Is Christianity based on older myths?

[Tonus]

There were no mentions of Jesus in any contemporary works during the time Jesus was supposedly alive and kicking. I'd expect someone so magical and supernatural to have at least warranted one contemporary reference to him whilst he was around.

And it remains a curious detail that none of these sources who apparently identified this person as god incarnate seemed at all interested in doing anything more than passing along a tidbit they'd heard, before getting back to the more pressing issues of whatever mundane horseshit was going on around them. Were the people providing this info so lacking in enthusiasm or sincerity that the writers simply humored them? Or was this the golden age of god-as-men walking the earth and turning water to wine and virgins into mothers, and the writers were simply tired of dedicating column inches to the savior-of-the-month (full spread with photos on page 11!)?

It's as if god couldn't impress anyone. Adam and Eve disobeyed him the moment he turned his back, his own angels seem to have abandoned him in droves, and even today only 2/7ths of the planet are convinced, and they're not even sure about one another! Look, it's been 6,000 years. Time to fire that shitty PR firm and find someone who knows what the fuck he's doing.

[Mister Agenda]

1: There aren't very significant similarities between Mithras/Osiris and Jesus

There are significant similariities, but the zeitgeist people tend to exaggerate them. Isis wasn't exactly a virgin, for instance, though getting pregnant by her dead husband might qualify as divine impregnation by a holy ghost.

2: The Egyptian religion was enforced by the state, same with many other religions, while Christianity grew despite the state.

Up to the point where Christianity, too, became a state-enforced religion, and the bulk of its growth occurred during the time it was a state religion.

3: Jesus was a real person, there is practically no debate amongst scholars of antiquity.

I'm inclined to agree, though there is so little evidencial support of it, that certainty on grounds of evidence is entirely unjustified.

Even if we were to exclude the Biblical sources, there are many others such as Tacitus et al.

All of which are hearsay and none of which are actually contemporary.

This before we even try to explain the rapid rise of Christianity if there were no Christ.

Though I estimate the odds of a historical Jesus the Gospels are based on having existed at slightly more than 50%, all you need to explain the rapid rise of Christianity is Paul, who never met Jesus in person and seems unaware of most of the Gospel stories about him.

---

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Tacitus Annals XV, 44, AD ~115. (Even this source demonstrates CHristianity had spread from Judea to Rome before the time of writing)
Tacitus was a Roman historian and senator, writing merely some 60-70 years after the event. Hardly likely he is mistaken

That sure would be relevant if any of us had disputed the existence of Christians in Rome in the time of Tacitus.

Christianity had reached Rome by about AD 50, and before AD 100 had established over 40 international bases.

"Many of these Early Christians were merchants and others who had practical reasons for traveling to northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and other places.[4][5][6] Over 40 such communities were established by the year 100,[5][6] many in Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor, such as the Seven Churches of Asia. By the end of the first century, Christianity had already spread to Rome, India, and major cities in Armenia, Greece and Syria, serving as foundations for the expansive spread of Christianity, eventually throughout the world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_cente...anity#Rome

All of which makes it unremarkable that Christianity could spread from Jerusalem to Rome in less than fifty years. People were making the trip all the time. There were probably Christians in Rome before 40 AD.

[Cyberman]

There were no mentions of Jesus in any contemporary works during the time Jesus was supposedly alive and kicking. I'd expect someone so magical and supernatural to have at least warranted one contemporary reference to him whilst he was around.

More damning was the desperate need to fabricate evidence to fill the vacuum in actual history. Methinks the theologians doth protest too much.

[Mister Agenda]

So wrote a historian, and a senator, who opposed Christianity, who was never corrected by any other Roman, just 60-70 years after Christs death.

And who only reported what Christians were said to believe. We all think Christians believed in Jesus, too. It's kind of the defintion. But the writings of Tactitus don't constitute independendent corroboration of the existence of the central figure of the cult. I think Jesus more likely than not existed, but not based on this crap.

You afraid to follow the evidence?

What evidence?

Your idea that he got the 'tale' from some random people and not, for example, historical records, or even eye witnesses given the small time frame, is 100% ungrounded speculation.

Forty years later is enough time for almost of any purported eyewitnesses to die, given typical lifespans in that time and region. Tacitus was a historian, and often cited his sources when utilizing records.

Why on earth would a Roman senator who opposed Christianity, take a Christians word from anything, above the Roman records, or above Roman eyewitnesses?

What Roman records? What Roman eyewitnesses? The ones you're making up? It would be irrational not to take a cult member's word for what figure the cult worships, and he probably didn't get it first hand from Christians anyway, but from letters from other Roman senators. Tacitus wasn't writing as an historian in this passage, but as a senator.

[abaris]

Nah.

2: The Egyptian religion was enforced by the state, same with many other religions, while Christianity grew despite the state.

Can you get even more ignorant? Christianity ultimately grew into a Behemoth because it became the Roman state religion in the 4th century. It grew further because it was enforced under threat of capital punishment all throughout Europe until the Age of Enlightenment.

[Esquilax]

You all make a logical fallacy by assuming that just because previous examples of something had X then all subsequent examples must also have X. Just because the previous religions were false doesn't mean that Christianity is also. The pattern is broken. The examples I gave, Mithras and Osiris, were both mystery cults whereas Christianity was/is not.

