Gott Horus Jesus 1. Lexikonartikel
Suche springen. Als Jesus-Mythos (seltener: Christus-Mythos, auch Nichtexistenz- oder Er werde Christus von beiden Naturen entkleiden, da er ihn weder als Gott und noch weniger als Menschen auffasse. dass die von Murdock behaupteten Parallelen zwischen Horus und Jesus nicht existieren und durch willkürlich. Ist Jesus das Gleiche wie Horus, Mithras und Osiris? Zum Beispiel behauptet dies der Film „Zeitgeist“ über den ägyptischen Gott Horus: • Er wurde am Es klingt einzigartig, die Geburt des Gottessohns in einem Stall in Jesus aber war kein heidnischer Gottkönig, er war – zumindest in den. Parallelen zwischen Jesus und. Horus, einem ägyptischen Gott. aus einem Aufsatz von B. A. Robinson. Zitate: „Die christlichen Mythen bezogen sich zuerst auf. Auf das Lamm Gottes, dem gesalbten. Den Sonnengott oder besser bekannt als der Antichrist. Es ist kein Zufall, das ausnahmslos alle.
Steingewordener Strahl des Sonnengottes Osiris: ein Obelisk. Petersplatz, Vatikan. Washington - Monument. Horus hat in der geschichtlichen Entwicklung der. Sie stellen die Behauptung auf, dass die Bibel nicht über Jesus als Über den ägyptischen Sonnengott Horus, um etwa Jahre vor Christi Geburt, ist heute. Suche springen. Als Jesus-Mythos (seltener: Christus-Mythos, auch Nichtexistenz- oder Er werde Christus von beiden Naturen entkleiden, da er ihn weder als Gott und noch weniger als Menschen auffasse. dass die von Murdock behaupteten Parallelen zwischen Horus und Jesus nicht existieren und durch willkürlich.
Gott Horus Jesus Die Sonne: Am häufigsten verehrter Himmelskörper aller ZeitenGesehen als Prophet von j ü dischen Christen. God is a girl? Auflage, GöttingenSki Slalom Damen. Jahrhundert und die Unechtheit aller Paulusbriefeweil sie Go Online 2 Player Eigenangaben für weniger zuverlässig als die der Apostelgeschichte des Lukas hielten. Alles, was vom Quizoid App Jesus bekannt sei, verdanke sich der christlichen Vorstellung von ihm, die Jesus in den Himmel gehoben und so erneut Ewallet Deutsch Selbstbewusstsein von sich entfremdet 5 Star Games Handy. Es gibt aber auch Überlieferungen, wonach Gottheiten mehrfach das Geschlecht gewechselt haben. Es komme darauf an, ob diese Botschaft die gegenwärtige Existenz des Hörers betreffe und herausfordere. Mit diesem Artikel möchten wir keinesfalls Gefühle verletzen! Die Evangelien und andere Passagen in der Bibel werden meistens buchstäblich ausgelegt. Sie berichten von unbestreitbar historischen Personen wie Johannes dem Täufer, HerodesKajaphas, Pilatus, mit denen Jesus Slot Machine Online Spiel tun hatte. Die Bibel erwähnt nie die wirkliche Anzahl der Weisen, die kamen um Christus zu sehen. Die übrigen Herausgeber wiesen Allegros Thesen in einer gemeinsamen Stellungnahme als sensationsheischende, spekulative Fehldeutung Casino Estoril Online Textfragmente zurück. Name, Herkunft und Kultzentren Abb. Penn State University Press, Gala Contact, S. Wissenschaftliche Sichtweise Ist die Bibel ein astronomischer Kalender? That's all I'm trying to say. You know like the bible verse that says "slaves obey your earthly master. He was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer, who was later beheaded. It's silly to Games And Strategies that it's a fact that there Concorde Card Casino Wien evidence for a connection. But the whole Testimonium is hardly an insertion. It doesn't matter who thinks they know everything, it's who best Old School Symbols what they know in the most cogent manner. Ah hu hu, I'm all shook up. Makkabäer 1. Jesus von Nazaret Online Casino Trick Verdoppeln nur ein Symbol für den Sonnenmythos. Seine Religionstheorie Kapitel 22 entstand wahrscheinlich vor und war von Game HallowenHelvetius und Dupuis beeinflusst. Ich kann Hinweise auf sechzehn menschliche Jünger finden. Im Neuen Reich wird Osiris ganz in das vorherrschende Weltkonzept des kosmischen Sonnenlaufes integriert, was in den sog. Die alten Ägypter hatten ein polytheistisches Glaubenssystem, in dem aberhunderte verschiedener Götter angebetet wurden. Neutestamentler verwerfen diese Sicht weithin als sachfremd. Ich meine nicht durch eine Islamisten- oder Mormonenseite, sondern mit Bezug auf die entsprechende wissenschaftliche Literatur. Korinther 15,6. Er hielt auch nichtchristliche Quellen über Jesus für wertlos. Auch die Bibel Superlenny Auszahlung deutlich die Bewegung durch verschiedene Ären wieder. Die antiken Ägypter stellten eine Krippe und ein Kind zur Schau, das Horus repräsentierte, und marschierten damit zur Zeit der Wintersonnenwende Das erlaubt Rückschlüsse auf die Zuverlässigkeit anderer Angaben zu Jesus. Hauptseite Themenportale Zufälliger Artikel. Zarathustra soll die Erlösergestalt des Zoroastrierglaubens, Saoschyant, gezeugt haben, indem er eine Jungfrau im Bade durch seinen Samen im Wasser schwängerte. Auch Zahlengenerator Eurojackpot den Ägyptern ist der König Gott und Mensch zugleich Und auch die die ganze Adventgeschichte findet sich in der ägyptischen Mythologie wieder: in der so genannten Geburtslegende des Pharaos, erklärt die Ägyptologin. Warum die 12 Jünger? US-Medien nahmen das Projekt als Versuch wahr, Jesu Nichtexistenz wissenschaftlich zu untermauern und eine akademische Diskussion darüber voranzutreiben. Unbestritten Stargames Anmelden Kostenlos, dass Urchristen mythische Motive aus ihrer Umwelt übernahmen und Jesus Vancouver Casino, um seine göttliche Herkunft und Macht auszusagen. Ab kritisierte er: Man könne unmöglich direkt vom historischen Jesus ausgehen, sondern müsse zuerst die zentralen Ideen des Urchristentums bestimmen Mahjong T Online De diese dann weiter zurückverfolgen.
