Mythology 101

[Rhondazvous]

I once saw someone suggesting that the story of Jesus is somewhat representative of the night sky and its constellations.
So I set out to see what the sky looked like in the year 1... here: http://neave.com/planetarium/
And what do you know?....



The big yellow thing is the sun rising in the Libra constellation
Right at the left of the sun, there's a lone bluish thing: that's Neptune (the guys at this time didn't know there was a Neptune out there...).
Then you have an upward trail of planets aiming at Virgo's... errr... skirt:
- Mercury
- Venus
- Mars (the red one)
- Jupiter


33 years later (not counting 7 leap days):

It repeats... well, minus Jupiter... Joseph?

Is it significant?
Probably.
Many mythologies may have come about by making up stories about the figures seen in the stars... that's why heaven is said to be up there.

I've always wondered how astrologers handled the discovery of planets the ancient world hadn't known about. It would have been terrible if they'd incorporated Pluto, only to find out 50 years later that it's not a real planet. I still wonder what the Plutonians have to say about that.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I've always wondered how astrologers handled the discovery of planets the ancient world hadn't known about.  It would have been terrible if they'd incorporated Pluto, only to find out 50 years later that it's not a real planet. I still wonder what the Plutonians have to say about that.

[Athene]

A little Zeitgeist-y (they may be from the film) and conspiratorial, but you might find these three short videos kind of interesting. You can jump to the astrology at about 6:30 in Part 1. Part 2 and 3 continue to demonstrate the possible role of astrology in religious mythology. 

[Minimalist]

Zeitgeist was poor scholarship...as is most of the shit put forward by Acharya S. 

However, the similarities do exist if you don't try to push things to absurd levels.

To say Christianity was a mystery religion is not to say that Christianity
is exactly like any other mystery religion, any more than any mystery
religion was 'exactly like' any other. Often when scholars deny that
Christianity was a mystery religion, they rea1 1y mean it wasn't just one of
the already-existing mystery religions superficially overhauled with Jewish
concepts. Christianity wasn't 'Osiris Cult 2.0'. Which is certainly true. But
that's all that anyone's evidence can prove. If instead we define a mystery
religion as any Hellenistic cult in which individual salvation was procured
by a ritual initiation into a set of 'mysteries', the knowledge of which and
participation in which were key to ensuring a blessed eternal life, then
Christianity was demonstrably a mystery religion beyond any doubt.
I f we then expand that definition to include a set of specific feat ures
held in common by all other mystery religions of the early Roman era, then
Christianity becomes even more demonstrably a mystery religion, so much so,
in fact, that it's impossible to deny it was deliberately constructed as
such. Even the earliest discernible form of Christianity emulates numerous
cultic features and concepts that were so unique to the Hellenistic mystery
cults that it is statistically beyond any reasonable possibility that they
all found their way into Christianity by mere coincidence. They formed a
coherent, logical and repeatedly replicated system of ideas in every other
mystery cult. It would be irrational to conclude the same wasn't so of Christianity.
Christianity cannot be understood apart from this fact. And any
theory of historicity that fails to account for it cannot be credible.


On the Historicity of Jesus pgs. 96-97

Re-cycled from an earlier discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Passover was is a remembers the worst of the ten plagues, in that if a house hold did not have the fresh blood of a lamb on the door post the oldest son would die.

Likewise if you do not have the blood of Christ/the lamb of God to cover you, you too shall die.

Passover "remembers" things that never happened.  Likewise, all men die.  The substantial number of graves with crosses on them attest to this fact.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

In the first century of the common era, there appeared at the eastern and of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven. Who was this teacher and wonderworker? His name was Appollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 CE, and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus’s Life of Appolonius. Comparative mythology scholar Joseph campbell wrote in his book “the hero with 1000 faces”, both Apollonius and Jesus are examples of individuals who shared similar hero stories, along with Krishna, Buddha and Romulus. The followers of Apollonius believed he was the true son of God, and that Jesus was a fraud.

