Mythology 101

[Mudhammam]

the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

Well clearly by the time Christian writings come to light in the first century there is already a highly developed system of ideas relating to the Jesus Christ figure.

[goodwithoutgod]

the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

Well clearly by the time Christian writings come to light in the first century there is already a highly developed system of ideas relating to the Jesus Christ figure.

True, the synoptic gospels as everyone knows were written by their anonymous authors from 60-110ish CE. I think that guy is referring to how none of it came out into circulation until 325 CE time frame, right about the time the nicene council was debating the triune theory. it is an intriguing fabrication to be sure.

[watchamadoodle]

@goodwithoutgod, IMO you should work with a mini-Jesus instead of a MAXI-Jesus. The mini-Jesus would be simply a Jew who was crucified and became the basis for MAXI-Jesus.

It's not too useful to show that MAXI-Jesus was not mentioned by historians, or to show that MAXI-Jesus' story was similar to earlier mythical stories. A historical mini-Jesus could absorb mythical elements as he morphs into MAXI-Jesus. (IMO )

[goodwithoutgod]

@goodwithoutgod, IMO you should work with a mini-Jesus instead of a MAXI-Jesus. The mini-Jesus would be simply a Jew who was crucified and became the basis for MAXI-Jesus.

It's not too useful to show that MAXI-Jesus was not mentioned by historians, or to show that MAXI-Jesus' story was similar to earlier mythical stories. A historical mini-Jesus could absorb mythical elements as he morphs into MAXI-Jesus. (IMO )

Good points. I don't have a specific agenda, or solid view of historical person, vice complete mythical fabrication after the fact, vice blended myth, vice mystic theory etc etc...I just enjoy the research, and the thought provoking discoveries along the way. Clearly it is all fabricated BS as it is child's play to eviscerate the basis of it...the bible, but the different angles fascinate me. The greatest who dunit

[YGninja]

OP's entire post is a copy/paste, seemingly originating from a book called "Gospel Fictions" by Randel Helms, an English teacher with absolutely no relevant qualifications.

There are no direct quotes in support of any claim.

This mythicist idea was popular around the turn of the last century and can be associated with a rise of occultism in those times. All of this was refuted and dropped over a century ago. Its only interesting that today occultism is once again on the rise, and again these discredited theories are being circulated.

Needless to say there are no direct quotes from the source, because there is no source, there is no founding document or documents, there is just a bunch of people at different times retelling an old tale, and that tale doesn't even include such things as a virgin birth.

"There is much debate and variation as to whom was the father of Romulus and Remus. Some myths claim that Mars appeared and lay with Rhea Silvia; other myths attest that the demi-god hero Hercules was her partner. Livy claims that Rhea Silvia was in fact raped by an unknown man, but blamed her pregnancy on divine conception."
http://www.ancient.eu/Romulus_and_Remus/
Divine conception, ie sex with a God, not to be confused with immaculate conception, ie conception without sex.

There is just absolutely nothing to any of these theories, Zeitgeist Refuted debunks them all. Atheists should really look into the origin of these myths, who pushes them, why. While they're at it, they should find out about "World Goodwill" - the brainchild of "Lucifers Trust" publishing company which today shares a building with and is the spiritual grounding of the UN, (Heard of the UN's "World Goodwill Ambassadors", such as David Beckham, Angelina Jolie or the girl from Harry Potter? They are chosen celebrities used to promote the ideas of "Lucifers Trust", to the masses) albeit having changed their name to "Lucis Trust", after Lucifers Trust was a bit too conspicuous. I fear that particular rabbit hole goes down too far for most of you to handle, sadly. You probably aren't ready to realise that the "one world" religion of the Anti Christ is being developed as we speak, and come to terms with all that entails.

[Mudhammam]

OP's entire post is a copy/paste, seemingly originating from a book called "Gospel Fictions" by Randel Helms, an English teacher with absolutely no relevant qualifications.

There are no direct quotes in support of any claim.

This mythicist idea was popular around the turn of the last century and can be associated with a rise of occultism in those times. All of this was refuted and dropped over a century ago. Its only interesting that today occultism is once again on the rise, and again these discredited theories are being circulated.

Needless to say, for instance in the case of Romulus, there are no direct quotes from the source, because there is no source, there is no founding document or documents, there is just a bunch of people at different times retelling an old tale, and that tale doesn't even include such things as a virgin birth.