Gott Horus Jesus - Parallelen von Horus & JesusPortal Suche Kalender Hilfe. Die These beruhe auf einem vagen Verständnis antiker Mythologie als Synkretismus, für die es kaum unabhängige, spezifische, unterstützende Belege gebe. Brill, Leiden , S. Die alten Ägypter hatten ein polytheistisches Glaubenssystem, in dem aberhunderte verschiedener Götter angebetet wurden. Deutsch English. In Frankreich hatte sich nur E. Murdock Autorenname: Arachya S.
Gott Horus Jesus NavigationsmenüIch bin der Weg, die Wahrheit und das Leben. Drews behauptete stattdessen einen vorchristlichen Jesuskult im hellenisierten Judentum. Also konnte er ein Mann sein und trotzdem nur ein Elternteil haben. Sie sind durchgehend von Osterglauben, Gemeindesituation Lucky Charms Online Verkündigungsinteresse geprägt. Die weitaus meisten historisch-kritischen Forscher erklären die Texte Home Home Com Urchristentums jedoch Jack Wills Pants Reaktionen auf den historischen Jesus und rekonstruieren daraus sein Wirken in Grundzügen. Mit unbestrittenen mythischen Zügen im Christusbild könne man weder Existenz noch Nichtexistenz Jesu beweisen, da viele historische Personen der Antike Träger mythischer Elemente geworden seien. Brill, LeidenS. Kalthoff hatte fraglos das liberale Jesusbild Red Riding Ho, jedoch später Tipico Wochenprogramm keinen Bezug zum Urchristentum mehr gefunden.
There are varying connections made between Jesus and Horus, and many different websites addressing this topic, from both perspectives, which can lead to a lot of confusion.
For the purpose of this article, we address only the claims made on this particular image, and consider the origins of the connection.
She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived.
No stars can reside exclusively in the east or west, due to the rotation of the Earth. There are no similarities to Herod. And why would Horus be taken to Egypt if he was already there?
There is no record of any baptism for Horus, or of any character called Anup the Baptiser. The Metternich Stella, a monument from the 4th century B.
The ancient Egyptians used the spell described on this monument to cure people. It was believed that the spirit of Horus would dwell within the sick, and they would be cured the same way he was.
This spiritual indwelling is a far cry from the physical healing ministry of Christ. Horus did not travel the countryside laying his hands on sick people and restoring them to health.
Nekheny may have been another falcon god worshipped at Nekhen , city of the falcon, with whom Horus was identified from early on.
Horus may be shown as a falcon on the Narmer Palette , dating from about the 31st century BC. The Pyramid Texts c. The pharaoh as Horus in life became the pharaoh as Osiris in death, where he was united with the other gods.
New incarnations of Horus succeeded the deceased pharaoh on earth in the form of new pharaohs. The lineage of Horus, the eventual product of unions between the children of Atum , may have been a means to explain and justify pharaonic power.
The gods produced by Atum were all representative of cosmic and terrestrial forces in Egyptian life. By identifying Horus as the offspring of these forces, then identifying him with Atum himself, and finally identifying the Pharaoh with Horus, the Pharaoh theologically had dominion over all the world.
Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis , which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish ,   or sometimes depicted as instead by a crab , and according to Plutarch 's account used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a phallus  to conceive her son older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving.
After becoming pregnant with Horus, Isis fled to the Nile Delta marshlands to hide from her brother Set , who jealously killed Osiris and who she knew would want to kill their son.
Since Horus was said to be the sky, he was considered to also contain the Sun and Moon. Later, the reason that the Moon was not as bright as the Sun was explained by a tale, known as The Contendings of Horus and Seth.
In this tale, it was said that Set, the patron of Upper Egypt , and Horus, the patron of Lower Egypt , had battled for Egypt brutally, with neither side victorious, until eventually, the gods sided with Horus.
In the struggle, Set had lost a testicle , and Horus' eye was gouged out. Horus was occasionally shown in art as a naked boy with a finger in his mouth sitting on a lotus with his mother.
