Who was Jesus?

[+Paranoid Android]

Have you read "Christ in Egypt"? I have, and it is clear to me that those who make videos etc attacking her, or more precisely the video "Zeitgiest", which is not hers, have not, or are very selective in what parts they attack. They always claim she says that Horus was crucified, then quote an "expert" to say that nowhere is there any record of Horus being crucified. And it is true that there is no record from AE that Horus was crucified. This is then made to seem as if Murdock has lied, yet she does not in her book claim that Horus was crucified. I have the book with me now, it is the chapter Was Horus "Crucified?" starting page 335 in the edition I have. Not once does she claim Horus was crucified, it is only her enemies who say she says this, in order to create confusion and doubt in the minds of those who have not read her words.

Acharya may or may not have specifically referred to a crucifixion (I've not read her books specifically, but I have read reviews, even including atheist reviews from articles such as this - remember, this is an atheist reviewing it). However, while Acharya is the most popular Christ-myther around today, she is by no means the only one who has in history and still does today, attempt to argue that point. Take Kersey Graves, for example, who wrote The World's 16 Crucified Saviors". He argues 16 deities all having identical claims to Christ. Horus is among them. Unfortunately, Richard Carrier when routinely debunks the article. And remember, just like above, Richard Carrier is an atheist, so no axe to grind there.

As said, Acharya may not have specifically mentioned the crucifixion. But two points of note are worth mentioning: 1- her contemporaries do, and 2- more importantly, her other claims are still completely false and misleading, so just because she makes one less falsehood about Horus does not make her anymore legitimate in the eyes of true historians.

And just to reiterate what was said in my last post, which is just as important here - I've emailed the historians to ask them about these parallels and similarities, and every response I have got has been less than flattering of those making the Christ-myth claim. Can you tell me you've also emailed historians to seek your own clarification from the experts?

Edited July 27, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[JonK]

4 out of 16 people said prophet. i expected there to be more votes for prophet than that. He says explicitly, multiple times in the Gospels that He is a prophet. also, the answer God was only met by 3 votes with 16 voters? that's under a quarter. the u.s. population supposedly is made up of around 80% of people who believe He is God.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

No, I disagree with all this. Jesus is not a "VERY" historical person. And as you admit to not reading "Christ in Egypt", then how can you make any valid judgement. You simply trashing her does not proove anything than your dislike of her. Her idea that Horus is Jesus is not impossible at all. I do not believe everything she has written on this, though the paralels she draws are not nonsense. What is nonsense is those who pretend to know what she has written and distort her argument for an audience that has no other information to get their opinion from. I could lay out in precise detail about the links between the iconography of the cross and Egypt, for it is the iconography she discusses, not crucifiction. But I have gone through all this a thousand times in other places and have no desire to go over this again. That you don't like her is your affair, and your word is not the final word on this. Other people do not have a problem with her. You either believe her or not. Personal attacks on an author and blowing clouds of smoke over an argument are not a substitute for rational debate. And as for you saying that "People who dont believe that Jesus existed dont know nothing of science whatsoever" is ridiculous nonsense and belongs in the middle ages along with "relics" and other nonsense.

Trying to blacken the name of Murdock will simply not do, it is not a rational response, it is Christian knee-jerk response to anybody daring to question them.

Yes Jesus is historical person. If you dont see Jesus as historical person then Pythagora, Socrates, Temujin and many others were mythological characthers. You need to study history of history. Yes I didnt read Christ in Egypt so I cant and didnt judge that work. I judge Acharya based on her other book which is hilarious to anyone who ever study any part of human history. I didnt trashing her. I used arguments. She said that Joshua become Jesus. Cmon. Realy? Then she said that Jesus is myth. I dont get it. Person become another person then myth. I agreed that there is parallels. So what? We have parallels with Dynosius too. So? Its possible that since probably Jesus knew Greek that he was influenced by it. Or John was who only reported water in wine miracle. I dont have nothing against her. She is sympathic person. Nice face. Smooth talking. Smart. But her work have gaps. Huge ones. I dont believe. I like to know. Her view is belief.

Acharya is on agenda. which is money. And nothing wrong there. But she is far from truth.

Her work is full of gaps. as I said then Temujin and Socrates didnt lived at all.

She is hilarious in terms of study. Use double standards. And totaly ingores science.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Jesus was at least 90% myth. This is so obvious it screams at us.

That "Jesus" means something today is another question; seems to me most of His influence is negative -- harmful -- and the world would be better off without Him.

I wonder if you would be a myth in year 4013?

