|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Jesus die before he was born? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
As to the other web site I found mentioned in this thread, "Pagan Christ's."
That particular page is on "Attis." It sounds exaggerated, too. Can someone help me with this. There's really a Phrygian god born on Dec. 25, who is considered both the Father and divine Son, and who has a death on a tree with a resurrection after a couple days in the Spring? That is extremely hard to believe. That page mentions Tertullian, and Tertullian does indeed mention Attis in passing. He says that Attis was burned to death like Hercules. He mentions him twice, but never says more. The page says that Christians blamed similarities between Roman gods and Christianity on demons. This is true, and Justin is the best example. Justin predates Tertullian by about 50 years, but Justin doesn't mention Attis at all. He does mention the similarities between Mithras and Jesus, but doesn't seem to know about any similarities between Attis and Christianity. I can't go back and read all of Tertullian right now, but I suspect the page is just wrong in providing Tertullian as an example of a Christian who blames similarities on the demons. I think he must mean Justin. Anyway, I don't believe anything that page says about Attis except that he was a Phrygian god. Does anyone know anything else about that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Sir James Frazier, The Golden Bough...
Chapter 34. The Myth and Ritual of Attis. Frazer, Sir James George. 1922. The Golden Bough ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
truthlover writes: As far as I can tell from surfing the web, Josephus has about three paragraphs broken up in two places on John the Baptist. That's a far cry from what the web site implies... Are you talking about this site that you mentioned at the top of your message:
If so, it doesn't look familiar, I don't think I've seen it before. Josephus places John the Baptist in a historical context and makes him a part of events. An important part, in fact, since he was apparently crucial in arousing Jewish resentment of Herod's actions. Josephus's passage about John the Baptist occurs in book 18, chapter 5 of Antiquities. Here is the relevant portion:
2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him. But the degree to which the details and authenticity of the Josephus references to John the Baptist exceed those for Jesus is a mere supporting point to the thesis that Jesus was not an actual figure of 1st century Palestine. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Thanks, John.
I had been curious why Justin and others, who are clearly very familiar with the Mithras rites, ignored Attis if he was so like the Christian rites. There's enough differences I can understand it. The other site is clearly an exaggeration, although I can understand where he got the ideas he focused on and embellished a little.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
I haven't been following this thread very closely, so I'm not sure who or what you mean by "Justin and others."
What I find most telling about the 'pagan christs' is the sheer numbers of them. There are no exact matches but the similarities are enough to imply influence. Have you seen this site?
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I hadn't seen your site, but I'm going there now.
By Justin and others, I'm referring to the early apologists who argued that demons foresaw the coming of Christ and so produced "pagan Christs" to mimic him and keep people from coming to him. Mithras is mentioned, Attis isn't. That's not a huge deal, but the description of Attis on that web site I mentioned was so unusually similar to Christianity, that it seemed odd they wouldn't have mentioned it. Justin lived in Rome when he wrote, so he had to have known about Attis. The site is clearly exaggerated. I am not trying to deny that there were trinities, resurrection myths, "flesh and blood" meals, etc. in pagan religions. I was under the impression that Mithras' rites bore the closest resemblance to Christian rites in the Roman empire, so hearing about Attis was quite a surprise. And if Attis was so similar, why did the apologists (Justin and others) of the Roman empire defend themselves concerning Mithras, but not Attis? The answer is that Mithras really is the closest to Christian rites, and the site was exaggerating the similarities to Attis, as well as inventing the statement that Tertullian responded to the Attis myth. The Mithras rites by themselves are enough to imply (though not prove) influence. And critics of early Christianity used them. That is why the apologists had to address it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
bumpity bump bump bump
I like this topic and Raha just asked a question concerning Jesus ben Pantera which I directed here.... ------------------Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raha Inactive Member |
Yeah. This "Pandera/Panthera/Pantera issue" really intrigues me. Especially because I have found some claims that the story was just invented by Jews to discredit Jesus. A was able to found quite a lot accounts about Pandera, but all of them are quite "new" (150-200 CE). So I would like to ask whether anyone here knows some older reference about him.
Also, after reading this thread, I would like to bring your attention to this:
In Romans Paul writes:
001:003 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 001:004 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.. This is interesting, because here Paul explains quite clearly what he understands as "being the Son of God" - Jesus was born human and was human and nothing but human through his entire life. Only after he was resurrected, he was "adopted" by Holy Spirit. This makes me think about something...
In 1799, Handsome Lake had the first in a series of visions while lying in his bed deathly ill. A messenger from the Creator appeared to him, giving him instructions for the Iroquois. Handsome Lake recovered and preached these messages to the Seneca in what became known as the Code of Handsome Lake. Handsome Lake was inspired by Christian religion, of course, but why I mention this here - he was regarded dead by many people, including his half-brother Cornplanter. So when he recovered, he was regarded as "resurrected".So - is it possible, that somebody, who is now known as Jesus Christ, was indeed crucified, took from the cross while still alive but regarded as dead and buried in cold cave, where he recovered because he was not actually too seriously injured but merely exhausted by being exposed to sun? In such case, his ministry would start not before, but AFTER his "death". ------------------Life has no meaning but itself. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ichthus33 Inactive Member |
Hi
Let me make sure I heard you cleary. If a man is beaten all night long by Roman soldiers. Then he is forced to carry his own cross to his deathplace. Then is nailed to the cross. Hangs there for hours. In that middle eastern sun. Then he has a soldier stab him in his side to make sure that he's dead, ..... then why do you think that he would not be seriously injured? Also, why would he need to fake a death and resurection. If you want proof of Jesus read the Old testement he fulfilled 333 prophesies from it. Jesus is not a folk tale that expanded over centuries. He was spoken of even in Genesis 3:15. Check this outIsaiah 53:1 1 Who hath believed our message? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. hmm... sounds a lot like Jesus to me. Which was written at least 800 years prior to his birth. Sounds like his ministry didn't begin at his birth but that it has been the plan all along even from the Garden of Eden.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Ya know... I have allways found the fullfilling prophecies argument an interesting one. Set aside the fact the the prophecies are ambiguious at best, and just plain wrong in other cases, but why do we trust that they were fullfilld?
