Cliff LyonReality Check - Jesus Story Copied
That the story of the Christian Savior was inherited is well-established fact. That few know it or talk about is is understandable.
Caution: The following may challenge blind faith.
[QUICKTIME http://oneutah.org/oneutah-filez/video/M... 320 257]
Thanks to Norm at One Good Move
As Christianity moved through the near East and into Europe and the extended Roman Empire, the Jesus narratives had to adopt the virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection. The manger story is a beautiful fantasy.
Mythracism, the dominant religion in Persia and throughout Europe at the time represented the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of Christianity.
Eighteen hundred years before Christ, we find carved on one of the walls of the great temple of Luxor a picture of the annunciation, conception and birth of King Amunothph III, an almost exact copy of the annunciation, conception and birth of the Christian God.
Mithra was a Persian god who was also a virgin birth, but was more than just a tribal god. Mithra was born in a cave and had twelve companions. Mithra’s birthday was also on December 25th. Both religions celebrate the resurrection at Easter. Much of what we know about Mithracism today came from the Christians. The prophet Zoroaster was also born of a virgin.
Not only the idea of a virgin mother, but all the other miraculous events, such as the stable cradle, the guiding star, the massacre of the children, the flight to Egypt, and the resurrection and bodily ascension toward the clouds, have not only been borrowed, but are even scarcely altered in the New Testament story of Jesus.
Such was the successful strategy discovered by the Jews hundreds of years earlier when conquering tribes discovered you could more easily rule if you could convince the conquered that they were really worshipping the same God - The One God.
It was serendipidy really that Mythraicism was emerging from a Near East cult into a one God religion as Christians were struggling to assimilate in the Roman empire.
The idea of the inerrancy of the The New Testament is unsupportable. A better comparison would be to The Iraq Study Group Report; designed to gain the widest possible acceptance across diverse groups through laborious debate among high councils consulting with on-the-ground actors.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:05 am
I read this post with extreme interest, although my faith is not shaken.
The Virgin Birth was known from the time of Adam, which explains how other societies through the ages could have adopted similar ideas and observances. The Bible through the ages has had much taken from it (particularly the Old Testament), but the Book of Isaiah (written about 700 years before Christ’s birth) is one remaining example that prophesies that “A virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).
The Book of Mormon and other LDS writings and revelations clarify teachings from the Bible that Christ was born of a virgin, Mary, and that God himself is Christ’s father, and that Adam and Eve knew of this and other most important future events, including his suffering in Gethsemane for the sins of all, and his subsequent resurrection to immortality.
Interestingly, Muslims believe that Jesus was a great prophet who was born of a virgin, but they do not believe that Allah (God) is his father, because ‘beside Allah there is none else.’
Jesus Christ is the most important figure who ever lived. It is far from surprising that there are myths and observances that mimic or parallel significant portions of his life.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Zoroastrianism predates all of these for the first monotheistic religion recorded into mans history. Zoroaster is God, the Devil, or counter to Him, was Ahura Mazda. There is even an element of mans redemption with a Messiah.
It’s old hat this mental illness called religion.
http://altreligion.about.com/library/faqs/bl_zoroastrian.htm
December 19th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Cliff,
Thanks for posting this. Bishop John Shelby Spong, among others, has argued that Christians must study comparative mythology as well as the Bible. Themes of virgin birth, surviving death and so forth run throughout world mythology. As we study those mythological systems, we come to understand the Christian mythological system. We are also hampered by translation problems.
For instance. The original Hebrew words used in Isaiah doesn’t mean virgin, it means “young woman.” When translated into Koine Greek, the word used meant virgin. There is a difference in meaning between Isaiah and the gospel writers. Consider also, the notion that the Hebrew Scriptures predict Jesus’ coming is a Christian invention. Many stories of Jesus were adapted to make them appear to fulfill Hebrew scripture; literally, they were written with full knowledge of Hebrew scripture, written to convince an audience familiar with those scriptures. The gospel writers, in other words, made their story fit preconceived notions of their community.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
I had wondered about Mithras and Horus before, but as my previous exposure to their myths was via some pretty questionable sources (the historical novels of Mary Stewart, and Stargate: SG1, to be exact), I was glad to spend some time digging through the pages you linked learning more. Actually, I had run across references to both myths before and their resemblance to Christian belief in more reputable texts, but hadn’t been able to browse amongst so many sources collected in one place online before. Thanks for the enjoyable couple of hours I spent perusing when I should have been wrapping Christmas gifts.
