Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

Hopefully, you do not expect a definitive answer here on DCUM. Look it up, as they say. And keep in mind that "real historical figure" does not mean "son of god" - just that there is evidence that the person once lived -- like Ben Franklin, or Henry the 8th, or you, assuming you have a valid birth certificate.

It’s impossible to definitively prove he was a real person.

There is some circumstantial evidence though that shows he was most likely a real person.

So what? There's compelling evidence that Ben Franklin, Henry the 8th and presumably you were real people. There's no evidence that anyone is supernatural - it's beyond science and thus requires faith to believe it.

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

Yet, Jews still exist. And they don't sacrifice animals anymore. No modern religion does. You can't credit CHristiany with that.

Consider that Christians were burning people at the stake centuries after the foundation of Christianity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

Hopefully, you do not expect a definitive answer here on DCUM. Look it up, as they say. And keep in mind that "real historical figure" does not mean "son of god" - just that there is evidence that the person once lived -- like Ben Franklin, or Henry the 8th, or you, assuming you have a valid birth certificate.

It’s impossible to definitively prove he was a real person.

There is some circumstantial evidence though that shows he was most likely a real person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

Hopefully, you do not expect a definitive answer here on DCUM. Look it up, as they say. And keep in mind that "real historical figure" does not mean "son of god" - just that there is evidence that the person once lived -- like Ben Franklin, or Henry the 8th, or you, assuming you have a valid birth certificate.

It is very interesting to me how Paul's letters to the Romans is the first (earliest) writing in the NT, probably 20 years or more before Mark, and nowhere in there does he mention anything about virgin birth, resurrection, miracles etc. And nobody knows for sure who Mark was. And Mathew and Luke probably used Mark as the source for their gospels. So even assuming Jesus was real, Paul mostly is responsible for creating Christian theology.

Anonymous wrote:I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

? So was Jesus a real historical figure or not?

I always thought it was a combination of religious ideas at the time
The region was at crossroads of cultures, so influences from eastern religions and Hinduism
The wise men from the east.
Religion needed to be reformed. Jews used to sacrifice animals in the temples and send goats to the desert

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^This is a great post. It supports the opposite of what you intended, though.

And that’s only Mithras, there are so many other messianic similarities.

Oh look, a hit and run without any substance.

If you have a substantive argument, now would be the time to bring it out. I for one am very impressed with pp’s points about the silliness of the Mithras claim. You, though, look like a grade schooler.

Ad hominem again. So PP can make points without citations, because he agrees with you, but I can not, because I don't agree with you. Got it.

Not one of PP's claims are cited. There are no historical citations in that link... And even if you take them as 100% accurate, nothing disputes the point that there eerie similarities in the legends, in fact it supports that observation, which was the point of the post you rudely replied to.

And my previous post DID have citations that contradict what PP copied from that link... look them up, one by one, and you shall see. The truth shall set you free.

You have no leg to stand on here man, sorry. Fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?

Historians and scholars agree Jesus was a man who walked the earth. They are certain of it. Why does pp get to say likely? It’s a lie to say likely. What are pp’s bonafides to contradict the multitudes of learned scholars who say historical Jesus existed, especially if they mistake confidant for confident?

Because the evidence, such as it is, is all circumstantial. There is nothing in the Roman records to show a person named Jesus was executed. Everything we know about Jesus comes from Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, and no one knows who any of them really were. I say this as someone more than willing to accept Jesus was a real person - because, as the thread title implies, how else would an entire religious theology have started. It couldn't have been made up out of whole cloth.

Sure it could have. Not to say it was, but who's to know after such a long time, and not actual proof of the scientific type we have today. And what difference does it make, at this point. You either believe or not.

What's with this "walked the earth" stuff. All humans who have use of their legs "walk the earth". It's just a lame way to make Jesus sound real. Believe in him or not and give up this "walked the earth" stuff.

Anonymous wrote:^^^^This is a great post. It supports the opposite of what you intended, though.

And that’s only Mithras, there are so many other messianic similarities.

Oh look, a hit and run without any substance.

If you have a substantive argument, now would be the time to bring it out. I for one am very impressed with pp’s points about the silliness of the Mithras claim. You, though, look like a grade schooler.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?

Historians and scholars agree Jesus was a man who walked the earth. They are certain of it. Why does pp get to say likely? It’s a lie to say likely. What are pp’s bonafides to contradict the multitudes of learned scholars who say historical Jesus existed, especially if they mistake confidant for confident?

Because the evidence, such as it is, is all circumstantial. There is nothing in the Roman records to show a person named Jesus was executed. Everything we know about Jesus comes from Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, and no one knows who any of them really were. I say this as someone more than willing to accept Jesus was a real person - because, as the thread title implies, how else would an entire religious theology have started. It couldn't have been made up out of whole cloth.

Sure it could have. Not to say it was, but who's to know after such a long time, and not actual proof of the scientific type we have today. And what difference does it make, at this point. You either believe or not.

