The Jesus Similarities

reply to post by racasan

I fear you will get accused of being lazy, because he has clearly stated that any -ism is a belief. But not all -isms are irrational like belief in the magic tooth faerie or Santa or *gulp* Jesus H. Christ. And I believe what best describes you is a believer in syncretism in major world religions. Personally, I think and have already stated so that this is just a semantics game, like splitting hairs, you know?

Originally posted by WalterRatlos
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

Neither, I guess. I used to carry my cat when he was a kitten like that and sometimes I still do, although not that often and not that long since he is much heavier now. I did not turn to Jesus or Apollo yet? Besides dogs don't count, it has to be a lamb.

My point was of course that similarity is not sameness.

A guy with a lamb around his neck would be a very common sight...
...that Jesus and Apollo are depicted this way is no proof of either identity or confusion.

Similarly with the woman and child...
...there would possibly be no more common sight...
...I have a similar photograph of myself with my mother.

I really think these graphic/pictorial appeal to some emotional proof have no real historical value.

reply to post by troubleshooter


Thank you for clearing that up for me. I so totally missed your point. I thought you were mocking the believers. See that's the problem with irony and or sarcasm in written word, sometimes it is not clear cut and needs clarification.

My problem with all this is. If some guy, jesus or anyone else. Had of fed thousands, with a loaf of bread and a couple of fish. Or had walked on water, changed water into wine ect ect. Then every one who was alive then, would have been talking or writing about these events. There should be hundreds if not thousands of documents stating this. Instead we only have a couple of people, who do mention these events and no one else.
Then I look at todays churchs. Millions of pounds worth of buildings and the pope (a reformed nazi) who lives in a palace waited on hand an foot. Whilst the poor people of this earth starve and die all over the world.
This god does not seem to care if we starve to death, while his clergy are living like kings in palaces.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

the christian story was created by the roman empire to create social cohesion in the empire – the holy roman catholic (catholic meaning universal) church seems to have tried to merge all or most of the religions available in the empire at that time into a whole, the Jesus bits are most likely included to cover people who followed some kind of sun worship

edit on 2-6-2012 by racasan because: (no reason given)

The Christian "story" was written by the Romans? Do you truly like to believe lies so easily?
The New Testament was written by Judeans. So please tell me where the Romans wrote any of scripture? Please stop confusing scripture with what the RCC did, which was most definitely bringing in of pagan practices and pagan rituals into their new brand of religion called Catholicism. And guess what? None of it is found within scripture - no idols, no sun imagery, no Queen of Heaven etc. The Christian "story" is from the beginning of Genesis to the last page of the NT.

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
My problem with all this is. If some guy, jesus or anyone else. Had of fed thousands, with a loaf of bread and a couple of fish. Or had walked on water, changed water into wine ect ect. Then every one who was alive then, would have been talking or writing about these events. There should be hundreds if not thousands of documents stating this. Instead we only have a couple of people, who do mention these events and no one else.

I think that in a world of instant social media it can be easy to forget...
...that these events happened in a world where most were illiterate and there were language barriers.

The question should be asked, how in such a world did these stories survive at all?

Then I look at todays churchs. Millions of pounds worth of buildings and the pope (a reformed nazi) who lives in a palace waited on hand an foot. Whilst the poor people of this earth starve and die all over the world.
This god does not seem to care if we starve to death, while his clergy are living like kings in palaces.

Spiritual realities have extroadinary power and men love power...
...I don't think Catholicism represents original Christian events...
...although it has played a role in maintaining and transmitting the documents that survived.

Even a person who opposes a think helps it to survive by maintaining one side of a debate.

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
My problem with all this is. If some guy, jesus or anyone else. Had of fed thousands, with a loaf of bread and a couple of fish. Or had walked on water, changed water into wine ect ect. Then every one who was alive then, would have been talking or writing about these events. There should be hundreds if not thousands of documents stating this. Instead we only have a couple of people, who do mention these events and no one else.
Then I look at todays churchs. Millions of pounds worth of buildings and the pope (a reformed nazi) who lives in a palace waited on hand an foot. Whilst the poor people of this earth starve and die all over the world.
This god does not seem to care if we starve to death, while his clergy are living like kings in palaces.