As it happens, I’m a liberal Episcopalian; after reading the comparisons of what “liberal Christians” and “conservative Christians” think about the various Gospels and hero-myths, I’d have to describe myself as more of a Spong-ite than I’d realized. The issues raised have a direct bearing on the tensions within my own denomination; fellowship hour will be pretty interesting in the next few weeks.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Cliff, you forgot to mention that Jesus of Nazareth was born in (duh) Nazareth, not Bethlehem. The reason for the story is that Bethlehem, home of King David, was a politically-savvy choice for the new messiah.
December 19th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Thank you Richard,
In the context of the premise of this post, I would say the actual birth place of Jesus is a subject of lore.
December 19th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Sorry to see how rudely cliff is being treated over at the sl trib blog /out of context, Cover charge? Liberal mag pays homage to Rocky
Making fun of someone like cliff who is really trying to contribute is unfair.
I suggest some letters to the editor.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Pretty interesting how long elements of this has persisted in all the major religions.
Zoroastrians believe that time is divided into three ages, those of creation, the current era of mixed good and evil, and the coming era, when Ahura-Mazda will triumph, evildoers will be punished, and the good will go to heaven. It is an apocalyptic religion, like Christianity. However, unlike most Christian views of hell, Zoroastrians believe it to be a temporary abode, where sinners are cleansed by fire. (much like the Catholic concept of purgatory.)
Ahura-Mazda is worshipped through a sacred fire, which is said to contain his presence. (leading some scholars to the conclusion that Moses of the Old Testament was Zoroastrian). The impending appearance of the Sayoshant, or savior, is expected to usher in the final judgment of man, resurrect the faithful, and defeat evil for eternity. This savior is expected of the line of Zoroaster, and to be born of a virgin.
Holidays: Zoroastrian holidays include No Ruz (literally, new day), or the New Year, celebrated at the Spring Equinox, and Farvardigan, or ten days of the dead, honoring and remembering Zoroastrians of the past, and Khordad Sal, Zoroaster’s birthday.
Symbols: A living flame, symbolizing the manifested presence of God, and the Farohar (Fravashi, Farahvahar), an emblem of the faith:
December 23rd, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Most of what Glenn mentions here is very similar to the doctrine of the LDS Church. I am particularly drawn to the point that “hell” is a temporary abode.
I’m not trying to offend anyone when I harp on this issue, but I think those of you who don’t know about Mormon church doctrine would be very interested to find out how similar it is to many of the legends out there.
And it begins to make sense that if the LDS church has the same authority and doctrine given to Adam (not a big stretch if God exists and is always the same) that Zoroastrianism and other religions, etc. get their ideas from Christianity rather than the other way around.
I would restate Glenn’s statement about Moses: Zoroastrians may have been once followers of the doctrine of Moses (or the doctrine of Christ).
December 25th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Only one problem Frank, that Zoastrianism predates the rest of it, by MANY years, including old testament Judaism. Zoastrianism was a long standing monotheistic religion LONG before Jesus was a twinkle in the creators eye.
Zoastrianism exists to this day with 200,000 or so adherents, and is the oldest monotheistic religion recorded into mans history. Its tenants existed before christianity, some 1700 years, so to imply that they followed the Christian beliefs is not suppoertable by the historic facts.
Frank to be fair to the chronolgy of histroical reality, it would more appropriate to say that the LDA church has adopted tenant s of Zoastrianism.
BTW, Zoastrianism has nothing to do with Moses or Christ, as it existed LONG before either of them were BORN!
March 19th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
hydrocodone online…
news…