Mythology has always fascinated me. When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the “hero god” is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just one…Romulus 771 BCE. In Plutarch’s biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romulus’s body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but “some doubted”. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, “why have you abandoned us?”, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

“Things being in this disorder, one, they say, of the patricians, of noble family and approved good character, and a faithful and familiar friend of Romulus himself, having come with him from Alba, Julius Proculus by name, presented himself in the forum; and, taking a most sacred oath, protested before them all, that, as he was travelling on the road, he had seen Romulus coming to meet him, looking taller and comelier than ever, dressed in shining and flaming armour; and he, being affrighted at the apparition, said, "Why, O king, or for what purpose have you abandoned us to unjust and wicked surmises, and the whole city to bereavement and endless sorrow?" and that he made answer, "It pleased the gods, O Proculus, that we, who came from them, should remain so long a time amongst men as we did; and, having built a city to be the greatest in the world for empire and glory, should again return to heaven. But farewell; and tell the Romans, that, by the exercise of temperance and fortitude, they shall attain the height of human power; we will be to you the propitious god Quirinus." This seemed credible to the Romans, upon the honesty and oath of the relater, and indeed, too, there mingled with it a certain divine passion, some preternatural influence similar to possession by a divinity; nobody contradicted it, but, laying aside all jealousies and detractions, they prayed to Quirinus and saluted him as a god”(Plutarch, 75 CE).

Folks, does any of this ring any bells for you? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.
In regards to my posit; paragraph three speaks about the ceremony celebrating Romulus's ascension actually going on at the time, so he is a witness, unlike the lack of witnesses in the NT of jesus. More importantly the tale of Romulus itself though was widely attested as pre-christian: in Romulus (27-28), Plutarch, though writing c. 80-120 CE, is certainly recording a long established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-christian: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the founding of the city 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.171-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); a later reference: Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2. The story's antiquity was even acknowledged by christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.

So as you can see, before christianity was even beginning to be fabricated, the story of Romulus was solidly incorporated into the Roman culture. So it would be a false and disingenuous posit to suggest that the story of Romulus was fabricated after jesus, and based on jesus, when it fact it is the exact opposite. It is also false to say it was interpolations (besides the fact it is all an obvious made up fabrication) as interpolations are additions to writings to make them seem more in line with whatever view the forger wishes to support after the fact. Conjecture? No, it was actually pre-christian, and as I provided above, easy to find within respectable writers from differing times and places. If Plutarch was the only one to write of it, OR he and the other writers were all writing about some "god" named Romulus from 800 years ago, and were writing it after jesus, then you could absolutely draw a correlation to the posit that the story of Romulus was based on jesus, or that it was fabricated to throw suspicion on the jesus story, sadly the facts do not reflect that.

It intrigues me how the faithful can just wave off these obvious consecutive hero-god constructs. Not only is there no evidence of earthly jesus, but no one who ever wrote of him, knew him. Yet people claim to “know him”…..fascinating. When I was serving up the kool aid, I was very good at tap dancing too, but the more I learned during my journey of knowledge, the less I believed….how does one convince themselves this fairy tale is true? Finally I was able to discard this failed method of epistemology, and construct more logical means in which to observe and contemplate the world…

---

Thoughts? Support? Criticism?

---

References:

Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

Plutarch. Romulus, Rome. Scribe, 75 CE. Print. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html

---

Did Romulus blab a lot of his laws that the people had to follow or get vaporized if they didn't obey?  If he didn't then Romulus doesn't fit the true definition of a god although he might have some of their attributes.

[goodwithoutgod]

---

In the first century of the common era, there appeared at the eastern and of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven. Who was this teacher and wonderworker? His name was Appollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 CE, and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus’s Life of Appolonius. Comparative mythology scholar Joseph campbell wrote in his book “the hero with 1000 faces”, both Apollonius and Jesus are examples of individuals who shared similar hero stories, along with Krishna, Buddha and Romulus. The followers of Apollonius believed he was the true son of God, and that Jesus was a fraud.

