Questioning christianity's originality

[eight bits]

Tiggs

Perhaps it's as simple as that if his bones had been broken, then the Passover sacrifice would have been invalid.

But he's not literally a Passover sacrifice in the first place. The allusion is entirely literary. Jesus is a human being, and so ineligible for that role. He's thoroughly "blemished," too, for that matter.

An elite author is calling attention to a detail of ritual compliance, in a scene which otherwise shouts how loose the allusion is. It's like talking about Kosher salt being used at a clambake.

We know that John plays mythological motifs off each other. For example, his unique water-to-wine incident takes on Dionysus directly, while altogether avoiding the signature wine ritual which furnished a basis for Dionysus parallels. John's telling of the miracle also does an elegant job of demolishing Mother-Mary-is-really-Isis imagery, which can be read into two of the other Gospels. I'll bet critics did use that, even as early as the late First Century.

So, I suspect he's doing myth-busting here, too. I could be wrong, but that's what I think is going on.

We know from the earlier Matthew that body-snatching stories existed from the outset. Body snatching stories often include body disposal elements, sometimes colorful ones. Osiris was pretty well disposed of. Isis had to work her butt off to get close to reconstructing him. Mary Magdalene, in John and only in John, asks Isis' question, Where is the body of my beloved?, and a complete restoration walks right up to her. Hmm.

Which is why I don't associate the two

No, I don't think you're the one who proposes this kind of argument. You tend to look for the sources in the Hebrew Bible, and I agree that that's where the mother lode is. However, at a certain point in church history, those dependencies would more readily be seen as marks of legitimacy, not cause for suspicion.

[Yamato]

Being documented and being accurate are two totally different things,,

History from 100 years ago even as short as 20 or 30 years ago get's misreported and printed as fact. We are seeing it in American politics with President Obama's books and how he reported his family history and how the media just said what he'd wrote. Now we discover that Obama may have used some creative writting..

So if recent history can be spun then what about these story's of Jesus that were already a couple hundred years old by the time they were compiled and printed for the first Christian New Testament. And then lets fast forward to 1611 and the KJV of the Bible and how it was interpreted based on what Sir Frances Bacon thought and believed..

Heck I won't even bring up the fact of 3 sets of 10 Commandments most commonly used in Churches, And really how no Christians can tell you which version their church uses and why their church does use that set that their taught.

As long as a man is going to report it, it will have that mans opinion and spin on it. And the longer the story goes, the longer it evolves and gets further from the truth..

Because it doesn't matter to Christians what version of the Commandments their church uses. People really ought to go to church so they can figure out what matters from what doesn't. The sheer volume of nonsense that continuously gets assigned to Christians on this board is remarkable.

If information is 50 or 100 years after Christ, it's inaccurate because of the time that passed. If it's information during the time of Christ, it's inaccurate because the Bible is JK Rowling. If it's information from before the time of Christ, well that's just plain silly. I don't know what the question is anymore when every question devolves into the same atheist BS that Christ either didn't exist or who cares if he did? If that's going to be what every discussion about Christianity devolves to, this is obviously just another long winded atheist game of begging the question.

[Yamato]

The same could be said about Jesus..

I didn't say anything. I asked a question. The same could be asked of Jesus you mean? Okay, what originality is that? Let's throw you into the den of dogs and see how you do.

[CloudSix]

Does the originality of Horus provide you with belief in Horus?

Of course it doesn't provide me belief in him

[Yamato]

Of course it doesn't provide me belief in him

Thank you for being the first and only person to answer the question. Though the chirping crickets I got from everyone else already agreed with you.

And so it begs my question: Originality. What is it good for?

[karmakazi]

And so it begs my question: Originality. What is it good for?

My question is, has originality even existed in most of recorded history? Stories always seemed to be based on something else, art always seems to be based on something else, music.... well you get the idea. Even my most creative and original drawings were still inspired by something.

