Was Jesus plagiarized from the Egyptian god Horus?

[LCposter]

I didn't realize that the story of Jesus was similar to so many other stories (Horus, Dionysus, and Mithra). There are also many similarities to the stories from Hindu mythology about Krishna.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

Unless you accept the theory that these stories are creations of Satan intended to mislead humanity, it seems hard to avoid the likelihood that the Church incorporated elements of these stories into the story of Jesus. Isn't it generally accepted that Christmas and Easter were chosen to align with pagan holidays, or is that still controversial? Aligning the details of Jesus's life with existing pagan mythology to ease acceptance seems to be along the same lines.

It seems like the most plausible stance for a Christian to take would be that Jesus was the son of God and their personal savior, but the Bible is a creation of man and not a 100% accurate account.

The alternate, that the Bible must be interpreted literally, leads to all kinds of problems, not the least of which is that Horus, Dionysus, Mithra, Krishna, and probably others all seemingly fulfill the prophecies for the Messiah. Who can blame the Jews for still waiting?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Revots: It doesn't really matter if truthfulness was the reason Christianity caught on if its truthfulness was false.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, what I am saying is that all your tangent arguments are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether Jesus was actually the son of god and actually rose from the dead. And the probability of this being true is infinitesimally small, regardless of whether the story "caught on" or not.

You have 2 options for explaining the growth of the early church:

Option A: Jesus was actually the son of god come to earth, and he actually rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

Option B: Any other possible explanation.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you like Richard Carrier so much here's him putting that Christian apologetic argument to rest.


[/ QUOTE ]
In chapter 11, Carrier commits a strawman fallacy by attacking a misrepresentation of Holding's work.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no evidence Christians ever used any female testimony to promote the Gospel--as Holding himself admits when he cites 1 Corinthians 15

[/ QUOTE ]
Holding never admitted anything of the sort, especially since he references Luke 8:3 and Acts 16 which both describe women performing important roles in Christianity. It is a hasty generalization to assume that just because only men are mentioned in one chapter of one letter written by Paul to a group Christians, it means that the testimony of the women who found the empty tomb and were first to see the risen Saviour was never used to evangelize. Paul's letter to the Corinthians was not written to evangelize, but rather to remind and encourage. He was writing to a church, not to unbelievers.

[ QUOTE ]
Holding might insist that having women as prominent converts and members of the Church would be embarrassing...there is no evidence any actual convert to Christianity had a problem with it

[/ QUOTE ]
This is another misrepresentation of Holding's argument. He is not claiming that the Church itself was embarrassed of its women. He's claiming that in basing its whole belief system on the Resurrection and therefore the testimony of women (remember the angels?), Christianity was hard-pressed early on to be taken seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
In actual fact, the evidence proves quite the opposite of Holding's assumption that "women were regarded as 'bad witnesses' in the ancient world." The evidence does not support such a blanket distrust of female testimony, but shows instead that female testimony was often trusted, even in a court of law...And when it came to this context, of using women as sources for historical claims, there is no evidence of distrust...

[/ QUOTE ]

And in the same breath, Carrier writes:

[ QUOTE ]
Since a woman could not attest her own will, she could not attest anyone else's will. But even this was not set in stone: Augustus established criteria by which a woman could gain legal emancipation, and be free of any guardian. Since emancipated women could then make their own wills, they probably could have testified to the wills of others, too. Moreover, a woman's incapacity to write her own will had nothing to do with her incompetence as an eyewitness, but with the perception that a woman was subject to bad judgment in making decisions...All statements against women appearing in court were based on perceptions of how a woman ought to behave, and on the need to separate male and female social spheres...as for Romans and Greeks, it was unseemly for a woman to appear and speak in public, her testimony could be delivered by a male representative...the Rabbis disputed such things as whether a single woman's testimony was enough in certain cases--since usually the testimony of even two men was required...This does mean a woman's testimony was valued less than a man's, but only by some...

[/ QUOTE ]
The Romans treated women really well, didn't they? This is why Christianity was one of the greatest things to happen to the treatment of women in the first century.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Revots: It doesn't really matter if truthfulness was the reason Christianity caught on if its truthfulness was false.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, what I am saying is that all your tangent arguments are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether Jesus was actually the son of god and actually rose from the dead. And the probability of this being true is infinitesimally small, regardless of whether the story "caught on" or not.