Here we see Wooters attempting a rarely successful Triple Assertion Reacharound, and completely failing to stick the landing, because what the fuck else could someone do when all they're doing is making things up?

I asked you, Chad, right after your first post here, for evidence to justify your assertion. You responded with a second assertion, and then when people called you on that, you responded with a third. Your assertions are not evidence; you don't get to just say things and that makes them true.

[SteveII]

There were no mentions of Jesus in any contemporary works during the time Jesus was supposedly alive and kicking. I'd expect someone so magical and supernatural to have at least warranted one contemporary reference to him whilst he was around.

Are there any surviving writings from the first half of the first century in Palestine?

[FatAndFaithless]

That's the point you're choosing to respond to after 8 pages of direct answers to your question? A point about the historicity of Jesus? Again?

How about...y'know...everything else in this thread that directly addresses your question in the OP? Care to respond to any of that?

[YGninja]

1: There aren't very significant similarities between Mithras/Osiris and Jesus

There are significant similariities, but the zeitgeist people tend to exaggerate them. Isis wasn't exactly a virgin, for instance, though getting pregnant by her dead husband might qualify as divine impregnation by a holy ghost.

Well, i am yet to see similarities to a degree which would constitute evidence that Christianity was a derivative or somehow inspired by them.

2: The Egyptian religion was enforced by the state, same with many other religions, while Christianity grew despite the state.

Up to the point where Christianity, too, became a state-enforced religion, and the bulk of its growth occurred during the time it was a state religion.

We're talking in the context of getting a religion started, though. Christianity was adopted by the state, after it became so popular.

3: Jesus was a real person, there is practically no debate amongst scholars of antiquity.

I'm inclined to agree, though there is so little evidencial support of it, that certainty on grounds of evidence is entirely unjustified.

There is a lot of evidential support, just you wrongly place too much weight on certain evidence or the lack thereof.

Even if we were to exclude the Biblical sources, there are many others such as Tacitus et al.

All of which are hearsay and none of which are actually contemporary.

Who writes history in the present? The Tacitus account is not hearsay. If you want to judge the validity of a historical figure, you look alot deeper than whether or not you can find contemporary sources. There are no contemporary sources for hundreds if not thousands of historical figures we accept as having existed. Historians don't even expect to find contemporary sources, the study is much wider and much more scholarly. Lets not forget that Jesus only taught for about 3 years, and the Christians of the time were persecuted, burned alive, fed to dogs. Who knows what happened to their possessions? The Romans of the time were not likely to record Jesus' miracles because it would help legitimise Christianity. According to Tacitus an "Immense multitude" of Christians were put to death soon after Christ, and they refused to give up their faith. You think the mere words of 1 man, Paul, could account for such a following?

This before we even try to explain the rapid rise of Christianity if there were no Christ.

Though I estimate the odds of a historical Jesus the Gospels are based on having existed at slightly more than 50%, all you need to explain the rapid rise of Christianity is Paul, who never met Jesus in person and seems unaware of most of the Gospel stories about him.

---

If someone made up a story such as the feeding of the 5000, and they told it while Jesus still lived, or soon thereafter, and they told it to the exact same people/culture to whome it was meant to have happened, but it didn't happen, don't you think those people would have noticed? Christianity wouldve fallen flat on its face at the first hurdle. But no, the growth of Christianity was astonishing, and the best explanation is that there were many many witnesses.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Tacitus Annals XV, 44, AD ~115. (Even this source demonstrates CHristianity had spread from Judea to Rome before the time of writing)
Tacitus was a Roman historian and senator, writing merely some 60-70 years after the event. Hardly likely he is mistaken

That sure would be relevant if any of us had disputed the existence of Christians in Rome in the time of Tacitus.

It is very strong evidence for the existence of Jesus, which was what was up for debate.

Christianity had reached Rome by about AD 50, and before AD 100 had established over 40 international bases.

"Many of these Early Christians were merchants and others who had practical reasons for traveling to northern Africa, Asia Minor, Arabia, Greece, and other places.[4][5][6] Over 40 such communities were established by the year 100,[5][6] many in Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor, such as the Seven Churches of Asia. By the end of the first century, Christianity had already spread to Rome, India, and major cities in Armenia, Greece and Syria, serving as foundations for the expansive spread of Christianity, eventually throughout the world."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_cente...anity#Rome

All of which makes it unremarkable that Christianity could spread from Jerusalem to Rome in less than fifty years. People were making the trip all the time. There were probably Christians in Rome before 40 AD.

Again, i was refuting the claim that there was no rapid rise of Christianity before the second century or later. As a side note, people are making trips, but all of these people had to be convinced, too. Very difficult if there weren't large numbers of witnesses at the time, especially for a religion like Christianity, not developed by the state ie Rome, Egypt, Greece. Not enforced by a warlord who already had power and wealth, such as Muhammed.

[Mister Agenda]

There were no mentions of Jesus in any contemporary works during the time Jesus was supposedly alive and kicking. I'd expect someone so magical and supernatural to have at least warranted one contemporary reference to him whilst he was around.

Are there any surviving writings from the first half of the first century in Palestine?

Are you asking if there are any surviving writings from Palestine that were written before 50 ACE?