Take my avatar... inspired by Shakespeare.

Edited June 30, 2012 by karmakazi

[ZaraKitty]

I didn't say anything. I asked a question. The same could be asked of Jesus you mean? Okay, what originality is that? Let's throw you into the den of dogs and see how you do.

Did that little horus-jesus comparison offend you? Overreaction much.

[ranrod]

I wouldn't be surprised if those early people borrowed the stories they liked the best from other religions and added it to theirs. There are flood stories in other religions, resurrection, son of god stories, apostles, devil counterparts, etc. Bits and pieces from a variety of other religions. Then spent a few centuries refining it. How original was the monotheistic nature of the religion? IMHO it ended up being more polytheistic than most of those ancient religions, but monotheism was a big marketing point in the early days, wasn't it?

[7STAR]

a rage comic is hardly a credible source of information. i would like to see the ancient texts that specifically mention these attributes in reference to the gods that were mentioned. and besides. as my uncle made clear to me. even if everything in the comic is factually accurate—a true believer will simply discern that Satan merely put these myths into the historic script as a way to preemptively discredit the story of Jesus. a rationalization suspiciously similar to the notion that God put dinosaur fossils in the earth to 'test our faith' of a young earth creation. something, ironically enough, my uncle thinks is absurd.

[ranrod]

a rage comic is hardly a credible source of information. i would like to see the ancient texts that specifically mention these attributes in reference to the gods that were mentioned. and besides. as my uncle made clear to me. even if everything in the comic is factually accurate—a true believer will simply discern that Satan merely put these myths into the historic script as a way to preemptively discredit the story of Jesus. a rationalization suspiciously similar to the notion that God put dinosaur fossils in the earth to 'test our faith' of a young earth creation. something, ironically enough, my uncle thinks is absurd.

hmm...so when things seem shaky, blame Satan, huh? How convenient... What if when Satan turned on God, Satan actually won, but Satan's greatest trick was to convince humans that he lost? The original god was imprisoned in hell, and Satan runs free. That would explain why the followers so often end up enacting the opposite of what the teaching say, why the standard bearers for hate and discrimination have been religious, and why there was so much torture, slaughter and deception in the name of religion. It all makes sense now! Wait...what if that's what Satan wants us to believe? ...Wait, what if Satan lost to god, but Jesus in his trip were he resisted the three temptations of Satan, he actually gave in? Satan said that if Jesus kneeled to him that all the kingdoms in his sight would be his. Well they eventually did, so does that mean Jesus actually gave in and he serves Satan now? ...But wait, Jesus is supposed to be god too, so why would Satan tempt the almighty with some cities on earth?...hmm...Doesn't make sense....Maybe it doesn't make sense because Satan is interfering with my thought process! It never ends!!!

[Tiggs]

But he's not literally a Passover sacrifice in the first place. The allusion is entirely literary. Jesus is a human being, and so ineligible for that role. He's thoroughly "blemished," too, for that matter.

Ah. That's interesting. There we do disagree. While John is the least subtle, the allusion is present in the other Gospels, too. I think that the claim is that Jesus was literally the Passover sacrifice & hence - the sin offering for the world. I don't see how the New Testament hangs together, otherwise.

In context - it is the blood of the sacrificed lamb which protects the people of Israel - and the blood of the lamb sacrificed by the priests which protects those who were not ceremonially clean. .

Exodus 12:

²¹ Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb.

²² Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. None of you shall go out of the door of your house until morning.

²³ When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.

2 Chronicles 30:

¹⁶Then they took up their regular positions as prescribed in the Law of Moses the man of God. The priests splashed against the altar the blood handed to them by the Levites.

¹⁷ Since many in the crowd had not consecrated themselves, the Levites had to kill the Passover lambs for all those who were not ceremonially clean and could not consecrate their lambs to the Lord.