But why can you not separate a mega church with its Starbucks from a Christian in the slums of our cities feeding the hungry and spreading the true gospel message of the Kingdom of God? Do you do this to other subjects as well? There is a difference, but if you lump everyone together than you prefer to let lies dictate your beliefs. That Christian actually doing the work of God is well aware of his 'brethren' putting on their best suits once a week only to go back to their sinful lives during the week, but he doesn't let that image dictate his reality for his job is to preach the gospel message and do God's will. That Christian is well aware that he will be tarred and feathered with the same beliefs as you express because he knows that many have never learned to love truth, only lies, and that man in his rebellious state will use any excuse to avoid recognising that they are accountable to God.

You may believe that God doesn't care, but if you only knew that we are currently experiencing His judgements because it falls on His House first, then perhaps you'd have another view. His Portion is Israel, and they are to do His Will on Earth, but as throughout scripture, they easily succumb to temptations and sin that render them in rebellion. Look around at the great grand kids of once Christian grandparents, living it up whilst fully buying the myth that their Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus was just some amalgamation of ancient legends which have no evidence pre Christ. But what do you do when a rebellious heart refuses to acknowledge that and prefers to believe Internet page after Internet page that is only there to lead them away? The OP shows that he does love truth, for he started a thread with proof in his mind that all of that information was convincing, yet he was able to step back and question why he believed such information when there is no evidence preChrist that any of it existed. A truthful heart has to question whether or not his beliefs come from erroneous and deceitful information. Then it has to question why it's only over every form of media on this day and age. As a Christian, I'll tell you that we have been in the great falling away from God whereby the 'man of lawlessness' is being revealed, the modern day 'Nephiliam' who had believer fathers and unbelieving mothers. These children grew up thinking that they were as gods, rebellious hearts only wanting to fight for evil things that they were taught to be 'good'. What was, will be again. I pray for the OP to see this, to understand that the Godless last generations have been born and that they have been suckered by deception into the beliefs that they hold. Repent for the Kingdom of God is here! Jesus won't be returning to offer salvation but to JUDGE MANKIND.

reply to post by WhoKnows100

Agreed: the Romans and primarily Emperor Constantine did not invent the Christian religion he just adopted it and usurped it out of political pragmatism and sheer necessity according to some. I remember something about many soldiers in his army being Christians or it was simply that being pragmatic he realized that you could not eradicate that stubborn Jewish sect, so best to legalize it. Although during his lifetime Christianity was legalized and the persecution of Christians ended, it was one of many, many religions tolerated in the vast empire. Nevertheless, he was baptized only on his deathbed in the false assumption that baptism shortly before death would send him to heaven and not to hell. It was a few years later that Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the sole state religion which sparked a lot of destruction of pagan temples and the shutdown of the oracles of Delphi and Dodoni. And while he did not order any of those destructions directly, he certainly did nothing to prevent them.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
But why can you not separate a mega church with its Starbucks from a Christian in the slums of our cities feeding the hungry and spreading the true gospel message of the Kingdom of God?

Why is that so special, atheists and agnostics do it all the time and without shoving their belief down the poor peoples throat. And as far as Christian denominations go, I see a lot of blame laid on the Catholic church and never is the Orthodox church blamed, though they are equally far astray from the original Jesus message. And as far as proselytizing (convincing people to convert) is concerned, I never did like it even as a born again Christian. Can you imagine major guilt trips because of this?

Repent the end is here already? I don't think so! The Antichrist is already here, but remains hidden for the time being? Possible, but not probable IMHO, unless you are like that former US president who had a direct red phone line to God and God told him to kill many, many Iraqis and Arabs and Muslim in general, and he told you so unmistakably. And the "Nephilim" had believer fathers and unbeliever mothers? I thought their fathers were fallen angels and hence the explanation for the race of giants which had to be destroyed by the flood, but miraculously survived till the Hebrews returned from their supposed flight of Egypt into the promised land of Canaan. And their mothers were simply human women; it doesn't say as far as I remember that they were infidels.

reply to post by TheCelestialHuman


1. Krishna is the 8th avatar of Vishnu. He was not born of a virgin, but of a union between Devaki and her husband Vasudeva, while they were imprisoned. He was never crucified. He was shot in the foot by a hunter who mistook his foot for the face of a deer. Vedic literature was severely syncretized by the British, because their attempt to colonize reached its biggest obstacle in the love people had for Krishna. Hence, the intended mistranslations.

