DiscussMormonism.com

I raised this subject on FAIR but didn't get too many replies, not that I expect a great deal here either. S. Acharya is the pen name of D. Murdoch. She has written a book titled The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, and this is her site: http://www.truthbeknown.com/Christ.htm

She does not believe Christ ever existed, and that he was a combination of ancient mythological "god figures" like Mithra and Horus, among many others. Her comparison to Horus looks in very brief detail like this:

The Egyptian sun god Horus, who predated the Christ character by thousands of years, shares the following in common with Jesus:

*
Isis and HorusHorus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
*
His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph"). Seb is also known as "Geb": "As Horus the Elder he...was believed to be the son of Geb and Nut." Lewis Spence, Ancient Egyptian Myths and Legends, 84.
*
He was of royal descent.
*
At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.
*
Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.
*
He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").
*
He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.
*
Horus walked on water.
*
His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."
*
He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."
*
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
*
He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
*
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God's Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.
*
He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.
*
He came to fulfill the Law.
*
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."
*
Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."

I've only just started reading her book, so I'm yet to check her sources. She has both strong critics and strong supporters, and these ideas are by no means new. The above is probably not an accurate rendition of what the ancient texts actually read, but her "translation". One point she does make, which I'm still trying to verify, is that some the early apologists for Christianity actually knew that Christ was only a mythological figure, yet felt that promoting faith was for the greater good. Later, I will see if I can get those quotes to add to the thread.

On another note, do you feel that there is historical evidence to support the existence of Christ? I mean contemporary evidence, evidence which actually comes from the time of Christ, not after his death. If so, can you produce it?

The following article is from Hayyim ben Yehoshua : http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/ ... ation.html

I have excerpted very small portions of the article for those who don't wish to read it all. I strongly recommend a full reading, and for those of a critical/scholarly inclination, a critical analysis. Are there loopholes, errors, in what he claims?

It is rather unfortunate that many well-meaning Jewish Studies teachers have unwittingly aided missionaries by teaching Jewish pupils incorrect information about the origins of Christianity. I can recall being taught the following story about Jesus at the Jewish day school I attended:

"Jesus was a famous first century rabbi whose Hebrew name was Rabbi Yehoshua. His father was a carpenter named Joseph and his mother's name was Mary. Mary became pregnant before she married Joseph. Jesus was born in a stable in Bethlehem during a Roman census. Jesus grew up in Nazareth and became a learned rabbi. He traveled all over Israel preaching that people should love one another. Some people thought that he was the Messiah and he did not deny this, which made the other rabbis very angry. He caused so much controversy that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate had him crucified. He was buried in a tomb and later his body was found to be missing since it had probably been stolen by his disciples."
A few years after being taught this seemingly innocent story, I became interested in the origins of Christianity and decided to do some further reading on the "famous Rabbi Yehoshua." Much to my dismay, I discovered that there was no historical evidence of this Rabbi Yehoshua. The claim that Jesus was a rabbi named Yehoshua and the claim that his body was probably stolen both turned out to be pure conjecture. The rest of the story was nothing more than a watered down version of the story which Christians believe as part of the Christian religion but which is not supported by any legitimate historical source. There was absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus, Joseph or Mary ever existed, let alone that Joseph was a carpenter or that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.

When confronted by a Christian missionary, one should immediately point out that the very existence of Jesus has not been proven. When missionaries argue they usually appeal to emotions rather than to reason and they will attempt to make you feel embarrassed about denying the historicity of Jesus. The usual response is something like "Isn't denying the existence of Jesus just as silly as denying the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth?" A popular variation of this response used especially against Jews is "Isn't denying the existence of Jesus like denying the Holocaust?" One should then point out that there are ample historical sources confirming the existence of Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth or whoever else is named, while there is no corresponding evidence for Jesus.
To be perfectly thorough you should take time to do some research on the historical personalities mentioned by the missionaries and present hard evidence of their existence. At the same time you should challenge the missionaries to provide similar evidence of Jesus's existence. You should point out that although the existence of Julius Caesar, or Queen Elizabeth, etc., is accepted worldwide, the same is not true of Jesus. In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris. Most Hindus do not believe in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars of the Hindu god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject the New Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who announced the coming of Muhammed. They explicitly deny that he was ever crucified. (original emphasis)

The skimpy information contained in the Baraitas is as follows: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah once repelled Yeishu with both hands. People believed that Yeishu was a sorcerer and they considered him to be a person who had led the Jews astray. As a result of charges brought against him (the details of which are not known, but which probably involved high treason) Yeishu was stoned and his body hung up on the eve of Passover. Before this he was paraded around for forty days with a herald going in front of him announcing that he would be stoned and calling for people to come forward to plead for him. Nothing was brought forward in his favor however. Yeishu had five disciples: Mattai, Naqai, Neitzer, Buni, and Todah.