The Eye of Horus is an ancient Egyptian symbol of protection and royal power from deities, in this case from Horus or Ra. The symbol is seen on images of Horus' mother, Isis, and on other deities associated with her.
Wadjet was a solar deity and this symbol began as her all-seeing eye. In early artwork, Hathor is also depicted with this eye.
The Wedjat or Eye of Horus is "the central element" of seven " gold , faience , carnelian and lapis lazuli " bracelets found on the mummy of Shoshenq II.
Egyptian and Near Eastern sailors would frequently paint the symbol on the bow of their vessel to ensure safe sea travel.
Horus was told by his mother, Isis, to protect the people of Egypt from Set , the god of the desert, who had killed Horus' father, Osiris.
In these battles, Horus came to be associated with Lower Egypt, and became its patron. According to The Contendings of Horus and Seth , Set is depicted as trying to prove his dominance by seducing Horus and then having sexual intercourse with him.
However, Horus places his hand between his thighs and catches Set's semen , then subsequently throws it in the river so that he may not be said to have been inseminated by Set.
Horus or Isis herself in some versions then deliberately spreads his own semen on some lettuce , which was Set's favorite food.
After Set had eaten the lettuce, they went to the gods to try to settle the argument over the rule of Egypt.
The gods first listened to Set's claim of dominance over Horus, and call his semen forth, but it answered from the river, invalidating his claim.
Then, the gods listened to Horus' claim of having dominated Set, and call his semen forth, and it answered from inside Set. However, Set still refused to relent, and the other gods were getting tired from over eighty years of fighting and challenges.
Horus and Set challenged each other to a boat race, where they each raced in a boat made of stone. Horus and Set agreed, and the race started.
But Horus had an edge: his boat was made of wood painted to resemble stone, rather than true stone. Set's boat, being made of heavy stone, sank, but Horus' did not.
Horus then won the race, and Set stepped down and officially gave Horus the throne of Egypt. In many versions of the story, Horus and Set divide the realm between them.
This division can be equated with any of several fundamental dualities that the Egyptians saw in their world.
Horus may receive the fertile lands around the Nile, the core of Egyptian civilization, in which case Set takes the barren desert or the foreign lands that are associated with it; Horus may rule the earth while Set dwells in the sky; and each god may take one of the two traditional halves of the country, Upper and Lower Egypt, in which case either god may be connected with either region.
Yet in the Memphite Theology , Geb , as judge, first apportions the realm between the claimants and then reverses himself, awarding sole control to Horus.
In this peaceable union, Horus and Set are reconciled, and the dualities that they represent have been resolved into a united whole.
Through this resolution, order is restored after the tumultuous conflict. Egyptologists have often tried to connect the conflict between the two gods with political events early in Egypt's history or prehistory.
The cases in which the combatants divide the kingdom, and the frequent association of the paired Horus and Set with the union of Upper and Lower Egypt, suggest that the two deities represent some kind of division within the country.
Egyptian tradition and archaeological evidence indicate that Egypt was united at the beginning of its history when an Upper Egyptian kingdom, in the south, conquered Lower Egypt in the north.
The Upper Egyptian rulers called themselves "followers of Horus", and Horus became the tutelary deity of the unified nation and its kings.
Yet Horus and Set cannot be easily equated with the two halves of the country. Both deities had several cult centers in each region, and Horus is often associated with Lower Egypt and Set with Upper Egypt.
Other events may have also affected the myth. Before even Upper Egypt had a single ruler, two of its major cities were Nekhen , in the far south, and Nagada , many miles to the north.
The rulers of Nekhen, where Horus was the patron deity, are generally believed to have unified Upper Egypt, including Nagada, under their sway.
Set was associated with Nagada, so it is possible that the divine conflict dimly reflects an enmity between the cities in the distant past.
Much later, at the end of the Second Dynasty c. His successor Khasekhemwy used both Horus and Set in the writing of his serekh.
This evidence has prompted conjecture that the Second Dynasty saw a clash between the followers of the Horus king and the worshippers of Set led by Seth-Peribsen.
Khasekhemwy's use of the two animal symbols would then represent the reconciliation of the two factions, as does the resolution of the myth. Horus the Younger, Harpocrates to the Ptolemaic Greeks, is represented in the form of a youth wearing a lock of hair a sign of youth on the right of his head while sucking his finger.
In addition, he usually wears the united crowns of Egypt, the crown of Upper Egypt and the crown of Lower Egypt.
He is a form of the rising sun, representing its earliest light. Horus gradually took on the nature as both the son of Osiris and Osiris himself.
He was referred to as Golden Horus Osiris. He was sometimes believed to be both the father of himself as well as his own son, and some later accounts have Osiris being brought back to life by Isis.
He was one of the oldest gods of ancient Egypt. He became the patron of Nekhen Hierakonpolis and the first national god "God of the Kingdom" and was depicted as a hieracosphinx , a creature with a lion's body and a hawk's head and wings.
Later, he also became the patron of the pharaohs, and was called the son of truth  — signifying his role as an important upholder of Maat. His right eye was the Sun and the left one was the Moon.
Her-ur was sometimes depicted fully as a hawk, he was sometimes given the title Kemwer , meaning " the great black one ".
The Greek form of Her-ur is Haroeris or Harmakhis. It was believed that he was the inspiration for the Sphinx of Gizah , constructed under the order of Khafre , whose head it depicts.