[+Paranoid Android]

that's under a quarter. the u.s. population supposedly is made up of around 80% of people who believe He is God.

The topic of unexplained mysteries appears to appeal to fewer Christians than other types of internet forums. I remember on one forum I asked a Christian if he wanted to join since we had some good discussions here, he was initially interested and said he'd check it out. Ten minutes later he emailed me saying he doesn't want to get involved with satanic stuff like this.

Not saying that every Christian who stumbles on UM is going to think "satanic" (that is an extreme minority) but it does show that Christians aren't really interested in discussing matters of Bigfoot, Aliens, Pyramids, Dream Interpretations, Hoax moonlandings. They perhaps would only join to discuss on this section of the board (Spirituality vs Skepticism, and Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs). These people often come in with the idea of "preaching", and find out that it's not allowed. From here there are two or three likely scenarios: 1- they disappear quietly after two or three posts, thus most people don't remember them or even realise they were here, 2- they mellow out and become productive members of the UM community, or 3- they throw tantrums about being censored, speak about free speech and the like, and are eventually banned.

Either way, the problem dies quickly. And that gets back to my point here. As a Christian here who has spent longer than most on these boards, it's simply a fact of UM that while Christians may represent a majority in the US, they don't do so here. It may also be partly due to the fact that this is a worldwide site, so countries with Christian minorities also partake, and while it's probably a contributing factor it's been my experience that Christians generally have different interests when surfing the net.

All the best, JonK. I see you've been here since January, but considering it's only your seventh post I'll still offer you a warm welcome to the boards and hope your stay here is an enjoyable and educational one

~ Regards, PA

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Christians may represent a majority in the US, they don't do so here. It may also be partly due to the fact that this is a worldwide site, so countries with Christian minorities also partake, and while it's probably a contributing factor it's been my experience that Christians generally have different interests when surfing the net.

We can argue about true Christhians in general and about Christhians in USA particular.

Not everyone who claim is Christhian is Christhian. I say that is small number of true Christhian followers. It more like tradition custom stuff for many people.

As is said in Bible, when times comes only 144 000 people will came in Heaven.

I think that number fits perfectly with my view. Even among priests we find false Christhians.

[GoldenWolf]

Jesus was at least 90% myth. This is so obvious it screams at us.

That "Jesus" means something today is another question; seems to me most of His influence is negative -- harmful -- and the world would be better off without Him.

That not only sums up jesus, but the abrahamic god as well.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Interesting. However, just because of these (and many other) identified similarities between the Jesus of the Bible and beliefs of other ancient sects and cults of various places and times, one cannot conclude that a Galilean carpenter who dropped his tools for three years and was crucified as a political threat did not exist. .

I realy admire people like you who have patients to learn others common knowledge.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

That not only sums up jesus, but the abrahamic god as well.

Jesus overall is good person. His influence was good. I dont see anything why Jesus is harmfull?

Because of Frank Merton and people like him I start to believe that satanic sects/persons/agenda exists...that say my sympathy toward Church comes bigger...even Im not a religious person. Christhian type.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I realy cant see where do we going with claim that Jesus is Horus manifestation. Hell, Yahwe was Bedouin rain God..

[StarMountainKid]

Interesting thread. Let us say if some person has an epiphany, or becomes enlightened, feels one with god - with all - believes himself therefore to be the Messiah, he will express this experience within the culture he is living in. A man named Jesus, a Jew, will express this experience according to Judaism, he has no other framework in which to speak.

If this persona had been born in India, for instance, he would have been accepted as another Guru, as in this culture anyone may become enlightened and become one with god or as Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu.

In Judaism, this is not possible, as there can be only one Messiah. This may be who Jesus was, if he indeed existed at all, just a person who experienced some kind of enlightenment, and because of the culture he lived in, believed himself to be a son of the Jewish god, and influenced those around him to believed him to be the same.

[Frank Merton]

No Jesus is myth; look at all the stories about him; they don;t hold up as fact. It is only those who want to believe who believe and I think they do a lot of harm in the world.

If a man like Jesus had done all the things the gospels say, he would have been mentioned if not talked about at lenght in many sources of the time; instead all we have is stuff dating from a century or more later and then originating in the cult, not independent sources. You don't even have a "Nazareth" until the third or fourth century, and plainly beause to the christians its absecne was embarrassing.

Christianity itself is harmful for the most part, further evidence that his faith is based not on anything divine but entirely man-made.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

No Jesus is myth; look at all the stories about him; they don;t hold up as fact. It is only those who want to believe who believe and I think they do a lot of harm in the world.

