Prayer

[T. E. Smith]

There is no earthly reason to compare any other person, real, or imagined to the Messiah.

That's not true; Jesus is very similar to other mythological figures. Just some examples:

1. Horus
   1. Arguably the most similar myth to Jesus. He was born of a virgin, only begotten son of Osiris, birth heralded by a star (Sirius); and about the time of the winter solstice, ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets. His mother is told: "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child", after receiving a death threat during infancy. Does this sound like the flight to Egypt to hide from Herod? Horus walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, gave the blind sight, was crucified, descended into something like Hell, and was resurrected after - guess what - three days. It's almost like Jesus' story was taken from the myth of Horus.
2. Inanna
   1. Inanna was humiliated (by being stripped naked), tried in a public trial, then crucified, her corpse "hung from a nail", but she was raised "after three days and three nights." Her followers ask for the corpse, also. She arises because she knows her father "will surely bring me back to life." Her resurrection is secured through a ritual involving divine "food of life" and "water of life." Tell me this is not similar to Jesus.
3. Attis
   1. Attis was born December 25 of a virgin. He was thought of as a savior slain to save humanity. His body was eaten by his worshippers as bread. He was both the divine son and father. He was crucified on a tree on "black Friday", descended to the underworld, and rose after three days.
4. Zoroaster
   1. This man was born of a virgin, was baptized in a river, astounded wise men in his youth with his wisdom. Tempted in the wilderness by something like the devil. Began his ministry at age 30. Cast out demons and helped the blind. Taught much theology, including about heaven, hell, and the apocalypse. He was slain and has a eucharist. His second coming is expected, for 2341 AD.
5. Dionysus
   1. Once AGAIN born of a virgin on December 25. Placed in a manger as the "holy child." A travelling teacher who performed miracles and rode in a triumphant procession on a donkey. Was killed and rose from the dead. Turned water into wine (this story from the beginning of John is almost certainly taken directly from Dionysus). Identified as the Anointed One, Only Begotten Son, Savior, and the Alpha and Omega. Associated with the lamb, and his sacrificial title "Young man of the tree" indicates he was hung on a tree.
6. Romulus
   1. Surprise, surprise, Romulus was born of a virgin too. An attempt for him to be killed during infancy, hailed as "son of God", taken up to heaven by the gods, and most importantly, Plutarch records that darkness covered the earth just before Romulus' death. This darkness tradition is probably from where Mark got the idea in Mark 15:33.

It was all these things that led me to conclude that Jesus was completely mythical - he seems just as mythical as Horus, Inanna, Attis, etc., and we have no problem affirming that these other figures have no historical base.

You addressed this to daninthelionsden, but I would like to comment by saying, if you believe faith in Jesus leads to arrogancy, you were taught the gospel incorrectly.

Believing you or your book has all the answers is arrogant.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

That's not true; Jesus is very similar to other mythological figures. Just some examples:

1. Horus
   1. Arguably the most similar myth to Jesus. He was born of a virgin, only begotten son of Osiris, birth heralded by a star (Sirius); and about the time of the winter solstice, ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets. His mother is told: "Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child", after receiving a death threat during infancy. Does this sound like the flight to Egypt to hide from Herod? Horus walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, gave the blind sight, was crucified, descended into something like Hell, and was resurrected after - guess what - three days. It's almost like Jesus' story was taken from the myth of Horus.
2. Inanna
   1. Inanna was humiliated (by being stripped naked), tried in a public trial, then crucified, her corpse "hung from a nail", but she was raised "after three days and three nights." Her followers ask for the corpse, also. She arises because she knows her father "will surely bring me back to life." Her resurrection is secured through a ritual involving divine "food of life" and "water of life." Tell me this is not similar to Jesus.
3. Attis
   1. Attis was born December 25 of a virgin. He was thought of as a savior slain to save humanity. His body was eaten by his worshippers as bread. He was both the divine son and father. He was crucified on a tree on "black Friday", descended to the underworld, and rose after three days.
4. Zoroaster
   1. This man was born of a virgin, was baptized in a river, astounded wise men in his youth with his wisdom. Tempted in the wilderness by something like the devil. Began his ministry at age 30. Cast out demons and helped the blind. Taught much theology, including about heaven, hell, and the apocalypse. He was slain and has a eucharist. His second coming is expected, for 2341 AD.
5. Dionysus
   1. Once AGAIN born of a virgin on December 25. Placed in a manger as the "holy child." A travelling teacher who performed miracles and rode in a triumphant procession on a donkey. Was killed and rose from the dead. Turned water into wine (this story from the beginning of John is almost certainly taken directly from Dionysus). Identified as the Anointed One, Only Begotten Son, Savior, and the Alpha and Omega. Associated with the lamb, and his sacrificial title "Young man of the tree" indicates he was hung on a tree.
6. Romulus
   1. Surprise, surprise, Romulus was born of a virgin too. An attempt for him to be killed during infancy, hailed as "son of God", taken up to heaven by the gods, and most importantly, Plutarch records that darkness covered the earth just before Romulus' death. This darkness tradition is probably from where Mark got the idea in Mark 15:33.

