Is Christianity based on older myths?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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?

Relevance to my point?

[Mister Agenda]

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

More likely that someone like the Simon referenced in the Gabriel Revelation tablet was.

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

Was there ever a religion enforced by the state before it became popular?

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

In the argument game, that's an example of a mere assertion.

Who writes history in the present?

Chroniclers.

If you want to judge the validity of a historical figure, you look alot deeper than whether or not you can find contemporary sources.

The alternatives are not 'deeper'. They are weaker. There is very weak evidence in support of the existence of an historical Jesus.

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.

I agree. But there is a difference between someone's existence being accepted and it being certain. I accept the existence of Jesus, but I don't consider it a certainty. These things are always matters of probability. Over 50% is actually pretty reasonable for someone only known from second-hand accounts.

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?

What, through checking the internet? Investigative journalism? Fact-checking wasn't a common practice back then...it isn't even sufficiently common now, when it's extremely easy to do, rather than extremely difficult as it was then. People routinely believed things based on rumor alone. And there's no evidence that Paul ever mentioned the feeding of the 5,000; or had even heard of it.

Christianity wouldve fallen flat on its face at the first hurdle.

Like Mormonism did? Oh, wait, despite being founded by a known con man and its adherents being oppressed to the point of being subject to shoot on sight orders in some states, it not only survived, it's flourishing. If your logic was sound, there would only be true religions.

But no, the growth of Christianity was astonishing, and the best explanation is that there were many many witnesses.

The best explanation is that it mandated vigorous prosyletization on pain of eternal torment and had a message that resonated with the masses in comparison to its competitors.

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

It's only evidence for what Christians claimed, not actually evidence for Jesus, though you've correctly identified what was up for debate for which you failed to provide any evidence but hearsay.

Again, i was refuting the claim that there was no rapid rise of Christianity before the second century or later.

Who claimed that?

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.

Except that rational skepticism was a practically unknown concept among the common people of that region and time. They routinely accepted as fact any traveller's tale they heard if they didn't have direct knowledge that it was false. Rumors spread like wildfire and were widely believed. Anyone troubling to determine the truth of such matters would have had to travel long distances, locate supposed witnesses (who are rarely sufficiently identified in the Gospels for that to even be possible), and compare stories. And what would they get for their troubles? Can you actually name any person who was going to that kind of effort to verify rumors back then?

[SteveII]

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

Relevance to my point?

If you are using as an argument that we should expect to see mentions of Jesus in other writings, it is relevant to ask if there are any surviving writings to distinguish between an absence of a mention vs. and absence of any writings.

---

The Teacher of Righteousness was interesting. If illustrates that the Jews were waiting for a Messiah. A moral teacher and the same political climate would result in similarities. It does not seem to be a myth so therefore can't be a recycled myth.

Regarding The 10 Christlike Figures, I think you can always find some similar fact/teaching/circumstance in any ancient religion because all religions have certain characteristics in common: god(s), human interaction, teachings on origins, morality codes, gods being born, gods dying, unfaithfulness, redemption, how to live, and the fact that the human adherents all have the similar experience of being human.

The list of 22 things from Carrier is an interesting list. However, it seems to have been worded vaguely to include Jesus and as many "heroes" as possible. It also mis-characterizes some of the facts believed about Moses and Jesus. The list seems contrived to make a point ignoring the fact there would be hundreds of relevant differences in any "heroes" story to make it unique.

If Christianity was a recycling of old myths, then it all had to be developed and synthesized between Jesus' death and the writing of Paul's letters or at the latest the gospels a few years later. That would be an impressive undertaking resulting in a systematic theology that had to:

1. Be compatible with OT monotheistic doctrine of God
2. Be compatible with OT prophecies
3. Be internally consistent
4. and since most of you believe that Jesus actually/probably existed, had to be compatible with what the people knew to be true about Jesus--whom Paul never net.

It also assumes that, presumably Paul, was familiar with the details of each of the examples of ancient myths you give. I don't see reasons why that would be true. He would have been studied in Jewish law and the OT. Access to the details of extinct and eastern religions would have to be explained for this to be plausible.

Then you are back to the question of: Why would Paul go through all that trouble to make up such a complicated story? If you are tempted to say for power and/or money, please provide evidence for that assertion.

[Mudhammam]

If Christianity was a recycling of old myths, then it all had to be developed and synthesized between Jesus' death and the writing of Paul's letters or at the latest the gospels a few years later. That would be an impressive undertaking resulting in a systematic theology

On the contrary, once you realize that Jesus Christ of Nazareth and Bethlehem is not a historical figure and the Gospels aren't recording actual events, there is no time frame for fictional Jesus' death. The bottom falls out, and we are left with documents that represent the development of putting into writing their mysteries that may have been evolving for many decades, on top of the lapse of decades already conceded by Christian apologists.

