesn't, as far as I know, order the deaths of all other babies. Kamsa also knows where Baby Krishna is, and sends several assassins to kill Him, who are subsequently killed and saved by Him. Krishna then later kills Kamsa. That's quite different than the story of King Herod and Jesus.
Again, only one similarity, and that's being tempted.
Admittedly, I know nothing about these stories, so I can't comment. But simply bringing them up isn't enough; you have to tell their stories, as well, and then cite your sources as to where you got the stories so we can check to see if they're legitimate.
You don't even have one, as you've basically just provided a list of names.
Last edited:
Except that wasn't the goal of the post; it was to refute your source, which was done successfully, as it's almost a hundred years old and outdated by subsequent research; therefore, it's unreliable.
Not really. He directed you to another work that may be more reliable, and gave a specific date for the composition of your source. Hardly "vague" or "sketchy."
Last edited:
logician
Well-Known Member
Emphasis on "stories", since all including the Jesus myth are stories. Just variations on the same theme.
Emphasis on "stories", since all including the Jesus myth are stories. Just variations on the same theme.
At least two of them do not carry the same theme.
Even if just stories (no bad thing; stories are the bedrock of culture), the stories of Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna are COMPLETELY different stories with occasional similarities.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Rubbish. That article stands today as it did then, and no, not one thing was refuted let alone successfully. You simply believe entirely on faith that the article is outdated and that it was refuted when no such refutation took place. No wonder it's impossible to have a decent debate with believers, the BS just gets piled on top of BS.
And what book would that be since no author was even provided? There is a book titled The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer, but that was written in 1906.
GabrielWithoutWings
Well-Known Member
If I remember correctly, the whole Horus = Jesus comparison was put forward by one single individual who never sourced any of his information.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Is that what the author was saying? Shall we quote him?
The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world.
Maybe you should read what you pretend is exactly what you are saying since your comprehension appears to be lacking. Unless you agree, that of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing.
If you are referring to the book authored by Albert Schweitzer, it was written over one hundred years ago. Interesting that a man can show why the majority of what was posted in that article was wrong almost 20 years before it was even written. Keep up that research.
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Excellent article, it makes some very good points:
Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord's Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And do not these features constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day. That is to say, he had not yet been invented!
GabrielWithoutWings
Well-Known Member
- Status