In the Tosefta and the Baraitas, Yeishu's father is named Pandeira or Panteiri. These are Hebrew-Aramaic forms of a Greek name. In Hebrew the third consonant of the name is written either with a dalet or a tet. Comparison with other Greek words transliterated into Hebrew shows that the original Greek must have had a delta as its third consonant and so the only possibility for the father's Greek name is Panderos. Since Greek names were common among Jews during Hashmonean times it is not necessary to assume that he was Greek, as some authors have done.

The connection between Yeishu and Jesus is corroborated by the the fact that Mattai and Todah, the names of two of Yeishu's disciples, are the original Hebrew forms of Matthew and Thaddaeus, the names of two of Jesus's disciples in Christian mythology. (emphasis added)

The story that Mary (Miriam) the mother of Jesus was an adulteress was certainly not acceptable to the early Christians. The virgin birth story was probably invented to clear Mary's name. The early Christians did not suck this story out of their thumbs. Virgin birth stories were fairly common in pagan myths. The following mythological characters were all believed to have been born to divinely impregnated virgins: Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Zoroaster, Mithras, Osiris-Aion, Agdistis, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas, Dionysus. The pagan belief in unions between gods and women, regardless of whether they were virgins or not, is even more common. Many characters in pagan mythology were believed to be sons of divine fathers and human females. The Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God born to a virgin, is typical of Greco-Roman superstition. The Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria (c. 30 B.C.E - 45 C.E.), warned against the widespread superstitious belief in unions between male gods and human females which returned women to a state of virginity. (emphasis added)

Since the early Christians believed that Jesus had lived in Roman times it is natural that they would have confused the evil king who wanted to kill Jesus with Herod, since there were no other suitable evil kings during the Roman period. Yeishu was an adult at the time that the rabbis fled from Yannai; why did the Christians believe that Jesus and his family had fled to Egypt when Jesus was an infant? Why did the Christians believe that Herod had ordered all baby boys born in Bethlehem to be killed, when there is no historical evidence of this? To answer these questions we again have to look at pagan mythology. (emphasis added)

The theme of a divine or semi-divine child who is feared by an evil king is very common in pagan mythology. The usual story is that the evil king receives a prophecy that a certain child will be born who will usurp the throne. In some stories the child is born to a virgin and usually he is son of a god. The mother of the child tries to hide him. The king usually orders the slaying of all babies who might be the prophecied king. Examples of myths which follow this plot are the birth stories of Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Krishna, Zeus, and Oedipus. Although Torah literalists will not like to admit it, the story of Moses's birth also resembles these myths (some of which claim that the mother put the child in a basket and placed him in a river). There were probably several such stories circulating in the Levant which have been lost. The Christian myth of the slaughter of the innocents by Herod is simply a Christain version of this theme. The plot was so well known that one Midrashic scholar could not resist using it for an apocryphal account of Abraham's birth.

Consequently the evidence can be regarded as historically accurate. Therefore modern Christians no longer attack the Talmud but instead deny any connection between Jesus and Yeishu or ben Stada. They dismiss the similarities as pure coincidence. However, one must still be aware of the false attacks on the Talmud since many Christian books still mention them and they can and do resurface from time to time.

The theme of temptation by a devil-like creature was also found in pagan mythology. In particular the story of Jesus's temptation by Satan resembles the temptation of Osiris by the devil-god Set in Egyptian mythology. We have already hinted that there was also a connection between Jesus and the pagan god Dionysus. Like Dionysus, the infant Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger; like Dionysus, Jesus could turn water into wine; like Dionysus, Jesus rode on an ass and fed a multitude in the wilderness; like Dionysus, Jesus suffered and was mocked. Some early Christians claimed that Jesus had in fact been born, not in a stable, but in a cave--just like Dionysus.

At the Vernal Equinox, pagans in northern Israel would celebrate the death and resurrection of the virgin-born Tammuz-Osiris. In Asia Minor (where the earliest Christian churches were established) a similar celebration was held for the virgin-born Attis. Attis was shown as dying against a tree, being buried in a cave and then being resurrected on the third day. We thus see where the Christian story of Jesus's resurrection comes from. In the worship of Baal, it was believed that Baal cheated Mavet (the god of death) at the time of the Vernal Equinox. He pretended to be dead but later appeared alive. He accomplished this ruse by giving his only son as a sacrifice.