Mythology has always fascinated me. When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the “hero god” is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just one…Romulus 771 BCE. In Plutarch’s biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romulus’s body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but “some doubted”. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, “why have you abandoned us?”, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

“Things being in this disorder, one, they say, of the patricians, of noble family and approved good character, and a faithful and familiar friend of Romulus himself, having come with him from Alba, Julius Proculus by name, presented himself in the forum; and, taking a most sacred oath, protested before them all, that, as he was travelling on the road, he had seen Romulus coming to meet him, looking taller and comelier than ever, dressed in shining and flaming armour; and he, being affrighted at the apparition, said, "Why, O king, or for what purpose have you abandoned us to unjust and wicked surmises, and the whole city to bereavement and endless sorrow?" and that he made answer, "It pleased the gods, O Proculus, that we, who came from them, should remain so long a time amongst men as we did; and, having built a city to be the greatest in the world for empire and glory, should again return to heaven. But farewell; and tell the Romans, that, by the exercise of temperance and fortitude, they shall attain the height of human power; we will be to you the propitious god Quirinus." This seemed credible to the Romans, upon the honesty and oath of the relater, and indeed, too, there mingled with it a certain divine passion, some preternatural influence similar to possession by a divinity; nobody contradicted it, but, laying aside all jealousies and detractions, they prayed to Quirinus and saluted him as a god”(Plutarch, 75 CE).

Folks, does any of this ring any bells for you? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.
In regards to my posit; paragraph three speaks about the ceremony celebrating Romulus's ascension actually going on at the time, so he is a witness, unlike the lack of witnesses in the NT of jesus. More importantly the tale of Romulus itself though was widely attested as pre-christian: in Romulus (27-28), Plutarch, though writing c. 80-120 CE, is certainly recording a long established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-christian: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the founding of the city 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.171-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); a later reference: Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2. The story's antiquity was even acknowledged by christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.

So as you can see, before christianity was even beginning to be fabricated, the story of Romulus was solidly incorporated into the Roman culture. So it would be a false and disingenuous posit to suggest that the story of Romulus was fabricated after jesus, and based on jesus, when it fact it is the exact opposite. It is also false to say it was interpolations (besides the fact it is all an obvious made up fabrication) as interpolations are additions to writings to make them seem more in line with whatever view the forger wishes to support after the fact. Conjecture? No, it was actually pre-christian, and as I provided above, easy to find within respectable writers from differing times and places. If Plutarch was the only one to write of it, OR he and the other writers were all writing about some "god" named Romulus from 800 years ago, and were writing it after jesus, then you could absolutely draw a correlation to the posit that the story of Romulus was based on jesus, or that it was fabricated to throw suspicion on the jesus story, sadly the facts do not reflect that.

It intrigues me how the faithful can just wave off these obvious consecutive hero-god constructs. Not only is there no evidence of earthly jesus, but no one who ever wrote of him, knew him. Yet people claim to “know him”…..fascinating. When I was serving up the kool aid, I was very good at tap dancing too, but the more I learned during my journey of knowledge, the less I believed….how does one convince themselves this fairy tale is true? Finally I was able to discard this failed method of epistemology, and construct more logical means in which to observe and contemplate the world…

---

---

References:

Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

Plutarch. Romulus, Rome. Scribe, 75 CE. Print. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html

---

Did Romulus blab a lot of his laws that the people had to follow or get vaporized if they didn't obey?  If he didn't then Romulus doesn't fit the true definition of a god although he might have some of their attributes.

No, the intent was to demonstrate the traceable line of hero god constructs throughout history. It goes all the way back to Horus in 3000 BCE and the commonalities of myth and legend can be compared and contrasted.

[houseofcantor]

Didn't see this bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rank-Raglan_mythotype