"There is much debate and variation as to whom was the father of Romulus and Remus. Some myths claim that Mars appeared and lay with Rhea Silvia; other myths attest that the demi-god hero Hercules was her partner. Livy claims that Rhea Silvia was in fact raped by an unknown man, but blamed her pregnancy on divine conception."
http://www.ancient.eu/Romulus_and_Remus/
Divine conception, ie sex with a God, not to be confused with immaculate conception, ie conception without sex.

There is just absolutely nothing to any of these theories, Zeitgeist Refuted debunks them all. Atheists should really look into the origin of these myths, who pushes them, why. While they're at it, they should find out about "World Goodwill" - the Brainchild of "Lucifers Trust" publishing company which today shares a building with and is the spiritual grounding of the UN, (Heard of the UN's "World Goodwill Ambassadors", such as David Beckham, Angelina Jolie or the girl from Harry Potter?) albeit having changed their name to "Lucis Trust", after Lucifers Trust was a bit too conspicuous. I fear that particular rabbit hole goes down too far for most of you to handle, sadly.

I agree that there are profound dissimilarities between any two given myths. That's not really the point. The point is that they all propagated the same basic notions about the gods and man's relation to them. Jesus is just run-of-the-mill stuff, Christians regurgitating the themes and language of the ancient myths embedded in Judaism and the surrounding cultures, but with their own innovations to adapt Jewish history to Hellenistic philosophy, like Philo before them.

[YGninja]

OP's entire post is a copy/paste, seemingly originating from a book called "Gospel Fictions" by Randel Helms, an English teacher with absolutely no relevant qualifications.

There are no direct quotes in support of any claim.

This mythicist idea was popular around the turn of the last century and can be associated with a rise of occultism in those times. All of this was refuted and dropped over a century ago. Its only interesting that today occultism is once again on the rise, and again these discredited theories are being circulated.

Needless to say, for instance in the case of Romulus, there are no direct quotes from the source, because there is no source, there is no founding document or documents, there is just a bunch of people at different times retelling an old tale, and that tale doesn't even include such things as a virgin birth.

"There is much debate and variation as to whom was the father of Romulus and Remus. Some myths claim that Mars appeared and lay with Rhea Silvia; other myths attest that the demi-god hero Hercules was her partner. Livy claims that Rhea Silvia was in fact raped by an unknown man, but blamed her pregnancy on divine conception."
http://www.ancient.eu/Romulus_and_Remus/
Divine conception, ie sex with a God, not to be confused with immaculate conception, ie conception without sex.

There is just absolutely nothing to any of these theories, Zeitgeist Refuted debunks them all. Atheists should really look into the origin of these myths, who pushes them, why. While they're at it, they should find out about "World Goodwill" - the Brainchild of "Lucifers Trust" publishing company which today shares a building with and is the spiritual grounding of the UN, (Heard of the UN's "World Goodwill Ambassadors", such as David Beckham, Angelina Jolie or the girl from Harry Potter?) albeit having changed their name to "Lucis Trust", after Lucifers Trust was a bit too conspicuous. I fear that particular rabbit hole goes down too far for most of you to handle, sadly.

I agree that there are profound dissimilarities between any two given myths. That's not really the point. The point is that they all propagated the same basic notions about the gods and man's relation to them. Jesus is just run-of-the-mill stuff, Christians regurgitating the themes and language of the ancient myths embedded in Judaism and the surrounding cultures, but with their own innovations to adapt Jewish history to Hellenistic philosophy, like Philo before them.

Like what?

[Mudhammam]

I agree that there are profound dissimilarities between any two given myths. That's not really the point. The point is that they all propagated the same basic notions about the gods and man's relation to them. Jesus is just run-of-the-mill stuff, Christians regurgitating the themes and language of the ancient myths embedded in Judaism and the surrounding cultures, but with their own innovations to adapt Jewish history to Hellenistic philosophy, like Philo before them.

Like what?

Like the ideas that they are a chosen people by a god that reigns supreme over all others, that the gods copulate and have sons and daughters, that dreams are visions, that mankind upset the gods and so brought upon themselves their judgment, that the gods judge the dead in the underworld according to their deeds, that the gods desire sacrifices, are jealous, listen to prayers; the list goes on and on about all of the things already in place prior to Christians developing their own version of a passion narrative, like Marduk before Jesus, and a gospel message to coincide, but one that stood out for its emphasis on the plight of the poor.

