RE: Is Christianity based on older myths?
February 4, 2015 at 3:20 pm
(This post was last modified: February 4, 2015 at 3:34 pm by YGninja.)
(February 4, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:Well, i am yet to see similarities to a degree which would constitute evidence that Christianity was a derivative or somehow inspired by them.(February 4, 2015 at 11:03 am)YGninja Wrote: 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.
Quote:We're talking in the context of getting a religion started, though. Christianity was adopted by the state, after it became so popular.(February 4, 2015 at 11:03 am)YGninja Wrote: 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.
Quote:There is a lot of evidential support, just you wrongly place too much weight on certain evidence or the lack thereof.(February 4, 2015 at 11:03 am)YGninja Wrote: 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.
Quote:(February 4, 2015 at 11:03 am)YGninja Wrote: 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?
(February 4, 2015 at 11:03 am)YGninja Wrote: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.Quote: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.
Quote:It is very strong evidence for the existence of Jesus, which was what was up for debate.(February 4, 2015 at 11:15 am)YGninja Wrote: "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.
Quote:(February 4, 2015 at 11:03 am)YGninja Wrote: 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.