[Crossless2.0]

It also assumes that, presumably Paul, was familiar with the details of each of the examples of ancient myths you give. I don't see reasons why that would be true. He would have been studied in Jewish law and the OT. Access to the details of extinct and eastern religions would have to be explained for this to be plausible.

Well, he was from Tarsus. Are you saying that a native of that city would have been unfamiliar with the Roman cults?

[The Grand Nudger]

Regarding The 10 Christlike Figures, I think you can always find some similar fact/teaching/circumstance in any ancient religion because all religions have certain characteristics in common:

....gee, imagine that...

The list seems contrived to make a point ignoring the fact there would be hundreds of relevant differences in any "heroes" story to make it unique.

Like the hundreds of differences between spiderman in any given issue, sure.

1. Be compatible with OT monotheistic doctrine of God

-it isn't.

2. Be compatible with OT prophecies

-it isn't

3. Be internally consistent

-it isn't

4. and since most of you believe that Jesus actually/probably existed, had to be compatible with what the people knew to be true about Jesus--whom Paul never net.

-he didn't...and it isn't.

It also assumes that, presumably Paul, was familiar with the details of each of the examples of ancient myths you give. I don't see reasons why that would be true. He would have been studied in Jewish law and the OT. Access to the details of extinct and eastern religions would have to be explained for this to be plausible.

he wasn't quite familiar, but he was knowledgeable. He was, whomever he was, presumably educated enough to understand stoic philosophy and hailed from a city famous for it's university.

Then you are back to the question of: Why would Paul go through all that trouble to make up such a complicated story? If you are tempted to say for power and/or money, please provide evidence for that assertion.

You assume that Paul -did- make up such a story. I don't. He doesn't know much about the story at all, that's one of the interesting things about "Paul".

[Tonus]

It also assumes that, presumably Paul, was familiar with the details of each of the examples of ancient myths you give.

Or that he was familiar with whichever handful of versions of those were being recycled by the local cults-du-jour. Or Christianity was already partly (mal)formed from bits and pieces over the preceding decades and he had a wet lump of clay to work with. Paul didn't have to know each of those older myths and legends, and he didn't have to have created Christianity out of whole cloth. He needed whatever was at hand and a vivid imagination.

[Jenny A]

Mithras, Osiris and the rest are just myths and were understood as such by their adherents. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, was a real person and the early Christians knew that.

Mithras and Osiris were understood to be gods or godlike. Contrast Jesus in Mark (the oldest Gospel). There Jesus was just a man specially chosen by god. It's only in later Gospels that he is born of virgin, resurrected, god incarnate, etc. Kinda suggests maybe those older myths got grafted onto just one more Jewish rabbi huh? Additions by pagans with pagan traditions perhaps? Jesus wasn't the only real man during the time period who was given godly attributes by admirers after his death.

---

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.

I agree all previous religions were false. The problem with Christianity is not that the previous religions were false, but that Christianity is so similar to earlier false religions in the same area and time period. That would suggest to any competent historian that Christianity is just one more permutation.

[Nope]

It also assumes that, presumably Paul, was familiar with the details of each of the examples of ancient myths you give. I don't see reasons why that would be true. He would have been studied in Jewish law and the OT. Access to the details of extinct and eastern religions would have to be explained for this to be plausible.

Well, he was from Tarsus. Are you saying that a native of that city would have been unfamiliar with the Roman cults?

Paul was a Roman citizen.

http://www.biblestudy.org/roman-empire/h...nship.html

Acts 22 alludes to two ways of becoming a citizen of Rome. We pick up the story with Paul's visit to Jerusalem's temple with four Jewish converts. Jews see him enter the temple and begin a riot. Roman soldiers save Paul from an almost certain death by beating and take him to a nearby barracks for questioning.

25. But as he was being tied with the thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?"

26. Now when the centurion heard this, he went and reported it to the chief captain, saying, "Do you realize what you are about to do? For this man is a Roman." 27. And when the chief captain came up, he said to him, "Tell me, are you a Roman?" And he said, "Yes." 28. And the chief captain answered, "With a great sum of money I bought this citizenship." And Paul said, "But indeed, I was born free." (Acts 22)

One can become a citizen by either birth or buying the privilege. Paul's birth in a Jewish family occurred in the city of Tarsus within the province of Cilicia (Acts 22:3). Although a Jew, his birth in the city grants him citizenship. This is due to Tarsus' designation as a "free city" by Rome. The commander, however, had to pay a large sum of money to be a citizen.

[Mister Agenda]

It also assumes that, presumably Paul, was familiar with the details of each of the examples of ancient myths you give. I don't see reasons why that would be true. He would have been studied in Jewish law and the OT. Access to the details of extinct and eastern religions would have to be explained for this to be plausible.

Well, he was from Tarsus. Are you saying that a native of that city would have been unfamiliar with the Roman cults?

I think Saul was born in Tarsus, but raised in Jerusalem.