2. Zarathusti, the prophet of Ahura Mazda. The Avesta scriptures do delicately refer to his mother having sex with her husband Pourushaspa to conceive him, and only later on did it become this idea of a "virgin birth" or "shaft of light". He was not baptized in a river, but received revelation beside a river.

3. Dionysius, look further back than Dionysius/Bacchus and you will find the god Dummuzi/Tammuz. He was not considered to be any of what you've said. He was the beautiful god of frenzied ritual ecstacy and pleasure/pain. There are two similarities here, though: He is refered to as the Shepherd, and he is a dying/resurrecting god. BUT: there are many and they die in numerous ways.

4. Attis, the self-castrating god? Nowhere is it mentioned that he was born on the 25th of December. It is a rather narrow field of study, since the cult of Attis is really a sub-cult of Cybele.

OK, now we have that out of the way - Horus is the one you should be looking at. In the Book of the Dead, you will find Horus being baptized by Anubis at the 8th portal, just as Jesus was baptized by John. So, if we carry this a little further, and we see that Judaism is inherited from the Hyksos and their sole worship of Set, we have ourselves something very interesting....

Originally posted by troubleshooter

My point was of course that similarity is not sameness.

But in both cases the picture in question is a representation of a god and so anything in that picture is going to be rich with meaning - the lamb around the neck thing symbolises Kriophoroi and "The Good Shepherd" in one case for the god Apollo and in the other for Jesus and so its probably not a fashion statement or just a picture of a guy with a lazy sheep


en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

The Christian "story" was written by the Romans? Do you truly like to believe lies so easily?

Spotting lies is tricky but spotting myth is easy and the whole bible god/Jesus thing is nothing but myth

As for the sun god thing:
If the character is associated with any of the equinoxes or solstices of the year has 12 companions or labours or some such and is said to have appeared when the precession of the equinoxes makes the sun appear to have changed the constellation it rises in on the spring equinox (2000 years ago the sun started rising in the constellation of Pisces)
Then the character is probably a sun god


en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by TheCelestialHuman


Here's some detailed info for you, Celestial. This subject has tons of proponents here on ATS. While I'm glad to see someone else bringing it up again, I'd like to steer you to one particular thread that can augment your studies...
complements of member autowrench, a definite authority on the subject in terms of scholarly digging....
The Origins of the King James Bible and the New Testament, and the Forgery, and Pagan influences in ,

reply to post by WalterRatlos

Dear WalterRatlos,

I'm sorry I've been so long getting back to you, but I was called away for some chores. Perhaps you have lost interest in continuing, but on the chance that you haven't, let me try an approach that I think will be more acceptable. First, though, may I clear away some underbrush of misunderstanding?

I didn't intend to offer you Pascal's Wager as an argument for belief. I was trying to convey the idea that either atheism or theism made more sense to me than sitting on the agnostic fence, not caring which is true. It seems a fundamental question which each individual should answer as part of the foundation of their lives.

I used to believe in him but fortunately I remembered soon enough and choose to believe Marx instead who said: "Religion is opium for the masses!"

I take this to mean that you have made a conscious decision not to believe in God, and that I misinterpreted your earlier statement about not caring wether there was a God or not.

The other piece of brush that seems to be important to you is the solicitation question. Perhaps I simply have a different understanding of the word and am willing to stand corrected. I did not ask you to buy anything or spend any money, nor did I suggest you sign a petition, support any candidate, or do anything except go to a website that contained information relevant to our topic. The website offers $1000 if anyone can fulfill certain conditions but you are free to ignore that. I don't see where solicitation comes in to it.

you can start here I can't find my favorite one at the moment but this is just as good and a good start.

I did look at it and I'm grateful for the tip. Among other things I got the name Bart D. Ehrman from it. I'll tell you about one of his books in a minute.

Judging from your username your are 8 years older than me so it won't take long for one of us to find out the real truth of this matter.