It was all these things that led me to conclude that Jesus was completely mythical - he seems just as mythical as Horus, Inanna, Attis, etc., and we have no problem affirming that these other figures have no historical base.

I looked these claims up some years ago when Maher did his documentary. Begin studying.

Believing you or your book has all the answers is arrogant.

I'm being educated not to be arrogant. I'm learning how humbling the truth of the scriptures is. The truth of the gospel didn't originate with me, or has it changed.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I looked these claims up some years ago when Maher did his documentary. Begin studying.

Are you telling me to begin studying?

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Are you telling me to begin studying?

Yes. Please read everything you can about Horus. It will help you to stop wasting your time.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Yes. Please read everything you can about Horus. It will help you to stop wasting your time.

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection has been a helpful resource on the topic. But even if the Horus-Jesus connection was completely refuted, the other five figures still remain solid comparisons to Jesus (with Inanna's story being particularly interesting with reference to the Ascension of Isaiah).

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection has been a helpful resource on the topic. But even if the Horus-Jesus connection was completely refuted, the other five figures still remain solid comparisons to Jesus (with Inanna's story being particularly interesting with reference to the Ascension of Isaiah).

Keep studying your other "examples." Hopefully after you've wasted a year, you'll consider the truth of the gospel.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Yes. Please read everything you can about Horus. It will help you to stop wasting your time.

T. E. Smith has demonstrated that he is committed to wasting his time with his addiction to the irrational thinking he calls "Christ Mythicism". He asserted the falsehood that Jesus is a myth. So, I pointed out to him that, on the contrary, Jesus is a man; no man is a myth, Jesus is a man, and therefore Jesus is not a myth. I asked him to tell me, Of what is a man composed? and (surprisingly) in a rare moment of honesty and candor, he actually answered that question, and admitted that a man is composed of (and I quote him) "flesh and blood". Which is true: every man is composed of flesh and blood. I asked him another question: Of what is a myth composed? Lo and behold! his honesty and candor promptly vanished, and he remained completely silent to this second question. Why is that? Because he knows he cannot answer it truthfully without spectacularly shooting down his own, cherished, but asinine falsehood that Jesus is a myth. Because, to answer the question truthfully is to admit that a myth is not composed of flesh and blood, but is, instead, composed only of words. Since a man is composed of flesh and blood, and since a myth is not composed of flesh and blood, no man is a myth; Jesus is a man, therefore, Jesus is not a myth.​

Like I said, he's committed to wasting his time, rather than to endeavoring to think in accordance with truth and logic. Oh, and don't think he didn't already try playing the popular, canned "But what about Santa Claus?" sort of non-answer. As he understands, he has no hope of getting any self-satisfaction from trying his "Christ Mythicism" shtick on me any longer, so he's gone entirely silent on it in all of his subsequent reply-posts to me. But, of course, his failure in his attempt at trying it on me has not prevented him, in his self-righteous, self-seeking quest, from trying out the same, worthless shtick on other people on this website, hoping he can, with them, succeed at somehow scrabbling to himself a trifle of self-glorification in his personal war against Jesus Christ.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

T. E. Smith has demonstrated that he is committed to wasting his time with his addiction to the irrational thinking he calls "Christ Mythicism". He asserted the falsehood that Jesus is a myth. So, I pointed out to him that, on the contrary, Jesus is a man; no man is a myth, Jesus is a man, and therefore Jesus is not a myth. I asked him to tell me, Of what is a man composed? and (surprisingly) in a rare moment of honesty and candor, he actually answered that question, and admitted that a man is composed of (and I quote him) "flesh and blood". Which is true: every man is composed of flesh and blood. I asked him another question: Of what is a myth composed? Lo and behold! his honesty and candor promptly vanished, and he remained completely silent to this second question. Why is that? Because he knows he cannot answer it truthfully without spectacularly shooting down his own, cherished, but asinine falsehood that Jesus is a myth. Because, to answer the question truthfully is to admit that a myth is not composed of flesh and blood, but is, instead, composed only of words. Since a man is composed of flesh and blood, and since a myth is not composed of flesh and blood, no man is a myth; Jesus is a man, therefore, Jesus is not a myth.​

Like I said, he's committed to wasting his time, rather than to endeavoring to think in accordance with truth and logic. Oh, and don't think he didn't already try playing the popular, canned "But what about Santa Claus?" sort of non-answer. As he understands, he has no hope of getting any self-satisfaction from trying his "Christ Mythicism" shtick on me any longer, so he's gone entirely silent on it in all of his subsequent reply-posts to me. But, of course, his failure in his attempt at trying it on me has not prevented him, in his self-righteous, self-seeking quest, from trying out the same, worthless shtick on other people on this website, hoping he can, with them, succeed at somehow scrabbling to himself a trifle of self-glorification in his personal war against Jesus Christ.