¹⁸ Although most of the many people who came from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun had not purified themselves, yet they ate the Passover, contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, “May the Lord, who is good, pardon everyone"

The last supper is where Jesus talks of himself as the Passover Lamb, sacrificed by the priests for the sake of the unconsecrated:

Mark 14:

²² While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”

²³ Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

²⁴ “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.

And as Paul echo's here:

1 Corinthians 5

⁷ Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

And returning to old-school:

Genesis 22

⁸ Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

An elite author is calling attention to a detail of ritual compliance, in a scene which otherwise shouts how loose the allusion is. It's like talking about Kosher salt being used at a clambake.

I'm not going to fight your position that Jesus' death doesn't fulfill the literal requirements of a Passover Sacrifice. It wasn't performed indoors, for a start, and crucifixion for Lambs isn't exactly in the sacrificial manual, either.

We know that John plays mythological motifs off each other. For example, his unique water-to-wine incident takes on Dionysus directly, while altogether avoiding the signature wine ritual which furnished a basis for Dionysus parallels. John's telling of the miracle also does an elegant job of demolishing Mother-Mary-is-really-Isis imagery, which can be read into two of the other Gospels. I'll bet critics did use that, even as early as the late First Century.

So, I suspect he's doing myth-busting here, too. I could be wrong, but that's what I think is going on.

We know from the earlier Matthew that body-snatching stories existed from the outset. Body snatching stories often include body disposal elements, sometimes colorful ones. Osiris was pretty well disposed of. Isis had to work her butt off to get close to reconstructing him. Mary Magdalene, in John and only in John, asks Isis' question, Where is the body of my beloved?, and a complete restoration walks right up to her. Hmm.

Well, it's possible. The Gospel of John is, in my opinion, a rewritten version of the Synoptics, with some inbuilt apologetics - Doubting Thomas, for example.

I still think that it's an appeal to Christ as the passover lamb. Perhaps it's a twofer.

No, I don't think you're the one who proposes this kind of argument. You tend to look for the sources in the Hebrew Bible, and I agree that that's where the mother lode is. However, at a certain point in church history, those dependencies would more readily be seen as marks of legitimacy, not cause for suspicion.

Agreed. I strongly suspect that the Virgin Birth, for example, was an early addition to the Gospels in order to add legitimacy to the claim of Christ being "Special".

[AzTide]

Because it doesn't matter to Christians what version of the Commandments their church uses. People really ought to go to church so they can figure out what matters from what doesn't. The sheer volume of nonsense that continuously gets assigned to Christians on this board is remarkable.

If information is 50 or 100 years after Christ, it's inaccurate because of the time that passed. If it's information during the time of Christ, it's inaccurate because the Bible is JK Rowling. If it's information from before the time of Christ, well that's just plain silly. I don't know what the question is anymore when every question devolves into the same atheist BS that Christ either didn't exist or who cares if he did? If that's going to be what every discussion about Christianity devolves to, this is obviously just another long winded atheist game of begging the question.

If Christians do not care which set of Ten Commandments they use then why get so upset when atheists want them removed from courthouses? The Hypocrisy alone in Christians is just mind blowing. They way they pick and chose what is relevant and when it's relevancy matters. And it's not nonsense you just don't like the facts being pointed out..

People enjoy pointing out how inaccurate the bible is because simple minded people continue to make excuses and defend a flawed book and go way out of their way to persecute gays and other groups because this work of fiction called the Bible says something that they INTERPRETED to mean it's evil. Those same people always forget or excuses away the parts of the Bible that do not agree with their teachings or beliefs.

What is written in the book we know as the was ripped off from many cultures and religions and passed off as the one true word of God. "And funny enough ever religion threw out time says their God and his book is the one true religion" And then people get sucked into believing it and when someone points out the obvious lies then the believers get defensive and attack and when facts and common sense over rides the argument the believers throw out "You have to have Faith".

Just because you drank the Kool Aid that doesn't make the rest of us are morons as well..