You have 2 options for explaining the growth of the early church:

Option A: Jesus was actually the son of god come to earth, and he actually rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

Option B: Any other possible explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its worse than that. Even if Jesus rose from the dead etc that doesn't explain the sucess of chrisianity.

After all, you and I don't believe Jesus rose from the dead even if he did. Onbly those who directly experiences it could possibly be being rational in believing it happened, and even they would need to be sure it wasn't a trick. Everyone they told would have reason to be skeptical and once we get to a friend of a friend they have no more reason to believe then we do.

So the success of christianity is independant of whether or not its true and Txags argument can't get off the ground.

chez

[MidGe]

It is even worse than that. The concept of god never entered my mind as a child until it was mooted by someone else. It just happened to be a meme that is very successful at its viral infection. The reason for its success? There are no two people on the planet that are in agreement about what it means, It is a pernicious meme that gives an impression of unity yet allow the individual to act according to that individual own desire. It is hugely successful at ego gratification without ever having to come under scrutiny about its validity.

[Mr. Now]

The spread of ideas that support a civilization is largely explained by Memetics. Constantine was no fool.

As for Horus-> Jesus etc etc, memes do adapt. They adapt to forms that enable spread and replication-in-total.

Memes are work in progress. Horus and his ilk are largely explained in this framework. Memetics also supports theidea that "war by other means" (politics) drives dominant memes. Again, think Constantine.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
Virus of the Mind

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that matters is whether Jesus was actually the son of god and actually rose from the dead. And the probability of this being true is infinitesimally small, regardless of whether the story "caught on" or not.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ah yes, Bayes' Theorem. Sklansky would be proud. You are, in essence, saying that any explanation is more likely than somebody rising from the dead because you have never before witnessed a resurrection.

Here is where your logic fails. You are making a sweeping generalization when an exception is reasonable. Surely you would agree that if the God of Christianity exists, He could make a person rise from the dead. This of course would be an exception to your belief that such supernatural events are not likely.

Of course, if you are basing your belief that God doesn't exist on the fact that you have never seen a supernatural event occur, and yet assume that the reason you have never seen supernatural event occur is because God doesn't exist, you've got a case of circular reasoning.

So which is it?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah yes, Bayes' Theorem. Sklansky would be proud. You are, in essence, saying that any explanation is more likely than somebody rising from the dead because you have never before witnessed a resurrection.


[/ QUOTE ]

no, he isn't.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you like Richard Carrier so much here's him putting that Christian apologetic argument to rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

From chapter 14 of Carrier's work:

[ QUOTE ]
James Holding argues that "if you want a decent deity, you have to make him fully respectable," yet "ignorance of future or present events" is embarrassing and would be a big hurdle to overcome in selling Jesus as God. This is by far Holding's weakest argument. He never proves this was a problem in the first hundred years of Christian preaching.

[/ QUOTE ]
Holding isn't saying this was a problem in the first hundred years of Christianity. He is saying that theoretically it should have been, especially if Christianity was false. Holding has no burden to prove it was a problem. That isn't his argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed, he doesn't even establish that the statements in question were at all widely known even among Christians in the first century

[/ QUOTE ]
Holding has no burden to establish that the statements in question were widely known in the first century because it doesn't matter. Let's think about the possibilities here:

1. Christianity is false, and the Gospels were invented: What would be the motivation for including ignorant statements made by someone who you are claiming is God? The Old Testament Scriptures already claim God is all-knowing.

2. Christianity is false and the Gospels were a written recording of what had already been passed along for years as oral history. In this case, it is more likely that these words of Jesus would have been well known, or at least more so than in alternative number one. Even so, how does this change things? What would have been the purpose for seemingly contradicting Old Testament Scripture which claims God is all-knowing?

3. Christianity is true, and Jesus really said those things. The authors of the Gospels did not have to completely understand it in order to record it if Jesus really did speak these seemingly ignorant statements.

[txag007]

Kurto, I've noticed you've been active on the forums today, so I'm curious. No reply?