Yep, I'm turning 60 this year, so I'll trouble you to have some respect for your elders, you young whippersnapper. (What is a whippersnapper?)

During a short 2 months time I realized two things: Jesus was a hippie revolutionary

Excellent. Then we can start with the presumption that there actually was a Jesus who was at least a role model to a different kind of life. Mr. Ehrman supports you position. Among other books he wrote Forged to support his view that the Bible is full of forgeries and errors. On Page 285 of his book he wrote:

One of the striking and, to many people, surprising facts about the first century is that we don’t have any Roman records,of any kind, that attest to the existence of Jesus. We have no birth certificate, no references to his words or deeds, no accounts of his trial, no descriptions of his death—no reference to him whatsoever in any way, shape, or form. Jesus’s name is not even mentioned in any Roman source of the first century. This doesnot mean, as is now being claimed with alarming regularity, that Jesus never existed. He certainly existed, as virtually every com-petent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence. But as with the vast majority of all persons who lived and died in the first century, he does not appear in the records of the Roman people.

www.scribd.com...

One other thing that really struck me was this:

About dating in the bible in general you have to distinguish between Christian apologetic dating and scientific, historical dating. Christian apologetics try to convince us that the gospels were already in circulation before or about the same time as the letters of Paul, but the scientific evidence, meaning surviving manuscripts, just isn't there.

Do you mean to say that the date of surviving manuscripts should be considered the date of composition? That's a standard not generally used.

As you said earlier

so it won't take long for one of us to find out the real truth of this matter.

I am looking forward to exploring this with you.

(By the way, can you figure out a route to take, an explorer's map, as we surch for truth. Some people spend their lives on it, I'd rather not, thank you.)

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by windword

 

I do think you're being a bit unfair to TheCelestialHuman. He did some digging and changed his mind.

No, he hasn't done the "digging." I am insulted by the intent, or lack thereof, of the OP, and think I'm being led into a trap, set perhaps by people in cahoots with some quasi Christian/Catholic ball busters.

However.......Talk to me about Alexander the Great and all the soldiers, craftsmen. superstitious wives and servants that were colonized and migrated throughout the dominions he founded; the melting pot of beliefs, myths, fables and parables, superstitions and wives tales that seeped throughout peoples reality.

What were the religions de jour? Isn't it convenient that the "holy" text supposes that Jesus fits the bill of previous so called prophecies that were in reality a history of gods and their mythologies. Talk to me about Paul/Saul and his Mithra allegiance. How neatly it all ties in!

Talk to me about the Roman methods of educating their masses. Bread and circuses, provided by a government, that hired actors to perform the newsworthy stories, calm worries, re-enact religeous tragic and heroic tales and promote propaganda, that were used to homogenize the differences between the people and gave everyone a little sugar.

Talk to me about how the RCC set out to destroy any conflicting texts and murder the dissenting voices.

Sell me your bridge, forget tons of evidence, I'll settle for pounds and I promise to give you 1/3 of the money I earn for proving your point. Please don't hit and run.

I have no interest in straightening out your thinking. Why would I go to the effort of writing a thesis worthy of this website's attention, to share 2/3's a feeble promise of reward with you? I'm insulted, but not baited, by the intellectuals here that think they can do a quick smoke and mirrors act to perpetuate the myth that Christianity is pure and original.

which god figure was fastened to a cross and died there?

The cross was the torture de jour. The Assyrians used to skin their rebels alive and parade them through the streets in cages to scare their populations into submission.

Another poster, here in this thread showed you the symbolism of the cross, and it isn't unique to Christianity either. The Egyptian ankh comes to mind as does the caduceus. We are all nailed to this cross. It's the deal we made before we incarnated here. All life is sacrificed for new life. It's law of nature to devour life.

