Is Christianity based on older myths?

[dyresand]

Also, Paul is quite possibly yet another made up character. Got any proof Paul is a real person?

Paul knew nothing about the annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel, the virgin birth, the star of Bethlehem, the wise men, Herod, the slaughter of the innocents or the flight into Egypt. In fact Paul knew nothing at all of Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem or Nazareth. He knew of no disciples, friends, or earthly enemies, nor of any baptism by John in the Jordan. He didn’t mention or quote any teachings, parables or sermons or morals. In fact he attributed no ethical instruction to the earthly Jesus at all.

Nor did he seem to know of any healings of the blind or lame or lepers, or of any of Jesus’ especially spectacular miracles like bringing the dead to life, changing water to wine, feeding five thousand, stilling the storm or walking on water.

He knew of no temptation in the wilderness or dialogue with the Devil, no exorcisms, and no evil spirits falling down in fear before Jesus.

He knew nothing of the times, places or circumstances of the crucifixion. He never mentioned Gethsemane, or the betrayal by Judas (he merely said Jesus ‘was delivered up’ for crucifixion), or the denial by Peter or the disciples, or trials, or scourging, or judgment by Pilate, or Roman soldiers, or Golgotha or vigil at the cross. No last words – nothing!

Paul appears to have believed that after three days Jesus ascended directly to heaven without any intervening time on earth, and he certainly didn’t cite any empty tomb.

If Paul and the first Christians knew so little about Jesus.

[JesusHChrist]

Also, Paul is quite possibly yet another made up character. Got any evidence Paul is a real person?

JesusHChrist, it's as though I've got a doppleganger. And one of me is more than enough.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Ok, let's work it from another angle. What concrete evidence do you have that suggests the gospels (as an example) were actually written by the apostles entitled? Just anything, what is it?

Here's the thing - the bible is the claim. The things in the bible are the claims made that constitute the entire biblical claim. With me thus far? Why should I, as someone who is skeptical of claims with no substance, take your word about the truth value behind that claim over the null hypothesis that it's all bunk until proven otherwise?

And here's the other thing that you haven't even touched upon since 10 pages back where your own conclusion preceded the subsequent discussions. Whether the Jesus myth is real or not is irrelevant when compared to the claims of divinity which are (again) held within the bible. for that, you'd need to present something to match in incredibleness [sic] of the constituent claim[s], to which thus far I've seen the same amount as you convincing us that the story of Jesus existing is even real in the first place.

If I write that the early church, Paul, John, Peter, and James (epistle writers) believed that Jesus was God, died and rose again, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it.

Welcome to reality. I'm really, genuinely sorry that in your life thus far you've never come up against someone who asked for evidence of a claim you were making. I hope the experience hasn't been too traumatic.

If I write that the multiple attestation of miracles is evidence that a miracle did happen, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it, hearsay is not evidence (when it is).

As above ^^

I also want to remind you that, aside from everything you written being total nonsense, hearsay is in fact not evidence. If you're trying to convince us that there exists a supreme being that lived on the Earth 2000~ years ago and who has the ability to affect everything, then what you're going to need to do is grow up, put your big boy pants on, and realise that you'll need to match the extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence. Does hearsay fit that bill to you?

If I write that the alternative is a massive deception and there are not good reasons for a massive deception, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it. (Or the more ignorant will say for money and power.)

As above ^^

Money and power is a legitimate reason as to why someone might invent a story. As you've ignored however, time and time again in fact, nobody knows for sure. not us, and certainly not you. Indeed, going back through the thread, it's you whose been forwarding this claim that the only counter was entirely about money and power, not 'us'.

The difference between us is that, whilst we air on the side of caution and view the (un-evidenced) claims with skepticism, you default to 'Well, can disprove it, so it must be right!' This is puerile, and means any case you present that doesn't contain evidence in its base can be easily dismissed.

If I write that most scholars believe that Jesus existed and even that his baptism and crucifixion really happened, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it, appeal to authority.

So I won't write those things again.

you just did, lol.

But seriously, when you get your head out of your arse and realise that, given a different situation about a different story or a different supernatural 'divine' character you'd be asking the exact same goddamn questions, drop me a line so I can remind you how right I was will you?

Maybe when you do that you'll actually respond to the rebuttals put to you instead of not posting what you've posted before whilst posting it, eh?

[pocaracas]

If I write that the early church, Paul, John, Peter, and James (epistle writers) believed that Jesus was God, died and rose again, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it.