Well, that's the deep stuff lol, but I can understand how, on the surface, people might believe the miracles of our Lord became mythologized, but with people like Plutarch as a reference, it's easy to understand why.
A serious scholar will look at the why's and wherefore's.

 

[T. E. Smith]

T. E. Smith has demonstrated that he is committed to wasting his time with his addiction to the irrational thinking he calls "Christ Mythicism". He asserted the falsehood that Jesus is a myth. So, I pointed out to him that, on the contrary, Jesus is a man; no man is a myth, Jesus is a man, and therefore Jesus is not a myth. I asked him to tell me, Of what is a man composed? and (surprisingly) in a rare moment of honesty and candor, he actually answered that question, and admitted that a man is composed of (and I quote him) "flesh and blood". Which is true: every man is composed of flesh and blood. I asked him another question: Of what is a myth composed? Lo and behold! his honesty and candor promptly vanished, and he remained completely silent to this second question. Why is that? Because he knows he cannot answer it truthfully without spectacularly shooting down his own, cherished, but asinine falsehood that Jesus is a myth. Because, to answer the question truthfully is to admit that a myth is not composed of flesh and blood, but is, instead, composed only of words. Since a man is composed of flesh and blood, and since a myth is not composed of flesh and blood, no man is a myth; Jesus is a man, therefore, Jesus is not a myth.​

Like I said, he's committed to wasting his time, rather than to endeavoring to think in accordance with truth and logic. Oh, and don't think he didn't already try playing the popular, canned "But what about Santa Claus?" sort of non-answer. As he understands, he has no hope of getting any self-satisfaction from trying his "Christ Mythicism" shtick on me any longer, so he's gone entirely silent on it in all of his subsequent reply-posts to me. But, of course, his failure in his attempt at trying it on me has not prevented him, in his self-righteous, self-seeking quest, from trying out the same, worthless shtick on other people on this website, hoping he can, with them, succeed at somehow scrabbling to himself a trifle of self-glorification in his personal war against Jesus Christ.

Some myths are stories. Others are individuals, like King Arthur or the Loch Ness Monster. So sure, a myth can sometimes be made of flesh and blood. But that's completely irrelevant. What I mean is that Jesus is entirely fictitious and that all the stories about him are myths.
This is no "personal war" against Jesus. Historians who deny Dionysus' existence are not engaged in a personal war against Dionysus. Same for Jesus.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

So sure, a myth can sometimes be made of flesh and blood.

Obviously that is false, and it is asinine to say it. Now, in your next post, insert a copy of a photograph of some man or woman whom you would say is a myth.

 

[Edward]

Some myths are stories. Others are individuals, like King Arthur or the Loch Ness Monster. So sure, a myth can sometimes be made of flesh and blood. But that's completely irrelevant. What I mean is that Jesus is entirely fictitious and that all the stories about him are myths.
This is no "personal war" against Jesus. Historians who deny Dionysus' existence are not engaged in a personal war against Dionysus. Same for Jesus.

You can't just change the definition of words to suit yourself. Jesus is entirely ficticious and all of the stories are myths huh? How did you come to that conclusion?

You do seem to project a personal war against Jesus. When someone expresses some faith in Jesus or speaks of a testimony you freak out and start babbling in denial.

Remember that "ficticious" story about Paul's conversion? (Acts 9). He had a little war agains Jesus too, and one day the Lord walks up in his face and hits him with a beam of light that knocks him flat and blinds him! What would you do if this happened to you? This will happen to you one day. All of a sudden your "myth" will be standing in front of you and you're going to realize, uh-oh He is real and He is God. But by then it will be to late for you.

If you don't know Him before that day, it will go badly for you. There isn't much time left, better hurry.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Obviously that is false, and it is asinine to say it. Now, in your next post, insert a copy of a photograph of some man or woman whom you would say is a myth.

I can't give you a photo but I can give you a picture:

Ned Ludd, the mythical leader of the Luddites. When I say a myth can be made of flesh and blood, what I mean is that he can be supposedly made of flesh and blood, as Ned is supposedly made of flesh and blood.