Blood sacrifice was not unique. Human sacrifice was not unique. God sacrifice was not unique. for example, the myth of the Nommo provides for sacrifice, the waters of the spirit, ie: walking on water, parting the seas, and baptism. Also feeding the masses fish and cereal, as the Nommo taught about the use of grains and bread making. The last supper and the Eucharist are all embodied in the mythology of the Nommo.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Nommos descended from the sky in a vessel accompanied by fire and thunder. After arriving, the Nommos created a reservoir of water and subsequently dove into the water. The Dogon legends state that the Nommos required a watery environment in which to live. According to the myth related to Griaule and Dieterlen: "The Nommo divided his body among men to feed them; that is why it is also said that as the universe "had drunk of his body," the Nommo also made men drink. He gave all his life principles to human beings."

www.africaspeaks.com...

Emma Ya Tolo is the female twin of the Po. The Dogon say that she is the 'Mother of Cereal Grains' and the 'Guardian of the Feminine Essence'.

Prove to me that your Jesus actually died on that cross, because, I don't think he did. Scripture has him up and about, eating drinking and talking.

Prove to me that his reluctantly crucified person was a blood sacrifice to an angry god to purchase my sins and pay for my salvation.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by WalterRatlos

 

Dear WalterRatlos,

I'm sorry I've been so long getting back to you, but I was called away for some chores. Perhaps you have lost interest in continuing, but on the chance that you haven't, let me try an approach that I think will be more acceptable. First, though, may I clear away some underbrush of misunderstanding?

Dear charles1952,
don't sweat it and no, I haven't lost interest yet.

I didn't intend to offer you Pascal's Wager as an argument for belief. I was trying to convey the idea that either atheism or theism made more sense to me than sitting on the agnostic fence, not caring which is true. It seems a fundamental question which each individual should answer as part of the foundation of their lives.

I used to believe in him but fortunately I remembered soon enough and choose to believe Marx instead who said: "Religion is opium for the masses!"

I take this to mean that you have made a conscious decision not to believe in God, and that I misinterpreted your earlier statement about not caring wether there was a God or not.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with Pascal's Wager, but I'll look into it. And you might find the next statement to be a bit cryptic, but trust me it fits: between black and white there are infinite shades of gray. Krishnamurti said on the matter of the existence of God (paraphrased, not an exact quote): "If you answer yes, then you have blocked yourself; same goes for no, but if you answer "I don't no, let's find out" then you can truly progress and have a meaningful discourse on the matter. For me - while I respect the religious belief of anyone - the more honest stance for a non-believer is that of the agnostic, since you can neither prove or disprove the existence of God.

Yes, you misinterpreted something, probably because you had too little information to go by. I was raised Greek Orthodox, was even an altar boy for about two years, and later during early puberty I got to know and join a protestant German church named the "Church of the Brotherhood" and was baptized as a born again Christian at the age of 16, much to the disappointment of my parents who disapproved this decision. I abandoned and renounced Christianity as described in my previous post at the age of 20.

So, yeah, as I said before elsewhere, been there, done that and I have the scars to prove it. Moreover, I have seen most Christian churches from the far Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Protestants, Baptists, Pentecosts, Methodists I've pretty much seen them all and they all are far removed from the Christianity described in the Gospels and in Acts of the Apostles. They were an early form of communist commune; to join you had to sell everything you owned and bring the cash to the church which provided for the well-being of all. Maybe this was the true reason for the persecutions over the 300 years it took to get established as a recognized religion.

The other piece of brush that seems to be important to you is the solicitation question. Perhaps I simply have a different understanding of the word and am willing to stand corrected. I did not ask you to buy anything or spend any money, nor did I suggest you sign a petition, support any candidate, or do anything except go to a website that contained information relevant to our topic. The website offers $1000 if anyone can fulfill certain conditions but you are free to ignore that. I don't see where solicitation comes in to it.

It's probably a mistaken usage of term on my part, but I am pretty sure offering bets as these are not permitted according to the T&C. I have contacted SkepticOverlord on the matter and will get back to you or maybe he may chime in here and clear things up for us. If my above stated premise is correct, namely that you can prove or disprove the existence of God or Gods than your proposed bet is nonsensical and it is bait, because it's easy money made for you, unless you want to modify the bet to include you proving the existence of God. Then we would be even and no money would change hands. Anyway, I don't bet money on anything as a rule. So, your offer does not make any sense to me. All it does is give you and your fellow believers a form of satisfaction,
in the sense of: "See, he does not accept the bet, so his agnostic or atheist belief is not as firm as he thinks it is!" Hopefully, this all makes sense to you.

