The Jesus Similarities

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

Thanks for jumping into this mess. It will need a steady head. Usually, I don't usually frontally assault a person's logic, but this is one of the exceptions.

TheCelestialHuman,


You place your faith in Jesus, someone who sounds so similar to the 5 previously mentioned characters. Everyone can't be right, and considering these other characters predated Jesus, your theism is probably wrong. At this point there is not much of a case for Jesus, or at least in my opinion.
You are advancing the proposition, apparently, that because Jesus sounds like five other characters, He is not real. What?!? Even if your premises are granted, your conclusion doesn't follow. And I'm denying your statement that Jesus was similar to the five other characters and asking you to provide some evidence other than your say-so.


So from here, I will leave it to the people of ATS. I would like to add one last thing:
As an atheist, it is not my job to prove or disprove god, as it simply cannot be done.
But, as a theist, it is your job to show why your theism is correct.
Are you really saying that proving or disproving God is impossible so you won't try it, but theists have to prove God? Again, What?!?

Well if you can't disprove God then you must entertain the possibility that He exists. If you do, then you can't be an atheist.

Do you want to start over, TheCelestialHuman, or can we salvage this?

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


The O.P. lost a lot of credibility with that opening, but only made it worse by claiming that atheists by definition have no beliefs. We can grant some leeway on the language and presume on the O.P.'s behalf that what was meant was that atheists have no belief one way or the other about the existence of God, but even this benefit of the doubt casts much doubt on the O.P.'s ability to reason. It would be one thing if the O.P. were agnostic, but instead the O.P. is declaring atheism, but either has no understanding of the word, or is just plain deceitful about it. Either way, the O.P. has no credibility.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   


The O.P. lost a lot of credibility with that opening, but only made it worse by claiming that atheists by definition have no beliefs. We can grant some leeway on the language and presume on the O.P.'s behalf that what was meant was that atheists have no belief one way or the other about the existence of God, but even this benefit of the doubt casts much doubt on the O.P.'s ability to reason. It would be one thing if the O.P. were agnostic, but instead the O.P. is declaring atheism, but either has no understanding of the word, or is just plain deceitful about it. Either way, the O.P. has no credibility.

Definition of Atheist


a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

It is a disbelief by its very definition. Therefore, your wrong, atheism is not a belief.




Are you really saying that proving or disproving God is impossible so you won't try it, but theists have to prove God? Again, What?!? Well if you can't disprove God then you must entertain the possibility that He exists. If you do, then you can't be an atheist. Do you want to start over, TheCelestialHuman, or can we salvage this? With respect, Charles1952

It is not currently possible for anyone to prove or disprove the existence of a god. I take the stance that there is no god, and everything works without that assumption. I never said theists have to prove god, but I asked for a theist to prove why their theism is more correct than another theism. For example, why is Christianity any more true than Islam, or any other theism for that matter.. Please quit taking me out of context.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
They are clearly all the same story; ultimately we are fated in this realm, when we die we are fated to the next realm; however, "one" died and by virtue of who he was, crossed over from Hell to Heaven to sit at the right hand of GOD. GOD wants us to join him in his realm and so he is offering all of us a means in which we can enter His Kingdom, through His sacrifice; Christ returned and we now know "the way". Ultimately, I believe GOD would like to reside here with us, through us; we are not yet complete enough to carry such a divinity and keep our current egos, but that will all change one day; a cleansing or sorts, those that can will and those that cannot will simply cross over never to return (however far they can proceed across Hell on their own personal journey)

Our History is fed to us, to a certain extent it is written for our own personal foundation. There is no question that what was, what is, and what is to become is being manipulated, yet all those uncannily similar stories are speaking the same thing.

As perplexing as the stories are similar, I equally find it fascinating that the story of the "child", the "birth", the "wise men", the "death" and the "ressurrection" are all above us, projected down to us from the Heavens. A story here is a story up there! Heaven is parallel to us in our quest even if we are different of opinion, status, or any other dissimilar nature we are pre-disposed to.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


Disbelief in something is a belief, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that. It was abundantly clear from your O.P. you have beliefs, and now here you are desperately playing (poorly) games of semantics.

You presume too much for anyone to take you out of "context". Your "context" is too broad and general to be taken seriously.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


If you plot it on a linegraph, Like I did for some odd reason between wake and sleep last night, it does make sense.

