Is the Bible Really True?

[maggie2]

Just reading a really interesting book, "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur. It details the many common features of the Christian myth and the early Egyptian myth of Horus, which took place several thousand years prior to the Christian faith being established. It gives a person new thought about the stories in the Bible and is a real eye-opener. The basic conclusion of the book is that the Bible is mainly myth that has been copied from earlier Egyptian writings about the Egyptian god, Horus.

Anyone else read this book? If so, what were your thoughts? From reading my description above is there anyone who feels this book is "of the devil" or just not true? And if so, why do you feel that way?

And finally, do you believe the Bible to be true? If so what proof do you have?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

This is a classic example of a man who lost his faith and then tried to make others loose theirs. Alternatively, it's the work of a professional journalist (which Harpur is) trying to make a quick buck. Not being a Christian, I have no axe to grind, but I have studied Biblical criticism and I suspect I know a bit more about Egypt than he does.

The historian Michael Grant (whom I don't think was a Christian) pointed out years ago that no professional historian has ever accepted the "Jesus myth" theory. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is as good as that for Pythagoras or Confucius, and no-one questions their existence. In Antiquity, none of the critics of Christianity ever said "this Jesus you worship never existed."

Mark's gospel reads like a work based on the personal reminiscences of Peter should, and was mentioned by an author (Papias) working only about 60 after it was written. The Jewish writer Josephus, writing about 60 years after the crucifixion, speaks of "that Jesus whom they said was the messiah". The Roman historian Tacitus, writing about 20 years after Josephus, knew about "Christus, executed by Pilate".

 

[maggie2]

This is a classic example of a man who lost his faith and then tried to make others loose theirs. Alternatively, it's the work of a professional journalist (which Harpur is) trying to make a quick buck. Not being a Christian, I have no axe to grind, but I have studied Biblical criticism and I suspect I know a bit more about Egypt than he does.

The historian Michael Grant (whom I don't think was a Christian) pointed out years ago that no professional historian has ever accepted the "Jesus myth" theory. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is as good as that for Pythagoras or Confucius, and no-one questions their existence. In Antiquity, none of the critics of Christianity ever said "this Jesus you worship never existed."

Mark's gospel reads like a work based on the personal reminiscences of Peter should, and was mentioned by an author (Papias) working only about 60 after it was written. The Jewish writer Josephus, writing about 60 years after the crucifixion, speaks of "that Jesus whom they said was the messiah". The Roman historian Tacitus, writing about 20 years after Josephus, knew about "Christus, executed by Pilate".

While I agree that Harpur is a journalist, I would totally disagree that he is trying to make a quick buck. He was an Anglican (Episcopal) priest for years and taught Christian courses for years as well. He was committed to the Christian story. He actually didn't lose his faith, he simply saw it in a new light. Before you accuse him of wanting to make a quick buck maybe you should read the book. And I would further suggest that he is not trying to make others lose their faith, just hoping to help them enrich it.

Yes, there are those who believe that Jesus was a man. However, to say that the evidence that he existed is as good as that for Pythagoras or Confucius means little. That is no proof of his existence. I'm not sure how the fact that no one questions the existence of Pythagoras or Confucius relates to whether or not Jesus was a man.

You say that in Antiquity, none of the critics of Christianity ever said "the Jesus you worship never existed." That may or may not be true. However, I do know that the early Christians burned books as well as people who disagreed with them, particularly after Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.

As to Mark's gospel, just because it was written early on does not mean it is the story of an actual man. And the one reference to Jesus in Josephus' many books has been found to be a forgery. Quoting from "The Laughing Jesus" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, "In a single paragraph in him many works he (Josephus) makes what at first sight seems to be a glowing reference to Jesus "the Messiah". But over two hundred years ago the great scholar Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire dismissed that passage as a 'vulgar forgery'. He demonstrated that the passage was not to be found in Josephus at the beginning of the third century and must have been inserted into the text early in the early fourth century, after Christianity had been made the religion of the Roman Empire".