[AzTide]

I didn't say anything. I asked a question. The same could be asked of Jesus you mean? Okay, what originality is that? Let's throw you into the den of dogs and see how you do.

What is the Den of Dogs?

[eight bits]

Tiggs

Well, you're a better Bible preacher than many evangelists! Bravo! The only thing I would clarify for Sunday's sermon is that Paul actually gives the eucharistic institution narrative outright at 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26; Mark is the second survivng recorded instance. It looks like both might be quoting some liturgical manual or memorized ritual.

The imagery of a paschal lamb for a decedent who is Jewish, killed at or around Passover in Jerusalem, and arguably with the complicity of other Jews, is a sufficiently obvious figure of speech that I don't think I need to labor that it is a figure of speech.

No amount of repetition of the image for the benefit of Gentiles, however, will summon into being a Jewish or Hebrew tradition of human sacrifice. That is the clear point of the Isaac story, that the seed of Abraham will not be doing any human sacrifice, ever, for any cause or pretext.

About 1400 years after John, a branch of Christianity arose in which Jesus' assassination, in and of itself, redeems believers. There's simply no clear evidence of that idea being widely accepted long before that, although it is now routinely retrojected onto Paul's arguments that Gentiles sholudn't obey Mosaic Law to qualify as righteous Gentiles. Reformation is way too far in John's future to be an aid in understanding his views about the event's significance to him.

Well, it's possible. The Gospel of John is, in my opinion, a rewritten version of the Synoptics, with some inbuilt apologetics - Doubting Thomas, for example.

I think it's a partial refutation of the synoptics and Paul. Maybe a "separation of the wheat from the chaff." And since it has come up, there is no eucharistic instituion narrative in John, despite his love of the paschal lamb imagery.

I conjecture that we're looking at the literature of a sparingly orthodox subsect within ancient Christianity that somehow managed to avoid being ostracized as "heretical," possibly by having some high-status members. Then their stuff came in handy a few centuries later when it was time to invent trinitarian monotheism. So, maybe it just didn't matter too much if John threw a few elbows at the earlier canon. All in my opinion.

Agreed. I strongly suspect that the Virgin Birth, for example, was an early addition to the Gospels in order to add legitimacy to the claim of Christ being "Special".

* Handshakes all around. *

[Beany]

Speaking to the original post, yes, there have been many religious figures with the same qualities as ascribed to jesus, which is why the story of jesus was so readily accepted by the common folk. Culturally & historically, there were so many Christ-like gods that it was easy for people to accept the the story of Jesus as being true. Historically, Jesus was not a unique religious concept or being. I suppose people believed in Horus or Dionysus just a strongly as Christians believe in Jesus. We're talking about belief, not fact. While the bible may be true, every word of it, there is no way to prove it, so it comes down to belief, to which we're all entitled. What makes me crazy are the people crowing about the superiority of their beliefs, kind of a spiritual one-upsmanship, so to speak.

[Yamato]

If Christians do not care which set of Ten Commandments they use then why get so upset when atheists want them removed from courthouses? The Hypocrisy alone in Christians is just mind blowing. They way they pick and chose what is relevant and when it's relevancy matters. And it's not nonsense you just don't like the facts being pointed out..

People enjoy pointing out how inaccurate the bible is because simple minded people continue to make excuses and defend a flawed book and go way out of their way to persecute gays and other groups because this work of fiction called the Bible says something that they INTERPRETED to mean it's evil. Those same people always forget or excuses away the parts of the Bible that do not agree with their teachings or beliefs.

What is written in the book we know as the was ripped off from many cultures and religions and passed off as the one true word of God. "And funny enough ever religion threw out time says their God and his book is the one true religion" And then people get sucked into believing it and when someone points out the obvious lies then the believers get defensive and attack and when facts and common sense over rides the argument the believers throw out "You have to have Faith".