If a man like Jesus had done all the things the gospels say, he would have been mentioned if not talked about at lenght in many sources of the time; instead all we have is stuff dating from a century or more later and then originating in the cult, not independent sources. You don't even have a "Nazareth" until the third or fourth century, and plainly beause to the christians its absecne was embarrassing.

Christianity itself is harmful for the most part, further evidence that his faith is based not on anything divine but entirely man-made.

Can you explain to me why Jesus is harmfull?

Thanks.

[GoldenWolf]

Jesus overall is good person. His influence was good. I dont see anything why Jesus is harmfull?

Because of Frank Merton and people like him I start to believe that satanic sects/persons/agenda exists...that say my sympathy toward Church comes bigger...even Im not a religious person. Christhian type.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/11/reasons-to-be-ashamed-and-not-fan-of.html

[ShadowSot]

The main source for comparison in English is the book "Christ in Egypt" by D.M.Murdock, aka Acharya S, and whether it is believed or hated, it cannot be said it is not well researched. Other books in other languages are also available that deal with this affair. The amount of "black" propoganda and hatred directed against any author who dares to put forward the view that Jesus is Horus is remarkable. Those videos I have seen that "debunk" this contention are themselves very badly researched and essentially the rantings of unpleasant fundamentalists whose only proof of anything is what the bible says, as if the bible were a scientific document containing 100% truth. This is why I wrote in one of my posts that this subject is toxic, as there is no meeting point, no possibility of rational discussion because of the blind hatred directed against any non Christian viewpoint, and I say this from bitter experience.

Archarya hs sources which she claims, but do not actually hold up to scrutiny. Many of the supposed comparisons to Jeus, like the claim that Horus' feast day was in December when it was during the summer, and Christmas, which is is a later assumption of the pagan holiday of Saturnalia, aren't real parallels.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

http://dwindlinginun...not-fan-of.html

Please choose one of that to be debunked by me.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Archarya hs sources which she claims, but do not actually hold up to scrutiny. Many of the supposed comparisons to Jeus, like the claim that Horus' feast day was in December when it was during the summer, and Christmas, which is is a later assumption of the pagan holiday of Saturnalia, aren't real parallels.

For her Josephus was forgery. as well as Tacitus. As well as Gospels. Aswell as Gnostic texts. Meaning-everything is forgegy except her books.

[GoldenWolf]

Please choose one of that to be debunked by me.

You would have to debunk them all, and you would still never convince me that isn't anything more than malicious advice meant to divide and destroy mankind.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Mystic Crusader

[ShadowSot]

Yes Jesus is historical person. If you dont see Jesus as historical person then Pythagora, Socrates, Temujin and many others were mythological characthers.

Except in the case of pythagoras, Socrates, and Temujin we have direct works relating to them. We have direct writings concerning them with their contemporaries. We have information of Socrates trial in legal preceding. We do not have such for Jesus.

We have third hand accounts written by anonymous writers decades after the events were supposed to have occurred.

For her Josephus was forgery. as well as Tacitus. As well as Gospels. Aswell as Gnostic texts. Meaning-everything is forgegy except her books.

There are two quote in Josephus. One is definitely falisifed, the other is debated for it's authenticity. Even if it wasn't this is still 60 to 70 years after the events.

Tacitus is also writing much later, and his only provides proof what early Christians had told him concerning their beliefs.

Gospels seem to be mostly based off of Mark, with another source called Q. Mark itself leaves out much of the later important parts of the narrative, including originally the resurrection and the virgin birth narrative. And again, the writers of the Gospels are unknown, and were at least a generation of separation to the supposed events, if not more.

The gnostic texts are even later, and can differ wildly in the presentation of the Christ character.

I didn't say they were all forgeries, but we do not have the first hand accounts that we have for the historical figures you mentioned.

Jesus overall is good person. His influence was good. I dont see anything why Jesus is harmfull?

Who was it who said he had not come to bring peace but a sword, to set father against son, mother against daughter, to set fire to the world?

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Yes Jesus is historical person. If you dont see Jesus as historical person then Pythagora, Socrates, Temujin and many others were mythological characthers. You need to study history of history. Yes I didnt read Christ in Egypt so I cant and didnt judge that work. I judge Acharya based on her other book which is hilarious to anyone who ever study any part of human history. I didnt trashing her. I used arguments. She said that Joshua become Jesus. Cmon. Realy? Then she said that Jesus is myth. I dont get it. Person become another person then myth. I agreed that there is parallels. So what? We have parallels with Dynosius too. So? Its possible that since probably Jesus knew Greek that he was influenced by it. Or John was who only reported water in wine miracle. I dont have nothing against her. She is sympathic person. Nice face. Smooth talking. Smart. But her work have gaps. Huge ones. I dont believe. I like to know. Her view is belief.