[goodwithoutgod]

OP's entire post is a copy/paste, seemingly originating from a book called "Gospel Fictions" by Randel Helms, an English teacher with absolutely no relevant qualifications.

There are no direct quotes in support of any claim.

This mythicist idea was popular around the turn of the last century and can be associated with a rise of occultism in those times. All of this was refuted and dropped over a century ago. Its only interesting that today occultism is once again on the rise, and again these discredited theories are being circulated.

Needless to say there are no direct quotes from the source, because there is no source, there is no founding document or documents, there is just a bunch of people at different times retelling an old tale, and that tale doesn't even include such things as a virgin birth.

"There is much debate and variation as to whom was the father of Romulus and Remus. Some myths claim that Mars appeared and lay with Rhea Silvia; other myths attest that the demi-god hero Hercules was her partner. Livy claims that Rhea Silvia was in fact raped by an unknown man, but blamed her pregnancy on divine conception."
http://www.ancient.eu/Romulus_and_Remus/
Divine conception, ie sex with a God, not to be confused with immaculate conception, ie conception without sex.

There is just absolutely nothing to any of these theories, Zeitgeist Refuted debunks them all. Atheists should really look into the origin of these myths, who pushes them, why. While they're at it, they should find out about "World Goodwill" - the brainchild of "Lucifers Trust" publishing company which today shares a building with and is the spiritual grounding of the UN, (Heard of the UN's "World Goodwill Ambassadors", such as David Beckham, Angelina Jolie or the girl from Harry Potter? They are chosen celebrities used to promote the ideas of "Lucifers Trust", to the masses) albeit having changed their name to "Lucis Trust", after Lucifers Trust was a bit too conspicuous. I fear that particular rabbit hole goes down too far for most of you to handle, sadly. You probably aren't ready to realise that the "one world" religion of the Anti Christ is being developed as we speak, and come to terms with all that entails.

no, actually it is a compilation of my research, two books and *gasp* I cited the books. perhaps if you actually read the references before opening your mouth and spouting drivel you would see that, for example, in Dr Carriers book, he has a direct source for everything, over 86 pages of references. In the Romulus area there are multiple ancient sources including the christian one at the end that *gasp again* validate this information.

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.

Actually research these, do a little reading since it is apparent this isn't your field of study, as it is mine. I did accidentally leave out one reference though, thanks for pointing that out, I will fix that at the bottom.

I didn't copy and paste anything except for the direct translation of Plutarch of which I also provided the direct source, and it isn't from some BS wwwIhatereligion.com, it is from a accredited .edu site. Try a little harder next time waving aside something called evidence, and substantiated facts. Also, read Dr Carrier's book, it may turn on a few light bulbs for you. I personally believe the myth was fabricated way after the fact based on an executed self professed prophet, as a political tool, and don't necessarily buy into the roman conspiracy mysticism based construct, but ti does have some substantiating evidence worth considering...a closed mind stops learning.

OP missing reference:

Helms, Randel. Gospel fictions. New York. Prometheus Books. 1988. Print.

An additional source for it...

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

Bart D. Ehrman Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth HarperCollins, USA. 2012

The Gosepl of Apolloinius of Tyana, Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, M.D., 1900, reprinted 1965 with a new introduction by Professor Hilton Hotema, Health Research, Mokelumne Hill, CA

EDIT: Just reread what you wrote...are you really suggesting a "lucifer conspiracy? oh my...not sure what to say to that...its like coming across a member of the flat earth society... you must be kidding, come on, you poking at GWG? You must be, only thing funnier then believing in jesus is thinking that Scientology, Mormonism, or...*giggle* that lucifer is real as well...I just don't know what to say to that.....

[abaris]

Well clearly by the time Christian writings come to light in the first century there is already a highly developed system of ideas relating to the Jesus Christ figure.

But quite possibly even more sectarian than it is today. The Roman church spent most of the Middle Ages stomping out what they called heretics. Arianism for example was quite popular with early christians. The Goths ruling Italy after the Roman Empire fell, were in their majority followers of Arian.