But the real question is, did Jesus ever exist? Not "is it linguistically correct to call a man a myth?".

You can't just change the definition of words to suit yourself.

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1. A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.
e.g., "creation myths"

2. A. A popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone.
e.g., "the utopian myth of a perfect society"
B. An unfounded or false notion.
e.g., "the myth of racial superiority"

3. A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.
e.g., "The unicorn is a myth."

4. The whole body of myths
e.g., "a student of Greek myth"

When I say Christ is a myth, I'm clearly referring to definition number 3, which is a perfectly legitimate definition. It's Paul E. Michael who is changing definitions, by ignoring definition number 3.

When I say the gospels are myths, I'm referring to something like definition number 1, but also something like definition number 2, because the gospels are traditional stories of ostensibly historical events and traditions that have grown up around someone.

Jesus is entirely ficticious and all of the stories are myths huh? How did you come to that conclusion?

I came to the conclusion through reading a number of scholarly books on the topic (https://christianforums.net/threads/christ-mythicism-recommended-reading.90929/) and through the similarities I personally found between the gospels and all other mythical narratives.

You do seem to project a personal war against Jesus. When someone expresses some faith in Jesus or speaks of a testimony you freak out and start babbling in denial.

If someone expressed faith in Dionysus and spoke of the various miracles that Dionysus worked for them, then I would indeed deny the truth of this notion, and I would think that this person would either be lying or confused (hopefully the second). That's nothing personal, though.

Remember that "ficticious" story about Paul's conversion? (Acts 9). He had a little war agains Jesus too, and one day the Lord walks up in his face and hits him with a beam of light that knocks him flat and blinds him! What would you do if this happened to you? This will happen to you one day. All of a sudden your "myth" will be standing in front of you and you're going to realize, uh-oh He is real and He is God. But by then it will be to late for you.

I've been wrong many times on many things. As I get older, I'll just be wrong even more times. So maybe I'm wrong about whether Jesus existed. So what? Why would I think, "Uh-oh"? As Jefferson said (quoted in my signature), "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

 

[Paul E. Michael]

When I say a myth can be made of flesh and blood, what I mean is that he can be supposedly made of flesh and blood,

So, when you say a myth can be made of flesh and blood, you don't mean a myth can be made of flesh and blood?

 

[Edward]

So maybe I'm wrong about whether Jesus existed. So what? Why would I think, "Uh-oh"?

So what? Wow. According to my information and research...it's a matter of life and death.

No Uh-Oh? Huh. You've read that 7 times...the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord...

Didn't you understand what you read?

 

[hawkman]

The thread you seek Dorothy Mae .

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Dorothy Mae said,
What is the name of it? Can you mention me so I find it.

Just saw this sis.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It is difficult to accept gratitude or acknowledge one had a part to play because the church has little to no understanding about the difference between pride and humility. They think if you do xzy for someone a d they show gratefulness, it’s a sin to accept it graciously. You’d think they think God is an egoistic maniac furious if anyone but him is given praise or thanks.

Sometimes I wonder if this inability to praise or thank others results in the frequent self-praise so accepted in the church. Are they trying to fill in a gap made by not praising others?

 

[Consecrated Life]

Some myths are stories. Others are individuals, like King Arthur or the Loch Ness Monster. So sure, a myth can sometimes be made of flesh and blood. But that's completely irrelevant. What I mean is that Jesus is entirely fictitious and that all the stories about him are myths.
This is no "personal war" against Jesus. Historians who deny Dionysus' existence are not engaged in a personal war against Dionysus. Same for Jesus.

What makes Him Like no other you care to name no matter how long the list you care to compile is that none has ever fulfilled even one prophecy.
Romulus, Zoroaster, Inanna. etc,etc,etc,& etc.... never prophesized thousands of years in advance that one specific race, the Jews, would have their home destroyed and be scattered throughout the earth where they would be hated above all other races and their foot would find no rest, all the while retaining their identity.
And after being scattered throughout the earth they would be returned to their homeland thousands of years later where they would still not find peace at last, but be surrounded on every side by those seeking to kill them.
In addition Jesus prophesized that one particular 30 square mile piece of land, The Temple Mount, would be the flashpoint, stumbling block, and most contested piece of property on the planet.
Romulus, Zoroaster, Inanna. etc,etc,etc,& etc.... could not only never fulfil such prophecies given thousands of years in advance, they never even attempted such a thing.
They all have never failed at prophecy because they were not dumb enough to attempt it .
Being the myths they are after all.
Myths don't make and fulfil prophecies given thousands of years in advance before your eyes .
This Jesus who is the Christ does.

" Hast thou commanded the morning? " ( Job 38:12 )