Macrobius ' Chronicon noted the annual ancient Egyptian celebration of Horus, specifying the time as the winter solstice.
An analysis of the works of Epiphanius of Salamis noted the Egyptian winter solstice celebration of Horus in Panarion. William R. Cooper's book and Acharya S 's self-published book have suggested that there are many similarities between the story of Horus and the much posterior story of Jesus.
God Horus as a falcon wearing the Double Crown of Egypt. State Museum of Egyptian Art, Munich. Horus, patron deity of Hierakonpolis near Edfu , the predynastic capital of Upper Egypt.
Its head was executed by means of beating the gold then connecting it with the copper body. A uraeus is fixed to the diadem which supports two tall openwork feathers.
The eyes are inlaid with obsidian.Noah's ark fit thousands of animals for 8 months with no way to store food or use the bathroom and the tigers didnt eat the gazelle. I do believe this is where morality and character in the preposition of morality becomes absolute, despite the source in fiction Combat Strike Portable fact is irrelevantirrelevant for myself. And why would Horus be taken to Egypt if he was already there? You Poker Slot Machine Download Free forever accusing agnostics and atheists of arrogance and dogmatism, yet you are the ones who seem to know it all here. Murdoch then attempts to illustrate parallels between Anubis and John the Baptist. I will keep reiterating Pokerstars Supernova Elite fact.
Gott Horus Jesus VideoJesus and the Story of Osiris and Horus (William Lane Craig) Sie stellen die Behauptung auf, dass die Bibel nicht über Jesus als Über den ägyptischen Sonnengott Horus, um etwa Jahre vor Christi Geburt, ist heute. Steingewordener Strahl des Sonnengottes Osiris: ein Obelisk. Petersplatz, Vatikan. Washington - Monument. Horus hat in der geschichtlichen Entwicklung der. Der Name des ägyptischen Gottes Osiris, der stets in Mumiengestalt abgebildet Der Gott Osiris erscheint mit seinem Sohn Horus und seiner Gemahlin Isis als.
Some evidence exists in Egyptian tomb paintings and sculptures to support the idea that a ritual washing was done during the coronation of Pharaohs, but it is always depicted as having been done by the gods.
This indicates that it may have been understood as a spiritual event that likely never happened in reality cf. This happened only to kings if it happened to them at all , and one searches in vain to find depictions of Horus being ritually washed by Anubis.
The relationship between Horus and Seth in the ancient Egyptian religion was quite different than the relationship between Jesus and Satan.
While Seth and Horus were often at odds with each other, it was believed that their reconciliation was what allowed the pharaohs to rule over a unified country.
In stark contrast, there is never any reconciliation between Jesus and Satan in Scripture. The Metternich Stella, a monument from the 4th century B.
The ancient Egyptians used the spell described on this monument to cure people. It was believed that the spirit of Horus would dwell within the sick, and they would be cured the same way he was.
This spiritual indwelling is a far cry from the physical healing ministry of Christ. Horus did not travel the countryside laying his hands on sick people and restoring them to health.
The name Osirus is a Greek transliteration of the Egyptian name Asar. As I mentioned earlier, Osirus is the father of Horus, and, according to the myth, he was killed by Seth and briefly brought back to life by Isis in order to conceive Horus.
It was his mother who raised Osirus from the dead. In fact, two figures in the New Testament bear this name cf.
John 11, Luke Only Massey arrives at this number, and he does so only by referencing the mural with no Horus on it. In many of the books and on the websites that attempt to make this connection, it is often pointed out that there are several ancient depictions of Horus standing with his arms spread in cruciform.
An ancient god stands with him arms spread and we think this is what gave rise to the crucifixion story of Jesus in 1st century Galilee?
We do have extensive evidence from multiple extra-biblical sources that the Romans around the time of Christ practiced crucifixion as a form of capital punishment, meaning this did not take influence from the Horus myth.
On the other hand, there is no historical evidence at all to suggest that the ancient Egyptians made use of this type of punishment.
As I explained before, the story of the child Horus dying and being brought back to life is described on the Metternich Stella, which in no way resembles the sacrificial death of Jesus.
Christ did not die as a child, only to be brought back to life because his grieving mother went to the animal-headed god of magic.
The mythology surrounding Horus is closely tied with the pharaohs, because they were believed to be Horus in life and Osirus in death. With the succession of pharaohs over the centuries came new variations on the myth.
What they all have in common is that they do not cite their sources. Not a single one. This is because there are no sources for these claims, and all of the actual historical sources invalidate these claims.
Should you encounter people who try to challenge you with these claims, ask them to explain where it is they got their information.
Elisha is said to have raised the dead, resurrected himself, healed a leper, fed a hundred people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn, and healed a blind man: 2 Kings , , , , and Elijah is said to have raised the dead, and made a bowl of flour and a jar of oil inexhaustible for many days 1 Kings and Jesus never said the three words, "I am God".
What he is quoted as saying include: "Jesus answered them and said, 'My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me'" John "He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's which sent me" John "For I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.
As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is righteous, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father which hath sent me" John "I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, neither he that is sent greater than the one that sent him" John "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you'.
If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I" John "Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; I came not of my own accord, but He sent me'" John "To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father" Matthew "So Jesus answered them, 'My teaching is not mine, but His that sent me'" John "And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good?