Theist is positive belief, agnostic hangs more around the origin, and athiest is a belief in the negative.

Bah formatting messed up the linegraph I typed out. Oh well here is what it should have looked like...
edit on Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:25:18 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


Disbelief in something is a belief, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.


Yes and also

bald is a hair colour and not collecting stamps is a hobby



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by racasan

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


Disbelief in something is a belief, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.


Yes and also

bald is a hair colour and not collecting stamps is a hobby


Atheism Definition:


One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


Since one can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, then the only way to possibly avoid holding a belief on the matter is to remain agnostic - there might be a God, there might not, I don't know (agnosticism) - disbelief in God is the belief there is no God.

Deny Ignorance!



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by charles1952
 


The O.P. lost a lot of credibility with that opening, but only made it worse by claiming that atheists by definition have no beliefs. We can grant some leeway on the language and presume on the O.P.'s behalf that what was meant was that atheists have no belief one way or the other about the existence of God, but even this benefit of the doubt casts much doubt on the O.P.'s ability to reason. It would be one thing if the O.P. were agnostic, but instead the O.P. is declaring atheism, but either has no understanding of the word, or is just plain deceitful about it. Either way, the O.P. has no credibility.

Semantically, you are right of course, that's why I , a former Christian of all denominations, even born again Brotherhood and rebaptised, prefer to be agnostic. Of course, in case I am wrong and the Christian God exists, I'll rot and burn in hell eternally - unless I manage to strike a deal with Satan ...
Moreover, I think your statement that the OP has no credibility is unfounded, because it hangs on mere semantical technicality. I could settle on the OP loosing some credibility, like maybe 10 or 20 percent.

More ontopic I have come to the same conclusion lately, namely that the Jesus character is fictional and that he is modeled through religious syncretism, i.e. many myths of the time from different cultures all fused in one person.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by WalterRatlos
 


TheCelestialHuman doesn't seem to want to take advantage of the $1000 offer. May I suggest you look into it and win the prize before he does?
From your post:

More ontopic I have come to the same conclusion lately, namely that the Jesus character is fictional and that he is modeled through religious syncretism, i.e. many myths of the time from different cultures all fused in one person.

signature:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Carl Sagan


So you seem to agree with TheCelestialHuman that Jesus is fictional and was cretaed by combining existing myths from all over the world. That's an extraordinary claim, but to win the $1000 all you need is strong evidence that those myths actually existed before Jesus was born. I'm sure you have some evidence.

Go check out the site and let us know how you do.

As far as the OP losing credibility, I expressed my major problem like this:

You are advancing the proposition, apparently, that because Jesus sounds like five other characters, He is not real. What?!? Even if your premises are granted, your conclusion doesn't follow. And I'm denying your statement that Jesus was similar to the five other characters and asking you to provide some evidence other than your say-so.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Source material please



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

The problem with your argument, asking me to show evidence that these stories were around prior to Jesus, is that you yourself do not have conclusive evidence to support the bible or Jesus as a real person.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 

Dear TheCelestialHuman,

My apologies for not writing more clearly, I can see where I've confused you. May I try again? And if I make a mistake, let me know.

My understanding was that your OP wanted to do two things. One, was to start a discussion on which form of deism is better. Of course the answer is whichever one is closer to the truth. That requires that the people discussing it can come to a conclusion on what the truth is. I don't suspect that is possible.

I'm a Christian. That is the result of reading and discussing the subject over many years. I just don't happen to want to explain my reasons now, especially not in a hostile forum.

Two, you wanted to make the point that Jesus was fictional, He was a combination of different myths, and that you knew what the similarities were. Hence, the title of the thread. I don't happen to accept the idea that those similarities exist. I offered a link to a site that specializes in looking at the similarities, some are discussed there that you didn't bring up.

As one example, people citing similarities say that the god they're looking at was born of a virgin, and was bodily resurrected. The site in question simply asks people to show a book or a photograph or similar evidence that that belief existed before Jesus' time.