(to be continued)

reply to post by charles1952

(continued from previous post):

I did look at it and I'm grateful for the tip. Among other things I got the name Bart D. Ehrman from it. I'll tell you about one of his books in a minute.

Yep, you do that. I was not familiar with him, but read some decent rebuttal to his position, 'cause you know he is a Christian apologist. I will try during the next few days to find the other site, which may have some of that counterpoints to Ehrman. I was stupid not to bookmark it and now I can't remember how I got there in the first place.

Yep, I'm turning 60 this year, so I'll trouble you to have some respect for your elders, you young whippersnapper.

(What is a whippersnapper?)

During a short 2 months time I realized two things: Jesus was a hippie revolutionary

Excellent. Then we can start with the presumption that there actually was a Jesus who was at least a role model to a different kind of life.

No, we can't, because as I stated in the first part of my answer to you this all happened 31 years ago. Since then, I have moved from a strict atheist position to the agnostic position for the reason already stated. P.S.2: I had to look up whippersnapper and I appreciate your humor!

About the quote from the Ehrman book: the only record I would expect to be there is that of the crucifixion, since he was crucified under the charge of sedition as King of the Jews, but even that may have been lost in time like so many other things from the antic.

One other thing that really struck me was this:

About dating in the bible in general you have to distinguish between Christian apologetic dating and scientific, historical dating. Christian apologetics try to convince us that the gospels were already in circulation before or about the same time as the letters of Paul, but the scientific evidence, meaning surviving manuscripts, just isn't there.

Do you mean to say that the date of surviving manuscripts should be considered the date of composition? That's a standard not generally used.

No, I don't mean that, I mean what I said. The earliest surviving copies until something new comes along like the Qumran scrolls. To assume that what has survived in original form is a copy of an original that has been lost in time is just that: an assumption. Likewise to assume that it is original and not a copy is also an assumption. Science - and even the science of Religious studies - deals with mainly with facts and what you can prove with facts, so what we have to work with is what has survived in original form of the Christian Holy scriptures and the earliest are the epistles of Paul. One strange thing also, though I might be mistaken, how come Paul does not quote from the gospels, if the gospels were written before Paul's epistles? I mean, he was still a child when Jesus visited Jerusalem and was finally crucified, so maybe he just did not get to see him and witness him himself, but would he not quote from the gospels which were written based on the personal testimony of his disciples?

As you said earlier

so it won't take long for one of us to find out the real truth of this matter. I am looking forward to exploring this with you.

(By the way, can you figure out a route to take, an explorer's map, as we surch for truth. Some people spend their lives on it, I'd rather not, thank you.)

Pontius Pilatus said: "What is truth?" No, sorry, no map, no directions, just keep looking or as the good book says: "Search and you shall find!" Truth is what you make of it. My truth is good enough for me, but I do not presume that it is good enough for everyone else.

P.S.: found the link to the site was talking earlier, click here!

reply to post by WalterRatlos

Dear WalterRatlos,

Thanks for that new site. There's a lot of stuff there and I'm not sure where to start. I haven't covered it all, and probably never will (There is a LOT.) but I'll get started.

Perhaps I should tell you how I'm approaching this whole thing. I don't believe anything in history (more than about 500 years old) can be "proven" 100% without doubt. In the field of religion I'm not sure I'd want it to be. All I want to do is find out where the majority of the evidence comes down. If it's largely on the side of hypothesis "A," I'll believe that until more evidence comes out.

When it comes to ancient history, I'm sure historians have come up with principles to decide the weight of evidence and I'm inclined to stick with them. I suppose historians' works are also judged. I'll have to look up Kenneth Humphreys and see if the "historian community" has anything to say about him.

I have one other principle which might seem confusing at first. "I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable." We know that in our natural world Jesus' miracles are impossible, yet I believe them. But if you were to tell me that you walked up to Hillary Clinton last week, slapped her on the back, offered her a cigar, and told her "You're hot, babe." I would never believe it, even though it is not impossible, just improbable.