From Wikipedia, here's a quote about Gibbon: In accuracy, thoroughness, lucidity, and comprehensive grasp of a vast subject, the 'History' is unsurpassable. It is the one English history which may be regarded as definitive. ...Whatever its shortcomings the book is artistically imposing as well as historically unimpeachable as a vast panorama of a great period. I cannot quote the author as Wikipedia doesn't indicate who made the statement. However, they do say that his work is impeccable.

 

[leibowde84]

This is a classic example of a man who lost his faith and then tried to make others loose theirs. Alternatively, it's the work of a professional journalist (which Harpur is) trying to make a quick buck. Not being a Christian, I have no axe to grind, but I have studied Biblical criticism and I suspect I know a bit more about Egypt than he does.

The historian Michael Grant (whom I don't think was a Christian) pointed out years ago that no professional historian has ever accepted the "Jesus myth" theory. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is as good as that for Pythagoras or Confucius, and no-one questions their existence. In Antiquity, none of the critics of Christianity ever said "this Jesus you worship never existed."

Mark's gospel reads like a work based on the personal reminiscences of Peter should, and was mentioned by an author (Papias) working only about 60 after it was written. The Jewish writer Josephus, writing about 60 years after the crucifixion, speaks of "that Jesus whom they said was the messiah". The Roman historian Tacitus, writing about 20 years after Josephus, knew about "Christus, executed by Pilate".

Wow ... you sure our proud of your educational accomplishments. Do you have a degree in Biblical Scholarship?

 

[leibowde84]

Just reading a really interesting book, "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur. It details the many common features of the Christian myth and the early Egyptian myth of Horus, which took place several thousand years prior to the Christian faith being established. It gives a person new thought about the stories in the Bible and is a real eye-opener. The basic conclusion of the book is that the Bible is mainly myth that has been copied from earlier Egyptian writings about the Egyptian god, Horus.

Anyone else read this book? If so, what were your thoughts? From reading my description above is there anyone who feels this book is "of the devil" or just not true? And if so, why do you feel that way?

And finally, do you believe the Bible to be true? If so what proof do you have?

Interesting thought. Not sure whether there is substantial evidence that would dismiss the entire New Testament, but it certainly makes one think.

 

[nazz]

Just reading a really interesting book, "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur. It details the many common features of the Christian myth and the early Egyptian myth of Horus, which took place several thousand years prior to the Christian faith being established. It gives a person new thought about the stories in the Bible and is a real eye-opener. The basic conclusion of the book is that the Bible is mainly myth that has been copied from earlier Egyptian writings about the Egyptian god, Horus.

Anyone else read this book? If so, what were your thoughts? From reading my description above is there anyone who feels this book is "of the devil" or just not true? And if so, why do you feel that way?

And finally, do you believe the Bible to be true? If so what proof do you have?

No, I have not read the book but I see this urban myth comes up quite often on line. It has been thoroughly debunked:

Horus and Osiris vs Jesus

I would say the Bible contains truth rather than the Bible is true. It's not necessarily true in a historical literal sense.

 

[maggie2]

No, I have not read the book but I see this urban myth comes up quite often on line. It has been thoroughly debunked:

Horus and Osiris vs Jesus

I would say the Bible contains truth rather than the Bible is true. It's not necessarily true in a historical literal sense.

I agree totally with your statement, "the Bible contains truth rather than the Bible is true". When you say it's not necessarily true in a historical literal sense I also agree with that. Unfortunately, there are many who would disagree and they have a right to their own opinions.

I took the time to read through most of the article you cite. I notice that it is hosted on a squarely Christian web site so that would seem to me to make it biased to some degree. I could, but am not going to, go find other articles that would suggest just the opposite to what this one is saying. There will always be arguments for and against any given idea/concept/thinking and we could go on forever quoting back and forth on this topic. You and the person who wrote that article have a right to your opinions, however, from my research I beg to disagree with you and them.

 

[allfoak]

Just reading a really interesting book, "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur. It details the many common features of the Christian myth and the early Egyptian myth of Horus, which took place several thousand years prior to the Christian faith being established. It gives a person new thought about the stories in the Bible and is a real eye-opener. The basic conclusion of the book is that the Bible is mainly myth that has been copied from earlier Egyptian writings about the Egyptian god, Horus.