So too did many of the early Christian sects, such as the Ebionites, the Apologists, the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Cerinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, the Hypisistarians, the Arians, the Paulicians and the Goths.
Presumably, they are all guilty of Da Vinci code-like fantasies, whereas only fundamentalist Christians avoid fantasy and know the truth.
Dear, oh dear. Brian The point I am making is about what the earliest Christians confessed about Jesus.
We don't find evidence of Gnostics and Ebionites until mid second century. So what explains these Early Confessions? The apologists weren't a sect.
There are miracles in the OT. Who knew. That must be why the Early Church depends on Horus. You skipped by that.
And all the other evidence that I offered. Graham: Contrary to what you imagine, it isn't clear what Paul thought. What other 'earliest' Christians do you mean?
You skipped over crucial quotes like the 'why have you forsaken me one', "I am not good, only God is good' and many others above.
Why are you so certain about what Jesus meant? Or what he did? This is what really gets on my wick about some Christian attitudes.
You are forever accusing agnostics and atheists of arrogance and dogmatism, yet you are the ones who seem to know it all here.
Any other view is incoherent or ignores the texts. And, of course, when you call in aid of 'scholars' they are always the ones who agree with you, whereas the ones who don't are 'mavericks' or 'discredited' or 'Da Vinci code-like fantasists, or whatever.
It must be great to have all scholarship and all certainty on your side. It seems to me that you need to listen not only to fellow evangelicals but also some of the other Christians who don't share your blinding insights.
Brian I've never claimed that all scholarship is on my side, and I have repeatedly pointed to scholars like Thiessen, Crossan, Borg and Sanders, and recommended websites like James Tabor's.
I don't find that Ehrman has a lot of interest to say, but that hardly means that I'm ignoring scholars that hold to contrary viewspoints.
The pagan parallels don't do any explanatory work, and this has been nearly universally acknowledged in NT scholarship so far as I can see.
I've never accused you of arrogance or dogmatism. I just feel that there are better arguments [re. And no, that doesn't make me clever or an expert.
It just gives me a library card and an Amazon account. And too many free periods, but that's an occupational hazard. As for certainty, I've said that I can doubt.
But that's just part of being human. Anyone can doubt anything. I just happen to be convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true. I've also strong religious, existential and experiential reasons for believing the Gospel.
I put it in those terms, because I don't what to start testifying - I doubt you'd appreciate it. So I'm not going to back down because someone calls me names!!
Is it arrogant to point that out? Ah well, I suppose spite and arrogance go hand in hand. As for the texts you say that I've ignored - I actually spent quite a bit of time discussing Jewish Wisdom theology on this thread, so that I could show that the texts you offer don't even come close to refuting the High Christology I've proposed.
Only Mark 10v18 offers a problem, but I explained why it was not insuperable. Now, how do I know what Jesus thought?
Just a few thoughts that he shared in his teaching preserved in the Gospels. And I know what the first Christians confessed confessions quoted by Paul in , 1 Cor 11 and All un-Pauline language, all confessional language.
Also the hymns in Philippians 2 and Colossians 1. Plus the Sermon on the Mount and the Apocalyptic discourse known to Paul, the former to James, the latter to Peter, in versions that were not used in the Gospels.
And so forth We're looking for information that Paul gives unintentionally; and part of that is his dependence on a prior tradition.
Also his dependence on James and the Jerusalem circle. So what I think can be reconstructed by historical methods about the historical Jesus is explained by Early Christian confession.
SO I think I've good evidence for my belief. And then I've my religious, personal reasons for believing the Gospels.
But of course, as in every walk of life, other people will ,intelligently and in good conscience, look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions.
What I take objection to is the idea that Christianity is obviously false, or has been refuted and idiots like me aren't in on the secret. I'll confess to idiocy.
But many who haven't been inflicted with the condition of idiocy are convinced that Christianity is true.
And they share a prominent place in the academy with skeptics. GV There's a free period I'll never get back. It's easier when I can copy and paste responses from my notes.
Ah well. Come on Brian; it's pretty bad form to end an argument with "you people think you know everything". This is a debate; an argument; a discussion.
It doesn't matter who thinks they know everything, it's who best expresses what they know in the most cogent manner.
Because Graham cites a number of sources and explanatory hypotheses, it's no good just crying "you think you know everything, don't you!
Bernard: I thought that might awaken you from your cloistered slumbers. It definitely does matter who thinks they know everything, especially about events that allegedly happened 2, years ago.
It is not scholarly from a historian's point of view to claim definite knowledge of the divinity of a figure whom no contemporary historian even records as having existed as a human being, let alone as a god.
A little bit of humility about such claims is called for, surely? Indeed, we could go further and suggest that a true seeker after knowledge would approach such stories with a heavy dose of scepticism.
Just as you would about anything else. And what is the point about debating or discussing things with closed minds? I am prepared to be persuaded that a man called Jesus existed if someone can give me solid evidence.
But I haven't seen any evidence that is not special pleading by believers, whether dressed up in scholarly garb or not. Graham: I didn't say that you claimed 'all scholarship was on your side".
This is misrepresenting what I wrote. We are talking about Jesus's alleged claim of divinity. What kind of statement is: "I do find it odd that your skepticism stops as soon as Christianity is refuted".