I'm not making any argument, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply suggesting that the things you may have been told about these "similarities" are not true. Your argument would be strengthened, I think, by checking sites such as the one I suggested.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Okay, I have done some more digging around, and it seems that you were right, there is no evidence to support these stories prior to Jesus. I'll share what I learned from one particular source:




The arguments of the "syncretist case" illustrates the logical fallacy of first cause: mere coincidence or similarity does not prove dependence or causal connection; Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mystery religions are either exaggerated or simply false; there are no other crucified and resurrected saviors besides Jesus Christ; The chronology is wrong: almost all of our sources of information for supposed Christian "parallels" with pagan religions are very late (i.e. post-Christian); these include Adonis (2nd to 5th century AD); Attis (5th century AD); Mithras (late 1st century AD and beyond); the "crucified" Orpheus amulet (3rd or 4th century AD, but probably a fake); the "resurrection and ascension" of Krishna (the complete text known from the 1st century AD); this is too late for the New Testament writers themselves to have been influenced by such accounts; the full development of the mystery religions occurred in the 2nd century and later (with the exception of the Greek Dionysos) and we must distinguish between the different forms of the cults; the later forms are not necessarily present in the earlier forms; The apostles would not have borrowed from the pagan religions since their training and background was in Judaism (Phil 3:5); they rejected the alien speculations of syncretism and gnosticism (Col 2:7-8; 1 Tim 4:1-5; 1 John 4:1-6); any genuine parallels that exist reflect an ascendant Christian influence on the dying pagan systems; furthermore, since Jesus, His apostles, and many of their first disciples were all Jews, Christianity's doctrinal roots, rituals, and liturgy lay in Judaism not paganism; Christianity is a monotheistic religion (one God) and an exclusive faith (John 14:6; Acts 4:12) with a definite body of doctrine (the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the sacraments, one revelation from God through Christ to His apostles passed on through Scripture and Tradition, an apostolic succession and hierarchy of bishops to safeguard that doctrine, etc); The religion of the apostles and their successors was grounded in events that actually happened in history at a particular place and time (the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth); the mysticism and mythology of the mystery cults was essentially non-historical.


So, it seems most of my argument has fallen. I will still cling to the fact that there is not much evidence to support the claims of Jesus or the claims of the Bible either. It is still a possibility (However, it is unlikely) that we will find evidence that may support my claims in the future- for example, they may find older historically accurate documents that predate Jesus, that make some of these similar claims. The same thing happens every now and then with biblical documents, like lost gospels and such. But, for now I will give up the argument that these figures similar stories predated Jesus. You were right, I was wrong.
damn, it is hard admitting defeat.

Thanks for denying my ignorance.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





My understanding was that your OP wanted to do two things. One, was to start a discussion on which form of deism is better. Of course the answer is whichever one is closer to the truth. That requires that the people discussing it can come to a conclusion on what the truth is. I don't suspect that is possible.

Now that I realize I was wrong on Jesus being a combination of many mythical figures predating him, could you perhaps give me some reasons why you think your theism is more true than other theism's?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman

1. Krishna: Krishna was born without sexual union, through mental transmission.

How cool is that and fits the pregnant from the Holy Spirit myth.

Originally posted by TheCelestialHuman
Krishna and Jesus were of royal decent.

I don't know about Krishna, but for Jesus to be of royal decent, Mary would have to be of royal decent, too, but both Evangelists, Mathew and Luke, trace the decent line for Josef and since they report nothing about Mary's decent, Jesus cannot be of royal decent, unless you want to argue that technically the Holy Ghost is royalty.

2. Zoroaster:

Doesn't surprise me at all since the ancient Hebrews were in captivity in Babylon for quite some time and many never left. And in the time of the supposed birth of Jesus the whole area was ruled by Macedonians and the Jesus people would be acquainted with the Zoroaster myth.

3. Dionysus: He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.”

Well, he could not have been King of Kings and God of Gods, that was Zeus for most of the people in ancient Greece. Of course, his followers would use such title in their zeal to show that their God is even bigger than Zeus. Blasphemy, I say!

4. Attis: Attis was born on December 25th of a virgin.

That is probably one reason for Christianity celebrating Christmas on that day. That and another important Roman pagan festival celebrated on that day.

5. Horus: Only Begotten son of god, born of a virgin.

Well, seems to have most resemblance to Jesus so far, provided it can be proven to be true scientifically. Also, Egypt was quite near; traffic would have been much easier as compared to Babylon or India. I am surprised that you included only these 5; there are many more. Also, the theory that the myth is based on astrology - the sun (note: the sun equals son wordlplay works only in English and the Bible was not written in English) as Jesus and the 12 zodiac signs as the disciples - is quite plausible for me.