Oh, why didn't Paul write about Jesus' life? One possible reason is that the Gospels are biographies and Paul wasn't writing a biography. The Gospel writers and Paul were dealing with different subjects so it's not too surprising that they wrote past each other.

To assume that what has survived in original form is a copy of an original that has been lost in time is just that: an assumption. Likewise to assume that it is original and not a copy is also an assumption.

If I understand you, I agree completely. But this whole subject area is based on assumptions. Are they reasonable assumptions? The sort historians usually make? Is there some reason to reject the assumption? I seem to remember that the earliest copy of Homer's work is from about 500 years after his death, but we accept it as his poem.

Science - and even the science of Religious studies - deals with mainly with facts and what you can prove with facts,

As I mentioned above, I don't think we'll find 100% rock-hard facts.

With respect (and some anticipation),
Charles1952

Ha! OPer!! You've stumbled upon the "Hero Pattern"!

The Hero Pattern (Could Jesus Be Fake?)

Here is the list of credentials to fit the pattern:

1: The Hero's mother is a royal virgin;
2: His father is a king, and
3: Often a near relative of his mother, but
4: The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5: He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
6: At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7: He his spirited away, and
8: Reared by foster-parents in a far country.
9: We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10: On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
11: After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
12: He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor, and
13: Becomes king.
14: For a time he reigns uneventfully, and
15: Prescribes laws, but
16: Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17: Is driven from the throne and city, after which
18: He meets with a mysterious death,
19: Often at the top of a hill.
20: His children, if any, do not succeed him.
21: His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22: He has one or more holy sepulchres.

"The Hero Pattern: A Study in Myth and Tradition"

reply to post by charles1952


Dear charles1952,

you are quite welcome and it is indeed huge. Also, try to examine anything you read there or anywhere else for that matter critically and see if anything there makes sense to you. I want to make it clear that my intention is not to convert you to my position. But even for believers it is good to read up on what non-believers say about their belief. It helps form a more substantiated answer, a rebuttal if you will.

About history, it is usually written by the victors. Modern historians are quite aware of the fact and are also quite aware that the science of history was not as independent from state governments as it may be today in most parts of the world. The modern science of history deals with sources, that is, it examines manuscripts that have survived, inscriptions on monuments etc., but does so critically. This means that while examining, for example, an ancient history text the try to filter out anything that is propaganda or flattery towards regents to arrive at untainted historical facts. Take Alexander the Great, for example, we have learned a lot about his life and his campaigns from his historians, but we learned from them also to discern myths associated with his life, like that he was a half-god, a sun of Zeus or Ammon Ra. We know that he indeed made the trip to the Oracle of Shiba in modern day Lybia, I believe, but we don't not know what the priests their told him exactly. We know however that shortly thereafter he started to bear the title of the son of Ammon Ra (the equivalent to Zeus).

"I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable."

Reminds me of the motto the Greek football (soccer) team had when they won the European Championship in 2004: Impossible is nothing! I have something similar: theoretically a lot of things are possible, but are they probable? And your example with Hillary is just hilarious! (Sorry, could not resist!) But you are right of course: not impossible, but very improbable, especially the part calling her "a hot babe!" (I'm kind of kinky, but not that kinky!)

Ok, back on topic: of course, Paul was writing epistles, letters, to newly found churches and I would not expect him to quote the whole of the gospels in them, presumably the new churches would already have a copy of the gospels, if they existed, but I would expect him to quote some small passage here and there, like he does quoting from the OT sometimes, if I am not mistaken.

Finally, about historical assumptions (hypothesis): yes, modern historians try to show that an assumption is not only valid and possible, but also reasonable and probable. See, for example, modern theologians have come to certain conclusions by critically studying holy scripture. As regards to the gospels, for example, they have concluded that the first three, Mathew, Luke and Mark (also called the synoptic gospels) came probably from a single source Q (from German Quelle = source), which has not survived and that Mark was the oldest and Matthew and Luke copied a lot from Mark. They have also found while examining the Pentateuch that it was not written by a single person, but have identified 3 distinct writing styles (if I am not mistaken), representing three distinct theological schools of thought. The beauty of modern science is that accepted scientific theories change and evolve as our general knowledge changes and evolves and as new evidence is discovered further proving or disproving a theory.