Acharya is on agenda. which is money. And nothing wrong there. But she is far from truth.

Her work is full of gaps. as I said then Temujin and Socrates didnt lived at all.

She is hilarious in terms of study. Use double standards. And totaly ingores science.

This is ridiculous and prooves my point that any debate where one side has an irrational belief, is not any debate, but a waste of time as no positions are ever changed.

[DeWitz]

History is science. That fact tells all.

From where is this:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, nor male or female, nor slave or free, but all are one in Christ."

L, that's from Galatians 3:28 (another version, Colossians 3:11).

[Etu Malku]

The bottom line here is that there exists not ONE iota of evidence that Yeshua the Nazarene ever existed. The idea of a dying and resurrecting god/man has existed for millennium. Composite heroes are sprinkled all throughout history, like Hermes, and Pythagoras, Socrates, etc.

[ShadowSot]

The bottom line here is that there exists not ONE iota of evidence that Yeshua the Nazarene ever existed. The idea of a dying and resurrecting god/man has existed for millennium. Composite heroes are sprinkled all throughout history, like Hermes, and Pythagoras, Socrates, etc.

I disagree, there is circumstantial evidence that there may be a real character that existed. But it's not definite, and because of that this debate will likely go on forever unless some real definitive proof comes around.

It does make it difficult when so many tropes have been added when making the Jesus Christ figure versus the historical character, if one existed.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Acharya may or may not have specifically referred to a crucifixion (I've not read her books specifically, but I have read reviews, even including atheist reviews from articles such as this - remember, this is an atheist reviewing it). However, while Acharya is the most popular Christ-myther around today, she is by no means the only one who has in history and still does today, attempt to argue that point. Take Kersey Graves, for example, who wrote The World's 16 Crucified Saviors". He argues 16 deities all having identical claims to Christ. Horus is among them. Unfortunately, Richard Carrier when routinely debunks the article. And remember, just like above, Richard Carrier is an atheist, so no axe to grind there.

As said, Acharya may not have specifically mentioned the crucifixion. But two points of note are worth mentioning: 1- her contemporaries do, and 2- more importantly, her other claims are still completely false and misleading, so just because she makes one less falsehood about Horus does not make her anymore legitimate in the eyes of true historians.

And just to reiterate what was said in my last post, which is just as important here - I've emailed the historians to ask them about these parallels and similarities, and every response I have got has been less than flattering of those making the Christ-myth claim. Can you tell me you've also emailed historians to seek your own clarification from the experts?

But I have not mentioned any of these other authors, neither have I endorsed all that Murdock has written, I have in fact said that I do not believe everything she has written. I believe those parts that I had already had some independent thought about. And as for asking me if I have emailed, how many historians? , is there a number that must be reached to be valid? well, I am not pedantic about this. Besides, I can speak to some historians face to face, or speak on the phone. Probably not the historians you email, but still historians. You quote one historian who is atheist, and make sly remark against them. So, how many of these other historians were Christian? Your argument is, naturally, from a Christian viewpoint, so what about your own bias in this?, it must be there. For myself, I hope that while I know there are those here who do not like me, I hope I am seen as honest. I never hid that I am Pagan, or what my thoughts are. "Irrational" thoughts also apply to me as much as any belief in Christian god or Jesus, but I try not to lie and to twist reality, as happens here very often in all these religious threads.

I am convinced that Jesus is a combination of various gods, demi-gods and ideas hung on the shoulders of maybe, only maybe, a real mortal man of some ability to teach. I believe that AE religion is a major factor in the creation of Judaism and Christianity. I have never been shown any evidence contrary to this. Evidence for the Galilaen beliefs eventually comes down to the mantra that "The Bible says so" or "It is the word of God so must be right". This is not evidence of God or Jesus. The physical iconography of the "cross" coming from Egypt is evidence that some of Christianity has roots in Egypt. And does the iconography of Mary and Jesus have nothing at all to do with Isis and Horus......

Where Murdock is wrong is used to beat her and detract from where she is right. There are many powerful vested interests in making her look a fool, or anybody who dares to speak publicly against the Galileans.

Clearly, as I have written before, there can be no meeting point on this matter here.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

For her Josephus was forgery. as well as Tacitus. As well as Gospels. Aswell as Gnostic texts. Meaning-everything is forgegy except her books.

This is a reductio ad absurdum.