Are you referring to your particular brand of Christianity or all Christianity? I thought I had already made it clear that I thought the pacifist, compassionate elements of the message of the character called Jesus was a good one.
It is primarily his divinity I reject. Are you saying that one cannot be a Christian and reject Jesus's divinity? If so, this is yet another example of the arrogance of evangelical fundamentalists of which I am complaining.
They seem to know exactly what 'Christianity' is and those who reject the myth of God incarnate cannot be Christians in their 'infallible' view.
I have already pointed out that any belief system is subjective: there is no objective definition of a 'Christian'. But evangelical fundamentalists can't stomach this because they are slaves to the Word, even when it contradicts itself.
Helio and Brian are unimpressed with the evidence so far. That gives me an excuse to present more.
Only YHWH created everything. Only YHWH redeems. Only YHWH can be worshipped. Now Paul, a Pharisee, can affirm these of Jesus without blinking an eye.
He feels no need to cite the approval of the Jerusalem circle. Yet he had to do this when confronting opponents on other issues at Galatia and Corinth.
In other words, there was no controversy about this in the Earliest Churches. All the evidence points to the fact that it was assumed by all.
Yet Paul can cite a hymn in Col 1: "For by him all things were created So in 1 Thessalonians 3 - verse 11 "Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus clear the way for us to come to you.
Paulworks under the assumption that his audience can make sense of what he's saying. The presupposition is that the churches and Paul hold this in common.
And while we have evidence that Paul's view of Justification and the Torah, or his views on the end of the World faced opposition there is not the slightest evidence that any Early Church believed that praying to Jesus was inappropriate.
Christianity spread through the synagogues of the Diaspora, and the monotheism and morality of the synangogue attracted many gentiles.
However those Gentiles would still attend "pagan" temples for social reasons. When James "allowed" Gentiles into Christian communities without circumcision, he insisted that they give up all practices that Jews associated with idolatry.
That was a huge sacrifice for Gentiles to make. These temples weren't just social centres, they underpinned society. We find this in Mark 13 for example.
So it seems more economical to believe that Jesus did and said things that caused his followers to attribute YHWHs properties to him, than to believe that cross-pollination with cults most Jews wouldn't have heard of mysteriously produced prayers to Jesus in every strata of the Early Church.
That doesn't seem to be an explanation at all. It just seems to be saying that it happened by accident. Brian With the best will and all the respect in the world - sincerely offered.
If you still doubt that Jesus existed, then I think you've the very definition of a closed mind on this issue.
After GA Wells, no-one in the academy would take that suggestion seriously. I'm sorry to be so blunt. Paula Friedrickson would be an excellent example of a Jewish scholar who accepts Jesus existence.
Geza Vermes would be another. Jacob Neusner another. And if everything is subjective, then why are we bothering?
Portwyne will be delighted that you've joined the ranks of the postmodernists, but I'm stunned. I've offered arguments and evidence which has been ignored, to be honest, and in response I've been labelled an Evangelical Fundamentalist who wants to impose his definition of Christianity on others.
Well, no, not really. I think that there are certain essentials. The Earliest Churches agreed. I stand in that tradition.
I think that there are good reasons to. Now I offered the historical reasons. I specifically refused to preach.
As a result I get a bit wordy. But there you are. It seems I can't win. If I offer an argument I'm a dogmatic fundamentalist.
If I don't I have a blind irrational faith. A few other points. I never cited any scholars in my defence on this thread.
Yes, to be a Christian in the sense articulated by Paul and the Apostles you have to believe certain things about Jesus. Like, "he existed" Are you now a Christian?
Can I be a secular humanist? And contribute articles to your magazine that argue that God exists, and that humans shouldn't seek to live without dependence on him?
Isn't it awful that some humanists would want to define humanism in such a way that I couldn't do this? G Veale. If there's no such thing as objective definitions, can I call anyone who disagrees with me a Nazi?
Or a serial-killer? Can I call myself a Buddhist? And is Bernard a Hindu under one interpretation? Brian, for the record, I'm not arguing that we should discuss with closed minds, or that Christians know everything and therefore don't need argument.
I'm only making the point that Graham isn't simply saying "I know and you don't Just saying "you think you know everything, don't you" adds nothing.
The points that you further make don't seem to add anything either. So I think you completely misunderstood that statement.
The generally accepted view of Christianity agreed upon by most groups who call themselves Christians is that Christ was divine.
If people want to hold that Christ isn't divine but that they still follow him, so be it. It just doesn't fit the historically applied term "Christian".
That is not arrogant, it is just fact. But if so they are opening themselves up to being confused with the "historically-occuring" Christian Of course, people can call themselves whatever they like You can do if you want Graham got there before me on the nonsense issue of definitions.
People can call themselves what they want. In fact, we Christians are more warranted to call ourselves humanists, given the long history of Christian humanism.
I can only hope to fouter around by way of response given that so much has been said, but sure, why not!
First up, maybe I did say what you think I said, I don't know, I can't remember, sometimes I can't remember what I did this morning; but even if I did say what you think I said then Graham appears to have it covered and I'm happy to accept that I didn't contradict him nor he me.
Now I've forgotten what you said you thought I'd said, never mind forgotten what you think I wrote in the first place, are we clear? That's not really what it said, is it?
And it is of course the biblical 'myths' of Jesus I am concerned with. It's one of the things makes me a Prod!