Actually, I'll tell you that their belief does not mean that it was true.
All the writings attributed to those personalities are so far removed from the, alleged, date of the events, that their belief is similar to your own: Faith - belief without evidence.

If I write that the multiple attestation of miracles is evidence that a miracle did happen, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it, hearsay is not evidence (when it is).

Multiple versions of the same story are not evidence that a particular event in the story really happened.

Let's see if this accounts on this list mean that the underlying story was real:

• Rusalka
  
• Disney's The Little Mermaid
  
• The Little Mermaid, by Hans Christian Andersen
  
• Trimark's The Little Mermaid
  
• Once on This Island
  

Get my meaning?

If I write that the alternative is a massive deception and there are not good reasons for a massive deception, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it. (Or the more ignorant will say for money and power.)

Sure there are reasons for it!
The Assyrians acknowledged it...
The greek even had oracles influencing rulers...
The Jews also knew about it... think about it, why on Earth would the only god that has ever been, the only god that humankind has ever known, imprint a rule in stone where it forbids people from worshiping other gods? Where would those other gods come from?

The romans were too aware of it when they implemented catholicism in their territory.
And the arabs too when they implemented islam in their caliphate.

Religion is a form of population behavioral control of little cost.It's not about money... nor about power... it's control of the populace. Keep everyone calm, due to the invisible big brother who can punish or reward you in the afterlife.

If I write that most scholars believe that Jesus existed and even that his baptism and crucifixion really happened, you (and 10 of your friends) will just reply: prove it, appeal to authority.

Most scholars are also believers, so that means little.
Did the Teacher of righteousness exist? maybe... Could he have been called Jesus? perhaps. So yeah... maybe there was a person whose life inspired some of the tales.... maybe there was another person who inspired other tales... and then maybe even more people.... Crucifixions happened... using water to cleanse the "soul" happened... and all those may have contributed to what later became the jesus myth.
So what?

So I won't write those things again.

See?
I didn't ask you to prove anything.

[robvalue]

I haven't looked into Paul, so here's a chance for Steve to actually demonstrate something properly. Maybe there's decent evidence that Paul was a real person. Can you find any?

[pocaracas]

I haven't looked into Paul, so here's a chance for Steve to actually demonstrate something properly. Maybe there's decent evidence that Paul was a real person. Can you find any?

Well, someone wrote those things.
And it seems that some of the texts attributed to Paul have enough similarities for experts in the field to attribute them to the same person... while others are very likely to have been written by someone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_...e_epistles

There is wide consensus, in modern New Testament scholarship, on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether the former two epistles are the letters of Paul; however, the latter four - 2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the "Pastoral Epistles" - have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.

[Minimalist]

A passage from Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" and his discussion of euhemerization:

Element 45: A popular version of this phenomenon i n ancient faith literature was the practice of euhemerization: the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified. We already noted Plutarch's criticism of the trend (which he frowns upon, but i n so doing concedes its popularity) in Element 14.

Euhemerus was a Greek writer of the early third century BCE, who wrote a book called The Sacred Scriptures in which he depicted an imaginary scholar discovering that Zeus and Uranus were once actual kings. In the process Euhemerus invents a history for these 'god ki ngs', even though we know there is no plausible case to be made that either Zeus or Uranus was ever a real person. Yet the idea caught on; biographies and histories of nonexistent people proliferated, and ancient literature flowered with attempts to assign mythic heroes and gods to real historical periods and places.

Even before that there were attempts to develop a 'historical' Hercules to justify territorial disputes in the Peloponnesus. and afterwards the origin of Rome was explained by appealing to an eponymous godman named 'Romulus'. And many other uses were found for the procedure, as we saw for inventing King Arthur, Ned Ludd, Abraham, Moses, and other national heroes I explored in Chapter 1 (§4). There was nothing at all unusual about doing this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

You see, there IS a reason why religious leaders want people only to read their bullshit. If you start the process of examining history, literature and philosophy you quickly start to find how much of their crap is derived drivel from other sources. Poor xtians....jesus is just warmed over shit.

[JesusHChrist]

Yeah yeah yeah, but jeebus was different!

[Minimalist]

Same Shit - Different Deity

[dyresand]

I haven't looked into Paul, so here's a chance for Steve to actually demonstrate something properly. Maybe there's decent evidence that Paul was a real person. Can you find any?

Look at my post if you want to know about paul its the first one on this page.