^^^^This is a great post. It supports the opposite of what you intended, though.

And that’s only Mithras, there are so many other messianic similarities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spend some time reading up on ancient religions to see how the mythology surrounding Jesus is derived from older myths.

I take no position on whether or not he was real.

I am sure scholars and historians around the world are very impressed with your opinion and research

DP here. PP is telling the truth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/paganshadowchrist_article_01.shtml

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_comparative_mythology

A simple google shows article after article, with citation after citation supporting PP’s claim. They are from scholars and historians. This is not intended to challenge anyone’s belief, just to provide evidence for those to make up their own minds.

Tbh scholars and historians are not impressed by your Wikipedia articles

Those articles all have individual citations. From scholars and historians. Do you have any specific facts you would like to present in counterpoint?

Claim: Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds
Truth: Mithras was actually born out of solid rock, leaving a hole in the side of a mountain (presumably described as a “cave”). He was not born of a virgin (unless you consider the rock mountain to have been a virgin). His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but the first Christians knew this was not the true date of Christ’s birth anyway, and both Mithraic worshippers and the early Roman Church borrowed this celebration from earlier winter solstice celebrations. Shepherds are part of Mithraism, witnessing his birth and helping Mithras emerge from the rock, but interestingly, the shepherds exist in the birth chronology at a time when humans are not supposed to have been yet born. This, coupled with the fact the earliest version of this part of the Mithraic mythology emerges one hundred years after the appearance of the New Testament, infers it is far more likely this portion of Mithraism was borrowed from Christianity rather than the other way around.

Claim: Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master
Truth: There is nothing in the Mithraic tradition indicating he was a teacher of any kind, but he was could have been considered a master of sorts. This would not be unexpected of any deity, however. Most mythologies describe their gods in this way.

Claim: Mithras had 12 companions or disciples
Truth: There is no evidence for any of this in the traditions of Iran or Rome. It is possible the idea Mithras had 12 disciples is simply derived from murals in which Mithras is surrounded by twelve signs and personages of the Zodiac (two of whom are the moon and the sun). Even this imagery is post Christian, and, therefore, did not contribute to the imagery of Christianity (although it could certainly have borrowed from Christianity).

Claim: Mithras had 12 companions or disciples
Truth: There is no evidence for any of this in the traditions of Iran or Rome. It is possible the idea Mithras had 12 disciples is simply derived from murals in which Mithras is surrounded by twelve signs and personages of the Zodiac (two of whom are the moon and the sun). Even this imagery is post Christian, and, therefore, did not contribute to the imagery of Christianity (although it could certainly have borrowed from Christianity).

Claim: Mithras sacrificed himself for world peace
Truth: There is little or no evidence this is true, although there is a story about Mithras slaying a threatening bull in a heroic deed. But that’s about as close as it gets.

Claim: Mithras was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again, and Mithras was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter)
Truth: There is nothing in the Mithraic tradition indicating he ever even died, let alone resurrected. Tertullian did write about Mithraic believers re-enacting resurrection scenes, but he wrote about this occurring well after New Testament times. Christianity could not, therefore, have borrowed from Mithraic traditions, but the opposite could certainly be true.

Claim: Mithras was called “the Good Shepherd”, and was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion
Truth: There is no evidence that Mithras was ever called “the Good Shepherd” or identified with a lamb, but since Mithras was a sun-god, there was an association with Leo (the House of the Sun in Babylonian astrology), so one might say he was associated with a Lion. But once again, all of this evidence is actually post New Testament; Mithraic believers may once again have borrowed this attribute from Christianity.

Claim: Mithraic believers celebrated Sunday as Mithras’ sacred day (also known as the “Lord’s Day,”)
Truth: This tradition of celebrating Sunday is only true of Mithraic believers in Rome and it is a tradition that dates to post Christian times. Once again, it is more likely to have been borrowed from Christianity than the other way around.

Claim: Mithraic believers celebrated a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper”
Truth: Followers of Mithras did not celebrate a Eucharist, but they did celebrate a fellowship meal regularly, just as did many other groups in the Roman world.

Much of what is presumed about Mithras comes from ancient, caption-less pictures and murals, so the vast majority of scholarly work on Mithras is pure speculation.

In the end, similarities between Jesus and mythological precursors fail to invalidate the historicity of Jesus. The historical veracity of Jesus is determined from the evidence supporting the reliability of the eyewitness accounts. Jesus is not simply a retelling of Mithraic mythology. While Mithras is no longer worshiped, Christianity continues to thrive. Why? Because the Christian records are reliable. Skeptics sometimes portray Mithras as something he isn’t in order to keep us from believing in Jesus as something He is. But the reliable Biblical record establishes the Deity of Jesus in a way no other ancient mythological text could ever hope to achieve.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-jesus-simply-a-retelling-of-the-mithras-mythology/amp/

Anonymous wrote:Christianity is based faith, not facts.

Truer words have never been posted here.