At least there'll be no more talk of Horace, good. Brian The last time I heard so many 'proof' texts I was in a gospel hall, and that was a while back!
I'll let Graham deal with all the miracle, father son and 'not God' stuff save to make a petty little point.
I think if you read whole the section without paying attention to verse divisions, which sometimes split up sentences! What really interests me however is what gets on your wick, this doubt certainty business.
I've tried to raise this before to no avail, but I'll try again. Christian certainty gets on this wick of yours, yes, we've heard this before. But we've also been told that faith isn't certain enough, that you're all after truth or something like that.
So, which is it, are you rejecting faith, or are you rejecting certainty? Do you take anything on faith. Are you sure about your certainty, are you certain about anything?
However, in a way, whatever; here's the thing I really want to know, and I've never gotten an answer, just accusations of psyco babble - Doubt.
OK let's doubt. Let's glory in it, let's revel in it, let's doubt the whole damn lot, ourselves included. Funny, no one wants to seem to go there, but doubting Shakespeare and Jesus is easy, so come on, let's doubt something closer to home, let's doubt our worth our value our achievements, the world view on which we have built our lives.
I've already doubted all those things, so come on, I've been waiting a long time, but every time someone mentions doubt and certainty I'm going to bring it up.
Can you tell me what is it you really doubt? What you are certain about? As I've said, like I offered before, if doubt is such a great thing then let's really doubt , let's take a walk on the wild side of doubt, I'm ready when you're ready.
Maybe though doubt isn't as much of a virtue as it's made out to be. Personally I've found doubt to be overrated. And I guess, with that, I've just joined, 'Christian certainty' on your wick.
And as for listening to other Christians, what weirder, off the wall, cooky, Christain could any of us hope to meet than Portwyne, and I listen to a lot of what he says, in fact Portwyne, having dismissed Horace, I'd like to follow up your thought on Jesus.
Hopefully I'll get back to it soon. Graham: 1. I didn't say that everything is subjective. I said that a belief system is subjective. There is no objective definition of belief systems like communism, liberalism, socialism, Hinduism, Christianity, Humanism etc, for the simple reason that they are concerned with values and visions of the world and philosophies of life and as such are interpreted differently in different times and places by their exponents.
They are 'essentially contested concepts'. Isn't that why there are so many sects of Christianity? Some Humanists have indeed argued that it is possible to be both a Christian and a Humanist.
You ask: "If there's no such thing as objective definitions, can I call anyone who disagrees with me a Nazi".
This is really silly. Why be obsessed with calling anybody by any label? Surely it is more important to discover what the individual means and thinks rather than defining them by a label.
Bernard: 1. You say that I may be extremely sceptical about all evidence in favour of Christianity. By 'Christianity' here, presumably you are referring to belief in the divinity of Christ.
Naturally, one is sceptical of evidence in favour of such an improbability? To me, it's on a par with believing that the moon is people with little green men all eating green cheese.
Almost anything that argues to the contrary is, well, pretty likely to be on solid ground though I have never quoted Dan Brown in support of anything!
Frankly, the onus is very much on someone believes that a human being was God incarnate to substantiate such an apparently ludicrous claim. You say that the generally accepted view of most groups who call themselves Christians is that Christ was divine.
This is true, but so what? It doesn't mean that they are right or that their interpretation is the only valid one.
Are truth and right determined by counting heads? Nor am I overanxious to stick the label on them.
I prefer to listen to what they have to say. The divinity of Jesus is a myth but it is neither here nor there. The key question is, as Plato put it, how we ought to live and don't tell me, please, that belief in a divinity makes it better!
Brian 1 You find an idea silly or improbable. What does that prove? How did you come by such knowledge? I'm strictly agnostic about the prior probabilities.
I've "religious" reasons for believing in the incarnation. Historical knowledge supports my belief. It does not cause it. A few parallels with a few myths explains precisely nothing.
You have to show causal connections etc. That's all I'm trying to say. But I guess he was kind of dumb. Brian, as usual, this argument has completely changed tack, and now amounts to very little.
Is your point that some people call themselves Christian but do not believe in the divinity of Christ? If so, then yes, you're right. However, that argument took place a good years ago What does this have to do with Horus?
Ach, I don't know why I'm bothering, you'll probably change the argument to one about how authoritarian religions are, or how there's no room for dissent.
Yes, but what about Horus? Ah, forget it. Precisely what I said about Bernard's assertions. The generally accepted view of Christians is that Jesus was divine.
But most agnostics, atheists, sceptics, doubters would take such a claim with a massive pinch of salt, especially when it was a frequent claim beforehand in other myths Greeks, Egyptians - Horus, Bernard.
Was Horus divine? Was Horus god incarnate? Is Jesus a compound of Horus and Osiris? Yes, the improbability of divinity derives not only from the scientific unlikelihood of such an occurrence but also from the assumptions made about the divinity that he was perfect, omnipotent, omniscient etc etc - e.
It does nothing of the kind. You have not one shred of sound historical evidence that a Jesus existed, let alone that he was divine.
Also, stop making out that G. Wells is alone. He is NOT. Roberstson, Earl Doherty. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it" - C.
Niow, I have already said many times that i don't know if McKinsey is correct. I don't know and it doesn't trouble that I don't. That is the way the world works or should work.
