Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The existence of the early Church is evidence that Jesus existed. If Jesus did not exist, then He had no followers. Who started the Churches? Given the circumstances under which they were founded (hardship and persecution), what was their motivation? They weren't getting rich or being guaranteed a materially better life.
Jesus clearly had followers who believed the supernatural claims, most importantly the Resurrection. That in and of itself doesn't *prove* anything, but it certainly shows that there was some "there" there.
The followers of Jesus would not have gone to such great risk to get the Church going if they didn't believe the man they lived with and learned under had something "special" about Him.
I think we went through this once before, Mike. If Jesus' followers are proof that he existed then Dionysus' followers are proof Dionysus existed, right? Likewise for Attis, Hercules, Romulus, Osiris and the rest. They all had millions of followers who believed in them. Does that prove those gods existed too?
That article you posted was written by D.M. Murdock aka "Acharya S" who was a Jesus mythicist. She had no respect within legitimate scholarship circles.
Mithra's 'mother' was a rock out of which he stepped. That is the truth of the matter. From the article I originally posted from which the picture of that relief of Mithra being born out of a rock came.
''Mithras was the focus of a Roman mystery-cult and, as a result, both his mythological story and the nature of his worship are hard to pinpoint in the evidence. While the worship of the god, in various forms, preceded the Romans, historians consider the mystery-cult that is most associated with him today as being a uniquely Roman one. As the historian Carly Silver astutely notes (2010):''
''According to myth, Mithras was born from a rock, not a human. The image of his birth, which exists as a common artistic subject, often portrays him coming out of the rock with a knife in his hand. He is naked, as one would expect at birth, but he is not a baby – he is most often shown to be a youth.''
''To that end, the virginal story of Mithras is a later creation and bears no relation to the cult of Mithras during the Roman Imperial period.''
Well, you know, Mike Murdock wasn't the only writer who had the view on Jesus' mythicism. Robert Price and Richard Carrier are both PhD in ancient history of religions and they believe Jesus was a myth as well. I'll give you the one, Mithra out of charity. There's still 9 left for you to disprove they were born of a virgin on December 25. You can say that was just traditional that Jesus was celebrated on Christmas, but why December 25 for Jesus in the first place unless it had some roots in mythic beliefs about him? Have you so soon forgotten what Justin martyr, your own churchman said about Jesus:
“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter."
Well, you know, Mike Murdock wasn't the only writer who had the view on Jesus' mythicism. Robert Price and Richard Carrier are both PhD in ancient history of religions and they believe Jesus was a myth as well. I'll give you the one, Mithra out of charity. There's still 9 left for you to disprove they were born of a virgin on December 25. You can say that was just traditional that Jesus was celebrated on Christmas, but why December 25 for Jesus in the first place unless it had some roots in mythic beliefs about him? Have you so soon forgotten what Justin martyr, your own churchman said about Jesus:
“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter."
Her name was not Mike Murdock. Her name was Dorothy Milne Murdock. Her pen name was Acharya S.
You just conceded that Mithra was born out of a rock and was not virgin born. And it had nothing to do with you being charitable. Let's do one more. You claim that Hercules was born of a virgin. He was not. Hercules had a twin half-brother born one day apart from Hercules. Hercules' mother was Alcmene and his father was Zeus. His half-brother was Iphicles whose mother was Alcmene and whose father was Amphitryon who was Alcmene's husband. Again, they were born only one day apart and so whether Iphicles was one day older or one day younger than Hercules is irrelevant because either way, Alcmene was already pregnant with Iphicles when Hercules was born. Therefore Alcmene was not a virgin and Hercules therefore was not virgin born.
Again, go to the source material. Not to internet sites which are intent, as you are, on trying to debunk Christianity.
The existence of the early Church is evidence that Jesus existed.
So the existence of other religions meant their gods must also exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
If Jesus did not exist, then He had no followers. Who started the Churches?
Perhaps by people who believed Jesus existed as a celestial angel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
Given the circumstances under which they were founded (hardship and persecution), what was their motivation? They weren't getting rich or being guaranteed a materially better life.
Paul says he was bringing money in to the church. And reading the letter of Clement, one of the problems in Corinth may have been about some Christians using church money for personal use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
The followers of Jesus would not have gone to such great risk to get the Church going if they didn't believe the man they lived with and learned under had something "special" about Him.
What risk? People were creating different versions of religions all the time. Christianity, as a subset of Judaism would have been accepted by the Romans.
People were creating different versions of religions all the time. Christianity, as a subset of Judaism would have been accepted by the Romans.
I think Rome generally just incorporated the gods of each conquered land into their pantheon either directly or by saying "yeah we believe in your god Oog, we just call him Jupiter" or whatever.
What gave Rome indigestion concerning the Jews is that they were not willing to be assimilated either religiously or culturally and kept fomenting rebellions. They were not Team Players. Christianity, being as it was initially a sect or derivative of Judaism, would have probably fallen under the same shadow.
I do agree though that being a Christian was not inherently risky, just for somewhat different reasons. Rome was concerned about law and order and fealty. If I pay my taxes and keep my head down, the fact I'm a Christian by itself wouldn't matter. Rome didn't really care directly what notions were banging around in between my ears, so long as they didn't involve insurrection or subversion or tax evasion or the like. I'm not aware of any evidence that Romans were demanding people worship Roman deities / foreswear Jesus or face terrible consequences.
In any case the question of sacrifice for a cause demonstrably has little inherently to do with whether it's real or imaginary, good, bad or indifferent. People die all the time for stupid causes. Jim Jones, David Koresh, and others, have shown that people will literally off themselves if you properly set them up and order them to in the right way.
I think we went through this once before, Mike. If Jesus' followers are proof that he existed then Dionysus' followers are proof Dionysus existed, right? Likewise for Attis, Hercules, Romulus, Osiris and the rest. They all had millions of followers who believed in them. Does that prove those gods existed too?
I didn't say it's proof; I said it's evidence.
I don't deny the existence of any particular pagan deity.
I would in fact argue that the fact that Dionysus had/has a cult is evidence that Dionysus exists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