Just because you drank the Kool Aid that doesn't make the rest of us are morons as well..

If Christians do not care which set of Ten Commandments they use then why get so upset when atheists want them removed from courthouses? The Hypocrisy alone in Christians is just mind blowing. They way they pick and chose what is relevant and when it's relevancy matters. And it's not nonsense you just don't like the facts being pointed out..

I don't get upset when you want them removed from courthouses. How have the people who got upset about it hurt you? Was there case history at that courthouse to suggest that someone without idols was given preferential treatment?

People enjoy pointing out how inaccurate the bible is because simple minded people continue to make excuses and defend a flawed book and go way out of their way to persecute gays and other groups because this work of fiction called the Bible says something that they INTERPRETED to mean it's evil. Those same people always forget or excuses away the parts of the Bible that do not agree with their teachings or beliefs.

Scientists defend flawed books too. They're called science books. I don't make-pretend all of this rage at scientists about it. Science is moral-neutral and asks how where religion embraces morality and asks why. Stop trying to make religion do science's job just because you don't like someone's answer they give you about the Bible. So you heard an answer from a Christian about the Bible that was just soooo stupid. How big was the bruise from that? Did you get stitches?

[GoldenWolf]

Just because you drank the Kool Aid that doesn't make the rest of us are morons as well..

It's called Jesus Juice

Edited July 3, 2012 by HavocWing

[AzTide]

If Christians do not care which set of Ten Commandments they use then why get so upset when atheists want them removed from courthouses? The Hypocrisy alone in Christians is just mind blowing. They way they pick and chose what is relevant and when it's relevancy matters. And it's not nonsense you just don't like the facts being pointed out..

I don't get upset when you want them removed from courthouses. How have the people who got upset about it hurt you? Was there case history at that courthouse to suggest that someone without idols was given preferential treatment?

People enjoy pointing out how inaccurate the bible is because simple minded people continue to make excuses and defend a flawed book and go way out of their way to persecute gays and other groups because this work of fiction called the Bible says something that they INTERPRETED to mean it's evil. Those same people always forget or excuses away the parts of the Bible that do not agree with their teachings or beliefs.

Scientists defend flawed books too. They're called science books. I don't make-pretend all of this rage at scientists about it. Science is moral-neutral and asks how where religion embraces morality and asks why. Stop trying to make religion do science's job just because you don't like someone's answer they give you about the Bible. So you heard an answer from a Christian about the Bible that was just soooo stupid. How big was the bruise from that? Did you get stitches?

How many people have been killed because leaders believed in science and made it punishable by death not to believe anything other than science? How many wars have started over different scientific views?

Science evolves and changes based on proven facts. With religion when something is pointed out a religious person says " You have to have Faith"

That's a huge difference in your your logic!!!

And Christianity gave many bruises and many deaths over the years. And even today religious groups still lash out..

Sorry I upset your cult Yamato!!!

[AzTide]

It's called Jesus Juice

That's funny Havoc... LMAO

[Yamato]

How many people have been killed because leaders believed in science and made it punishable by death not to believe anything other than science? How many wars have started over different scientific views?

Science evolves and changes based on proven facts. With religion when something is pointed out a religious person says " You have to have Faith"

That's a huge difference in your your logic!!!

And Christianity gave many bruises and many deaths over the years. And even today religious groups still lash out..

Sorry I upset your cult Yamato!!!

How many people have been killed because leaders believed in science

Millions.

and made it punishable by death not to believe anything other than science?

Science has unleashed the power of the atom to the detriment and benefit of us all. If you don't believe in technology more than the Joneses, other leaders will come eat your lunch.

Science evolves and changes based on proven facts. With religion when something is pointed out a religious person says " You have to have Faith"

You do have to have faith. It's an inner spiritual decision not yours to impose yourself upon.

And Christianity gave many bruises and many deaths over the years. And even today religious groups still lash out..

