Christ Myth?

Question

So let me get this straight, a bunch of sheep herders somehow managed to create a story with allusions and allegories from every imaginable religion and deity(including ones from across the ocean), and creating a personification of the zodiac, all the while (supposedly) fulfilling prophesies from the Old Testament?

Then, they managed to make this story so believable that the character they created was mentioned by historians of that time? Then, they convinced people to follow this melting-pot story even in the face of death?
And no one noticed that it was stolen from paganism until somewhat recently?(200 years ago i think)

Don't you think that when the Romans were persecuting Christians they would've said "wait a sec, this Jesus guy is the same thing as (insert diety here)"

Margaret- Christians weren't persecuted? Mr. Tacitus says different.
"Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed"

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/provinghistoricJesus23mar05.shtml

"firing the city" is a reference to the burning of Rome, which was blamed on a certain religious group. which was it again?

Anthony Stark:
Fact- Constantine came around in 300, how would that "convert or die" senario work in the 270 years between then and the beginning of Christianity? i'm referring to that time, when it gained enough followers on its own.

Fact- Mithras came out of a rock, not a virgin.

i'm also somewhat sure they had an afterlife.

Roman mythology had Pluto, Mithrasim also had an afterlife.

http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Religious-Phenomena/Mithras-in-the-Roman-Legions.html

the afterlife point is irrelevant if Mithraism had an afterlife, there would be no point of solders converting if they already had a similar belief.

most of the similarities described in that link aren't important (born on dec 25 doesn't mean anything, the 25 is the equilavent of celebrating MLK on a monday in January)
second, it's been stated that Mithraism took Eucharist from Christianity

third and most importantly, the Roman Mithras was a completey different person that Persian Mithras(400 BC). the Persian Mithras was more like Jesus(peaceful preacher), but the Roman Mithras, which you claim He was stolen from, was a warrior, more like Hercules. the persian Mithras wasn't around by this time.

Answer 1

Fact: The tale of Jesus is a composite of older mythological figures.

Fact: No historians of the time mentioned Jesus (and don't even think of mentioning the forgery committed by Eusebius in Josephus's work).

Fact: Christianity offered an alternative to the religious beliefs held by the Roman invaders, and offered an afterlife, so naturally people would "follow this melting-pot story even in the face of death?"

Fact: People have always known that Christianity is based on earlier religious beliefs, but stating as much would have got me killed a few hundred years ago.

Fact: The Romans would have said "wait a sec, this Jesus guy is claiming to have been born of a virgin, just like our current God Mithra. He's an heretic, so let's kill his followers"

Edit: I already spotted my error and amended it.

Edit2: Fact: Mithra's mother was Anahita, a virgin. The rock/virgin contradiction depends on the date of your documents. However, it was believed from around 400 BC that Anahita was Mithra's mother.

By the way, your link proved my point about the clash between Mithraism and Christianity.

You also missed my point about the afterlife. If one is convinced that paradise awaits, one would probably not be intimidated by threats of persecution and death. Whether the Roman alternative also offered an afterlife is largely irrelevant. It was still the religion of the invaders. Hence the aforementioned clash.

Edit3: I never said anything about soldiers converting. I was talking about early Christians.

I also never said anything about the other similarities on the link. I said, "your link proved my point about the clash between Mithraism and Christianity."

Whoever stated that the Eucharist was stolen by Mithraism has not bothered to do their homework. Evidence of people partaking in a meal of communion with their gods predates Paul's First Epistle by hundreds of years. The Romans Lectisternia was recorded as early as 399 BC. This ritual was copied from the (more ancient) Greek Theoxenia.

And lastly, I did not say that Jesus was an exact copy of Mithra. I said that, "Jesus is a composite of older mythological figures."

You're also mistaken about the nature of this, older Mithra. The Avesta describes him as a warrior deity who carries a mace with a hundred knots.

Sure, the mythology had evolved, but that's not really significant in this context.

Answer 2

Now I know why history education is in such shambles. No wonder I only went three years as a History major and then quit.

Answer 3

Yeh it's amazing how Christianity managed to survive despite it's claim of public miracles which everyone at the time would have know whether they had actually occurred. And even in the very midst of those who murdered Christ, some of whom even became Christian, and even one of them who was involved in the murder of the first Christian became a chief apostle writing much of the New Testament.

If it's a myth it's certainly unlike any other myth.

Answer 4

you appear to be equivocating on the be conscious "fantasy," which in Pope Leo's context in simple terms meant "tale," no longer "falsehood," because of the fact the term is usually used as we communicate. we ought to consistently no longer infer that the pope replaced into implying that Christ never existed nor that his tale is in basic terms staggering. that's the subject with words; they're slippery and ought to consistently be grounded contextually.

Answer 5

They probably did say that, but of course the men who wrote the bible wouldn't have added that they stole it from other myths.

Answer 6

I have met God, seen angels, experienced miracles.

Jesus is real.

And you can test the Bible:

http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/bible.html

You can prove God's Word in 3 ways::

1. Do the word in doctrine and witness truth in your life-

John 7:16-17:
"...'My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself.' "

2. The Holy Spirit will bear witness of Christ (Jesus is the Word of God - John chapter 1)-

John 15:26:
" 'When the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me.' "

3. Confirming signs-

Mark 16:20:
"And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the Word by the signs that followed."

Answer 7

It wasn't the Romans's who worshiped false God's it was the Egyptians who were the Pagan's.

Answer 8

When writing fiction, the author can make anything happen. What exactly are you asking?

Answer 9

i agree .. similarities to other deities dont prove a thing .. that was always the problem in the old testament ... false gods and worshipping other gods ..

Answer 10

Yup I think your on to something here.