Anyone else read this book? If so, what were your thoughts? From reading my description above is there anyone who feels this book is "of the devil" or just not true? And if so, why do you feel that way?

And finally, do you believe the Bible to be true? If so what proof do you have?

I know! I know!

The reason that all these different cultures in different places and time periods came up with the same concepts based upon slightly different mythologies, is because the knowledge comes from within us human beings.
The knowledge is the same for everyone.
This is the reason that division is condemned in the holy books.
Anything that does not come from within is simply something someone else says is the truth.
Every denomination calls the other a liar by their very existence.
This makes them all liars and are an enemy of the truth.

The truth is found within.
This is a fundamental truth that is denied by those who call themselves teachers.
The true teacher is inside each one of us.

 

[allfoak]

The Holy Books were written for the purpose of pointing the way to the teacher within.

 

[Simplelogic]

Just reading a really interesting book, "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur. It details the many common features of the Christian myth and the early Egyptian myth of Horus, which took place several thousand years prior to the Christian faith being established. It gives a person new thought about the stories in the Bible and is a real eye-opener. The basic conclusion of the book is that the Bible is mainly myth that has been copied from earlier Egyptian writings about the Egyptian god, Horus.

Anyone else read this book? If so, what were your thoughts? From reading my description above is there anyone who feels this book is "of the devil" or just not true? And if so, why do you feel that way?

And finally, do you believe the Bible to be true? If so what proof do you have?

The Egyptian myth of Horus was just one of the many sun-god myths which were prevalent in many cultures. The Persians called this same god Mithras. All of these religions came from the same world religion of ancient Babylon who worshipped the pagan "trinity". This trinity consisted of Nimrod (the first man to be declared a god) and his wife Sumeramis. After Nimrod died, his wife Sumeramis was said to have been impregnated by the rays of the sun and gave birth to baby Tammuz. Tammuz was worshipped throughout ancient Mesopotamia. Eventually this legend shifted to other regions where the same story was told again but with different names. In Egypt it was Isis and Osiris who gave birth to Horace (the sun-god).

Jesus or Yeshua had nothing to do with anyone of these myths but pagan Christians eventually decided to attach these concepts to Jesus. Paul was the first one to offer pagan concepts into the early Jewish "Jesus movement". Eventually Christians began to worship Jesus on pagan sun-god holidays such as christmas. Dec 20-25th was originally sun-god holidays which celebrated the rebirth of the sun. Horace and Mithras(among others) were both worshipped on this day for thousands of years before Christ. They decorated fir trees (male fertility symbols) in their houses with gold and silver and distributed gifts.

So yes. These pagan man-gods existed well before Jesus but the point I am making is that Jesus' story has been rebranded to fit the same narrative as the ancient sun-gods. Of course Jesus was a law abiding Jew who didn't believe in any of these pagan concepts.

 

[Pegg]

Just reading a really interesting book, "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur. It details the many common features of the Christian myth and the early Egyptian myth of Horus, which took place several thousand years prior to the Christian faith being established. It gives a person new thought about the stories in the Bible and is a real eye-opener. The basic conclusion of the book is that the Bible is mainly myth that has been copied from earlier Egyptian writings about the Egyptian god, Horus.

Anyone else read this book? If so, what were your thoughts? From reading my description above is there anyone who feels this book is "of the devil" or just not true? And if so, why do you feel that way?

And finally, do you believe the Bible to be true? If so what proof do you have?

Chistianity is not a myth. Its very much real. Jesus was very much an historical person and the mark he left on history is very much real.

If they are calling Christianity a 'myth' they need to go back to school and learn what myth actually means.

 

[Neo Deist]

Is the Bible true...depends on who you ask. Some will say that it is completely inerrant, pure fact and can't be questioned. Others will say it has some truth to it, but many of the stories are to be interpreted as metaphorical or allegorical.