Christianity's been used to incite violence by many governments over the years and as a religion, it's not alone in that. Those bruises and deaths were caused by governments and no way limited to religious governments.

[+and-then]

I find it interesting that these other gods/historical figures are portrayed identically to Jesus Christ, or the opposite if you prefer, but it isn't a point of fact that would cause a Christian to doubt their faith. I accept the historical references as accurate. The historicity of Christ's life is debatable for those who wish to have first person documentation. I have no problem with anyone who needs such proof. I believe that evidences are given in the OT through the prophets that the word of God is real. Daniel wrote of world civilizations which had not come to pass in his day. Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel among others wrote of Christs first advent and it occurred, some say to the day it was forecast. But of course if the REALITY of the Person of Christ can be denied then all the Bible can be denied since it is almost exclusively about Him. Maybe that's the point. Anyway - good, thought provoking post

[AzTide]

How many people have been killed because leaders believed in science

Millions.

and made it punishable by death not to believe anything other than science?

Science has unleashed the power of the atom to the detriment and benefit of us all. If you don't believe in technology more than the Joneses, other leaders will come eat your lunch.

Science evolves and changes based on proven facts. With religion when something is pointed out a religious person says " You have to have Faith"

You do have to have faith. It's an inner spiritual decision not yours to impose yourself upon.

And Christianity gave many bruises and many deaths over the years. And even today religious groups still lash out..

Christianity's been used to incite violence by many governments over the years and as a religion, it's not alone in that. Those bruises and deaths were caused by governments and no way limited to religious governments.

Science didn't kill people with atom bomb it was humans.. Using your logic guns kill people and McDonalds makes people fat.. It comes down to humans and the choices they make. It's just that plain and simple!!

And religions for thousands of years have used FEAR of God and his return to as you put it "Eat My Lunch" And I have yet to just point out Christianity as I believe all religions are guilty of terror threw out history...

When was the last time you saw a scientist running a country or large group like a religion? I can see daily around the world and threw out history what deadly effects religious leaders have done and still do in the name of their religion and God.

On the other hand the is no Nuclear or Biological Weapon that spoke to people and demanded they live or act a certain way. Science is just what is made of it.. And religion should be the same but the followers of religion walk around screaming about faith while persecuting those that disagree ..

Now if you want to use Monsanto or another company like that then I'll agree that science can be perverted and evil and run like religions have done for thousands of years..

[Yamato]

Science didn't kill people with atom bomb it was humans.. Using your logic guns kill people and McDonalds makes people fat.. It comes down to humans and the choices they make. It's just that plain and simple!!

And religions for thousands of years have used FEAR of God and his return to as you put it "Eat My Lunch" And I have yet to just point out Christianity as I believe all religions are guilty of terror threw out history...

When was the last time you saw a scientist running a country or large group like a religion? I can see daily around the world and threw out history what deadly effects religious leaders have done and still do in the name of their religion and God.

On the other hand the is no Nuclear or Biological Weapon that spoke to people and demanded they live or act a certain way. Science is just what is made of it.. And religion should be the same but the followers of religion walk around screaming about faith while persecuting those that disagree ..

Now if you want to use Monsanto or another company like that then I'll agree that science can be perverted and evil and run like religions have done for thousands of years..

Science didn't kill people with atom bomb it was humans

God didn't kill people with atomic bombs, it was humans. Looks like a dead end there.

When was the last time you saw a scientist running a country or large group

Morsi Egypt's new President has a doctorate in engineering. Ahmadinejad is a civil engineer. Obviously, science is moral-neutral thus something else is needed.

And religion should be the same but the followers of religion walk around screaming about faith while persecuting those that disagree ..

Please share these persecutions.

[Tiggs]

God didn't kill people with atomic bombs, it was humans. Looks like a dead end there.

God created a Universe where atomic bombs were possible.

[Yamato]

God created a Universe where atomic bombs were possible.

God created a universe where everything is possible.