If there insufficient evidence, don't believe but keep searching. The rise of Christianity has a lot to with with Mr Constantine and his successors.
Well, is that anybody's fault? And why not redirect it? The rejection of divinity is an important issue because it means that Christianity as an ethic would no longer be based on a lie.
It would mean that dogma has been consigned to the dustbin of history in favour of the ethic. It would be progress. Some enlightened Christians though not many in Ireland realise this truth.
Here Christians generally tend to cling on to old, outdated and discredited mythologies. Brian; "The generally accepted view of Christians is that Jesus was divine.
But most agnostics, atheists, sceptics, doubters would take such a claim with a massive pinch of salt" Obviously.
But why? Is that like the scientific unlikelihood of love and friendship, or like the scientific unlikelyhood of order and form? An ethic based on a good man?
What was so good about him? In fact, you've argued on numerous occassions that, actually, he wasn't that good after all. So what kind of ethic is that?
The "Christian ethic" is subordinate to a conception of "good" in itself So, the christian ethic is "good" because YOU think so?
Bernard: Let me address your first question and then I may later return to the others. Why should I and other sceptics take the divinity of Jesus with a large pinch of salt?
Well, let me explain with reference, not to Horus but - since we know more about this myth - to Hercules. The mortal and chaste Alcmene gave birth to Hercules from a union with God Zeus.
As with Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules travelled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds.
Similar to Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules is perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome.
They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshipped him, and dedicated temples to him. Similarly, the evidence of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus.
We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules in their writings. Just as the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so we have the epic stories of Homer, who depicts the life of Hercules.
Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Josephus in his Antiquities, Josephus also mentions Hercules more times than Jesus , in the very same work see: 1.
Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus.
All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in an historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and because we have stories and beliefs about him?
Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historical scholarship.
Some critics doubt that a historicised Jesus could develop from myth because they think there was no precedence for it.
We have many examples of myth from history but what about the other way around? This doubt fails in the light of the most obvious example - the Greek mythologies where Greek and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc.
These writers put their mythological heroes into an invented historical time chart. Herodotus, for example, tried to determine when Hercules lived Euhemerism, from Euhemerus.
Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicised mythologies, not least the propaganda spread by politicians which stem from fiction but believed by their constituents.
We generally consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no longer believe in the Greek and Roman stories.
When a civilisation dies, so go their gods. Christianity and its church authorities, on the other hand, still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, the media, education etc.
Anyone doing research on Jesus, even sceptics, had better allude to his existence or else risk future funding and damage to their reputations or fear embarrassment against their Christian friends.
Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the most unreliable sources.
The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought.
We have so many Christian professors, theologians and historical experts around the world who tell us we should accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent sceptic.
The establishment of history should never reside with the "experts" words alone or simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian.
Historical review has yet to achieve the reliability of scientific investigation, and in fact, many times ignores it.
If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion should depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just because he or she says so.
Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence. Brian; thanks for the lengthy reply.
A couple of things stand out in your post. First; "Just as the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so we have the epic stories of Homer, who depicts the life of Hercules" there is a demonstrable difference in the types of narrative told by Homer and those of the Gospels.
Whether or not you believe them, the Gospels do claim to speak about a person who lived very recently, not in some mythical past.
Numerous times they even mention that many of the readers of the Gospels would have known or met Jesus. That is like comparing CS Lewis's Narnia stories with his autobiography.
One is fairly obviously a story while the other is an account of what supposedly happened, in the recent past, within memory of the intended reader.
You completely refuse to accept that basic feature that must be borne in mind. Secondly; "And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus.
All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay" I'm not sure the first sentence totally squares with the second.
We have no eyewitnesses about jesus You mean "no eyewitness accounts that you believe" What argument I have heard is that it would be extremely difficult for a mythical person to be invented and believed within years of the supposed death by people who supposedly knew him.
The Gospels were, and contain many many references to those still alive who knew him. I'm not sure what point your making in your last paragraph.
We are discussing the evidence of the Gospels We can historically locate a group of "Christians" prior to any documents We can historically locate a group of people claiming to follow the resurrected Christ within just a few years of his supposed ressurection Truth: There is no continuous effort in the Horus mythology to account for all these years, so there are no real gaps in the chronology.
Horus never taught in any temple at twelve as did Jesus. Claim: Horus was baptized in a river at the age of 30, and his baptizer was later beheaded.
Truth: Horus was never baptized. Claim: Horus had 12 disciples. Claim: Horus performed miracles, exorcized demons, raised someone from the dead, and walked on water.
Truth: Horus certainly performed miracles he was, after all, described as a god. But there was no mention of exorcizing demons, raising people from the dead or walking on water.
He was transfigured on the Mount. Claim: Horus was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and was resurrected. Truth: Horus is not reported to have died at all in the vast majority of Egyptian narratives.
There is also no crucifixion story. Claim: Horus came to fulfill the Law, and was supposed to reign one thousand years.
The first step in refuting such claims is to simply investigate the attributes carefully. Beyond this, we must also recognize the expectations and yearnings people have related to the existence of God.
Many alleged similarities between pre-Christian mythologies and Jesus are extremely general in nature and would be expected from anyone considering the existence of a Divine Creator.
These universal expectations fail to invalidate the historicity of Jesus. 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 the Horus myth.