There is not a definitive answer to your question, as truth is in the eye of the beholder. I spent 35 years as a Baptist. I am now a deist, so you do the math! Once science starts demonstrating certain things that are an obvious contradiction to Holy Book X, I have to go with the science. For example, we know that the earth is not the center of the solar system or universe. There was a point in history where the Church would burn you for making such a statement.

 

[maggie2]

I know! I know!

The reason that all these different cultures in different places and time periods came up with the same concepts based upon slightly different mythologies, is because the knowledge comes from within us human beings.
The knowledge is the same for everyone.
This is the reason that division is condemned in the holy books.
Anything that does not come from within is simply something someone else says is the truth.
Every denomination calls the other a liar by their very existence.
This makes them all liars and are an enemy of the truth.

The truth is found within.
This is a fundamental truth that is denied by those who call themselves teachers.
The true teacher is inside each one of us.

Interesting comments. I don't necessarily agree that something someone else says is not true unless it comes from within the person. For example, we learn to read and spell and do math from books and those are, I think, fairly accurate and truthful. I also think geography books are accurate for the times in which they were written. However, with the changing face of the world, they may quickly become dated. I also think that books like the one I was describing and others that may oppose the point of view expressed in this particular book (The Pagan Christ) have information that we can use to check with our own inner knowing so we can determine if the ideas presented make sense or not. I don't think we need to take these books as 'truth' but simply as arrows that point our thinking in a certain direction. Then we can explore the concepts presented. Once we look at the ideas further, possibly from reading additional books or discussing the ideas with others and, most importantly, looking within our own heart for our response to what has been written, then we can decide whether any of all of the ideas hold any relevance for us.

And while I agree that the most compelling truth comes from within, I still firmly believe that we can be assisted in reaching this truth through reading and discussion.

 

[maggie2]

The Holy Books were written for the purpose of pointing the way to the teacher within.

I tend to agree with you on this point.

 

[maggie2]

The Egyptian myth of Horus was just one of the many sun-god myths which were prevalent in many cultures. The Persians called this same god Mithras. All of these religions came from the same world religion of ancient Babylon who worshipped the pagan "trinity". This trinity consisted of Nimrod (the first man to be declared a god) and his wife Sumeramis. After Nimrod died, his wife Sumeramis was said to have been impregnated by the rays of the sun and gave birth to baby Tammuz. Tammuz was worshipped throughout ancient Mesopotamia. Eventually this legend shifted to other regions where the same story was told again but with different names. In Egypt it was Isis and Osiris who gave birth to Horace (the sun-god).

I agree that there were many gods who came before Jesus who all had the same life cycle, i.e., born of a virgin, born in a stable, baptized, crucified, resurrected.

Jesus or Yeshua had nothing to do with anyone of these myths but pagan Christians eventually decided to attach these concepts to Jesus. Paul was the first one to offer pagan concepts into the early Jewish "Jesus movement". Eventually Christians began to worship Jesus on pagan sun-god holidays such as christmas. Dec 20-25th was originally sun-god holidays which celebrated the rebirth of the sun. Horace and Mithras(among others) were both worshipped on this day for thousands of years before Christ. They decorated fir trees (male fertility symbols) in their houses with gold and silver and distributed gifts.

From what little research I have done it is my understanding that the early church decided to use pagan concepts to attract pagans to the new Christian religion. I don't think Paul's concepts were particularly pagan, I do think they were closely related to the Gnostic view of Christianity, however. And I certainly agree that these earlier gods were indeed worshiped on these dates.

So yes. These pagan man-gods existed well before Jesus but the point I am making is that Jesus' story has been rebranded to fit the same narrative as the ancient sun-gods. Of course Jesus was a law abiding Jew who didn't believe in any of these pagan concepts.

I would disagree with you that the Jesus story has been re-branded to fit the same narrative as the ancient sun-gods. Why? Because in the history of the early church that I have read, and that includes probably half a dozen books, there is plenty of information showing that the early Christians did not want any comparison made between Jesus and those ancient gods. So if that is the case why would they re-brand the Jesus story to fit them?