Now, taking into account all of this information, how is it that Jesus's story is any more true than the others. The stories are strikingly similar, especially the stories of Horus and Krishna. It seems as if The story of Jesus, may in fact be a compilation of all of these stories. Doesn't it seem likely that the four writer's of the gospels had heard these stories and used them and the prophecies in the old testament to create this Jesus character?

I one word: syncretism; it means that various religious beliefs from different cultures get fused into one. Especially, when living under permanent occupation for many centuries. It happened with the Assyrians and later with the Greek Macedonians, too.

To the Christians of ATS:

What? No love for agnostics? Does ex-Christian count?
Yeah, been there, done that and I have the scars to prove it. Of course, if am wrong and there is a Christian God, I'll rot and burn in hell for ever and ever. I'd be in good company though, what with all the rock stars being there, not to mention my beloved late brother who got excommunicated early in puberty.


What makes Jesus any more real than these other people?

If I had absolutely to believe in God or gods I would choose the Ancient Greek pantheon. 12 major Goods, six male and six female, and father Zeus was such a womanizer. How cool is that


What makes your holy book anymore true than the many other holy books out there?

Nothing, but you failed to mention that this holy scripture has come down to us through translation of a translation of yet another translation.

What makes your god any more real than the thousands of other gods?

Absolutely nothing, of course. Does that make the Big Bang theory more plausible, I don't know but I kind of doubt it. See, science can tell us what supposedly happened seconds after the bang, but about the singularity that caused it, it can tell us nothing much, since time and space did not exist until it banged.

Which seems more plausible: God created many men, or man created many gods?

I think anthropology has solved that riddle and it's the latter. Religion developed through ancestor worship initially and evolved through syncretism subsequently.

As an atheist, it is not my job to prove or disprove god, as it simply cannot be done.
But, as a theist, it is your job to show why your theism is correct.

Ok, let me get this straight: you are inviting theists to proselytize you or are you just trying to proselytize them? Both are equally non-sensical to me. And are you an atheist or are you agnostic?
edit on 1/6/2012 by WalterRatlos because: spelling



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 

Dear TheCelstialHuman,

Hey, we're supposed to be here for each other. I know I learn from being here.

I agree with you on the thinness (Is that a word?) of the evidence for the Biblical claims. It's one of those where you have to think about it and decide whether you want to believe it or not. I agree with you that we're not likely to find rock-solid "proof."

I enjoy reading the works of people (from the Greeks on) who have thought about God, and looked for what made sense and what didn't. People are still doing that today. If there was proof, the discussion would have ended a long time ago.

Anyway, this was a good experience for me, thank you. Let's get together again sometime.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by racasan

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TheCelestialHuman
 


Disbelief in something is a belief, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.


Yes and also

bald is a hair colour and not collecting stamps is a hobby


Atheism Definition:


One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


Since one can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, then the only way to possibly avoid holding a belief on the matter is to remain agnostic - there might be a God, there might not, I don't know (agnosticism) - disbelief in God is the belief there is no God.

Deny Ignorance!



I think the problem is you are trying to make the word ‘belief’ do the work of the word ‘faith’ otherwise I have to ask are you agnostic on the question of Santa Claus?


The word atheist contains the word theist and one of the things which defines theism is that it must have a revelation from the god(s) you are asked to have >faith< in (in the case of Christianity or Islam that’s a book) – so if I think the revelations of all the theistic religions are just as unbelievable as the Santa Claus story then I guess that makes me a none-theist or a not-a-theist

Thinking about it, since there are a few theistic religions and I don’t have any faith in any of them then perhaps I am a poly-none-theist or a poly-not-a-theist



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Where there is no faith there is no belief.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Perhaps you might like to expand on this a bit

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by racasan
 


Where there is no faith there is no belief.


Any way I think the problem is that the god question can be looked at in two ways

Theism – some god(s) made the universe and rule over it and gave that universe a revelation of its existence (the bible or whatever) and it requires constant praise and its earthly representatives require money

Deism – some god(s) stated the universe and then left it to get on and evolve in its own way (or some variation on that theme) – but there is absolutely no revelations or supernatural ‘stuff’ involved in Deism


So for me
Theism – just as silly as Santa
Deism – well it’s possible but I’m going to wait and see if there is any evidence for it (i have found none so far)






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join