I mean, why couldn't this Jesus guy have been manufactured, shoehorned into the prophesies. Maybe he was a great human rights activist (for his tiem anyway), he died for his cause, and in order that he may not be forgoten (not to mention to further their socio-political ends) his followers began to do some OT revisionisim, exageration, and distortion in order to get the prophesy to be fullfilld. This isn't new. Even today here in Miami were I live, some of these crazy cubans think Elian gonzales is the reincarnation of a saint, and that he is fortold by Biblical prophecy. Another one is the recently debunked Bible Code nonsense. The Romans and Greeks did this too. How many countless rhistorical figures don't have partialy mythical backgrounds were they meet the Gods etc. If I wanted to further a cause what better propaganda than to fit it into the cultures mythology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ichthus33 Inactive Member |
I know exactly what you are saying Yaro, and you do have a good point.
But, I've noticed that in recent years people have begun to deny the very existance that Jesus ever lived. I don't know if that's what you are saying or not. For those who belive that Jesus existed in history, and that he was a good man and such. How can you believe such a thing. In my studying it has been reveild to me that Jesus didn't leave anyone that choice. Would a good man claim to be God and not be... sounds like a cult leader to me... and also, would a liar claim to be God, yes, but what would Jesus gain from his teaching by lying, to be crucified? ... one last thing could he have been a lunatic? No. So liar and lunatic have been eleminated from our context. So what is left, the fact that he is Lord. So it seems that Jesus has given us 3 choices.... that he is Lord, a Liar, or a Lunatic... Jesus said that He is God. Either he was lying, he was a lunatic, or he was telling the truth. And personally I believe the latter. ("Note: If you don't want to understand this, you won't.") One of the things that are very convicing is the prophecy in Daniel would you belive that it predicts the very year of Jesus's death?Daniel 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after sixty and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and its end shall be with a flood, and to the end of the war desolations are determined. The Hebrew word translated in the place of "week" actually means "heptad". Which is a unit of 7. A simular word that we usein english is dozen. A unit of 12. K, now that we got that down lets move on.9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and sixty and two weeks So from the decree to rebuilding of Jerusalem until the promissed Messiah would come would be a total of 7 * 62 (units of 7) =434 years We read in Nehemiah Chp 1-2 that the decree was made to rebuild Jerusalem. And after sixty and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: We are told that after 62 weeks (434 years) that the Messiah would be cut off or killed. And it turns out that Jesus rode into Jerusalem and was crucified exactly 434 years after the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt in Nehemiah. Can this be mere coincenence? If you think so, then that's too bad, I urge you to dig up and look into this. The truth will not hide nor does it lie. If you truely seek it you will find it. Because He who is the truth is seeking you as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Would a good man claim to be God and not be... sounds like a cult leader to me... and also, would a liar claim to be God, yes, but what would Jesus gain from his teaching by lying, to be crucified? ... one last thing could he have been a lunatic? No. So liar and lunatic have been eleminated from our context. So what is left, the fact that he is Lord. If you're going to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, it's generally considered good form to actually give him credit rather than passing off his argument as your own. As it happens, it's a flawed argument. The fourth alternative, that C.S. Lewis convinently forgets to mention, is that what Jesus says and does in the Bible is false. Jesus wasn't a lunatic who claimed to be God, because he may never have claimed to be God. Sure, he makes that claim in the Bible, but who's to say that those parts of the Bible weren't made up?
Can this be mere coincenence? No, it could simply be the authors of the Bible writing it that way. See, that's the problem with using the Bible to support the claims of the Bible. It's circular. You have to assume the Bible is true in order to arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ichthus33 Inactive Member |
Hi crashfrog.
First off, who is C.S Lewis? I've never heard of him or read any of his text. And also can you prove to me that what Jesus says in the Bible is false? There is more proof that he is true. On what grounds do you make this claim? We have to look at this in plain clear perspective. What does anyone in the Bible have to gain by lying and making things up? The author of the Bible is the Holy Spirit of God. How else could the Bible flow together so perfectly? The Bible was written over a span of 1800 years, and over 40 people had a hand in writing it. Over 200,000 people around the world are being saved every single day. That is just unheard of. God is making a great move in the world today through missionaries around the world. Jesus offers salvation to any and everyone. And it is very apparent that He is alive and well. No other religous figure has ever done anything like this and never will. Because Christianity is not a religion of good works but rather a relationship with God himself. Good works are just the fruit of the nature of Christ. And any Christian can tell you that once you are saved, you know the truth and see the lies of the enemy clearer. --- God Bless
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4550 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
Sorry, I multiple-posted, see below.
[This message has been edited by zephyr, 09-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4550 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
Excuse my multiple post. Server was giving me a lot of errors.
[This message has been edited by zephyr, 09-07-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024