Again, from my reading, I have concluded that while the early church did not want any part of paganism, they did want to convert the pagans and so some of the leaders chose to adapt the pagan holidays to the Christian story. I'd be interested in reading any information you might have that indicates that the Jesus story was re-branded. Can you point me to some material that will help me to see this point of view?

I appreciate your views and respect where you are coming from. However, I do disagree with your conclusions.

 

[maggie2]

Chistianity is not a myth. Its very much real. Jesus was very much an historical person and the mark he left on history is very much real.

If they are calling Christianity a 'myth' they need to go back to school and learn what myth actually means.

While I respect your point of view, I do disagree with your conclusions. Apart from the Bible can you point me to any well-documented books that show him as a 'real' person? I do agree with you that Jesus left a mark on history and that mark is very real.

As to calling Christianity a myth, yes they are doing that. But may I suggest that maybe you need to go back to school and read some material that is not written by an apologist, but by someone who has no axe to grind as far as Christianity is concerned and expose yourself to a different point of view?

 

[maggie2]

Is the Bible true...depends on who you ask. Some will say that it is completely inerrant, pure fact and can't be questioned. Others will say it has some truth to it, but many of the stories are to be interpreted as metaphorical or allegorical.

There is not a definitive answer to your question, as truth is in the eye of the beholder. I spent 35 years as a Baptist. I am now a deist, so you do the math! Once science starts demonstrating certain things that are an obvious contradiction to Holy Book X, I have to go with the science. For example, we know that the earth is not the center of the solar system or universe. There was a point in history where the Church would burn you for making such a statement.

You say: Is the Bible true...depends on who you ask. I totally agree with you on that. I also agree that truth is in the eye of the beholder. It must have been a tough road for you to come out of a fairly conservative Christian background and find your thinking changing so drastically. Can I ask it this happened over a long period of time or was it just one day it was clear to you? If you don't want to answer that question I understand. I'm just a curious old bird.

I agree that the church would have burned those who said the earth was not the center of the universe. In fact, I believe that they may have done that to a couple of poor souls.

As to deism, I took a really hard look at it and found it quite interesting. I'd love to discuss it further sometime in a different thread.

 

[nazz]

I agree totally with your statement, "the Bible contains truth rather than the Bible is true". When you say it's not necessarily true in a historical literal sense I also agree with that. Unfortunately, there are many who would disagree and they have a right to their own opinions.

I took the time to read through most of the article you cite. I notice that it is hosted on a squarely Christian web site so that would seem to me to make it biased to some degree. I could, but am not going to, go find other articles that would suggest just the opposite to what this one is saying. There will always be arguments for and against any given idea/concept/thinking and we could go on forever quoting back and forth on this topic. You and the person who wrote that article have a right to your opinions, however, from my research I beg to disagree with you and them.

Just because it is a Christian site does not mean it is automatically biased nor does a book that makes those types of claims necessarily unbiased. The site is well written, acknowledges when seeming parallels do exist, and most importantly has tons of scholarly references to support it. The problem with these types of claims is that they are usually not supported in ancient literature. But if you know of something that does support those claims by all means present it.

 

[nazz]

While I respect your point of view, I do disagree with your conclusions. Apart from the Bible can you point me to any well-documented books that show him as a 'real' person? I do agree with you that Jesus left a mark on history and that mark is very real.

As to calling Christianity a myth, yes they are doing that. But may I suggest that maybe you need to go back to school and read some material that is not written by an apologist, but by someone who has no axe to grind as far as Christianity is concerned and expose yourself to a different point of view?

Are you aware there are plenty of anti-Christian axes being ground out there?

 

[Pegg]

While I respect your point of view, I do disagree with your conclusions. Apart from the Bible can you point me to any well-documented books that show him as a 'real' person? I do agree with you that Jesus left a mark on history and that mark is very real.

As to calling Christianity a myth, yes they are doing that. But may I suggest that maybe you need to go back to school and read some material that is not written by an apologist, but by someone who has no axe to grind as far as Christianity is concerned and expose yourself to a different point of view?

The bible was not written by apologists. It was written by eye witnesses to the events.

Thats where i get my information from.