The apostle Peter appears to be a largely fictitious character. According to Christian mythology, Jesus chose him to be the "keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven." This is clearly based on the Egyptian pagan deity, Petra, who was the door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife ruled over by Osiris. We must also doubt the story of Luke "the good healer" who was supposed to be a friend of Paul. The original Greek for "Luke" is "Lykos" which was another name for Apollo, the god of healing. (emphasis added)

John the Baptist is largely based on a historical person who practiced ritual immersion in water as a physical symbol for repentance. He did not perform Christian style sacramental baptisms to cleanse people's souls - such an idea was totally foreign to Judaism.

The belief that Jesus had met John contributed to the belief that Jesus's ministry and crucifixion occurred when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judaea. It should be noted that most dates for Jesus quoted by Christians are completely nonsense. Jesus was partly based on Yeishu and ben Stada who probably lived more than a century apart. He was also based on the three false Messiahs, Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin, who were crucified by the Romans at various different times.

The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before April 12, 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias, i.e. 28-29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea i.e. 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! (emphasis added)

The story of Jesus's trial is also highly suspicious. It clearly tries to placate the Romans while defaming the Jews. The historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them. However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. According to Christian mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. This is of course a blatant lie. Jews never had a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year (emphasis added)

The usual Christian response to those who question the historicity of Jesus is to palm off various documents as "historical evidence" for the existence of Jesus. They usually start with the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The usual claim is that these are "eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus made by his disciples." The reply to this argument can be summed up in one word--pseudepigraphic. This term refers to works of writing whose authors conceal their true identities behind the names of legendary characters from the past. Pseudepigraphic writing was particularly popular among the Jews during Hashmonean and Roman periods and this style of writing was adopted by the early Christians.

The canonical gospels are not the only gospels. For example, there are also gospels of Mary, Peter, Thomas and Philip. These four gospels are recognized as being pseudepigraphic by both Christian and non-Christian scholars. They provide no legitimate historical information since they were based on rumors and belief. The existence of these obviously pseudepigraphic gospels makes it quite reasonable to suspect that the canonical gospels might also be pseudepigraphic. The very fact that early Christians wrote pseudepigraphic gospels suggests that this was in fact the norm. It is thus the missionaries' claim that the canonical gospels are not pseudepigraphic which requires proof. (emphasis added)

I reiterate that none of this is new. In 1993 A.N.Wilson recorded most of this in his book Jesus (1993), which I read not long after publication. The full implications of Wilson's book never really hit me at the time. My first encounter with Wilson was with his "liberal" Christian book How Can We Know?. At that time his feelings for Christianity seemed benign and he was advocating liberal belief as being better than no belief. But in subsequent years he changed his tone and came to believe that religion was evil. I'm not sure what facilitated this, but it was a marked changed I noticed. Wilson was one of the biographers of C.S. Lewis. He also did a video trying to show the very myths recorded above by the Jewish writer.

The question I ask here is: There are many ex-Mormons who reject Mormonism because it has no historical/archaeological verification. Would they also reject Christainity on those grounds? This seems to me to be a logical sequence, IF one really examines the facts. This is why Dr. Lawrence Foster criticised the Tanners, because they rejected Mormonism on historical/doctrinal grounds but failed to apply the same measure of critical scutiny to their Christian beliefs. This is sort of like accepting half the dog. Or being partly pregnant. I have no agenda here, I am only asking these questions: How far do you go with critical analysis? And why stop at Mormonism? Do you need something to hang on to, even if it's as irrational as Mormonism?

As you wrote, this line of thinking is nothing new. I remember looking at books with this type of approach in the mid-70s when I was an undergrad is Brown. I don't have time to answer the whole thread, but here's one problem.:

this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! (emphasis added)

This was answered a long time ago:

Another supposed mistake has been detected by some in Luke iii. 1, where Lysanias is said to have been tetrarch of Abilene (west of Damascus) in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (AD 27-28), whereas the only Lysanias of Abilene otherwise known from ancient history bore the title of king and was executed by order of Mark Antony in 34 BC. Evidence of a later Lysanias who had the status of tetrarch has, however, been forthcoming from an inscription recording the dedication of a temple 'for the salvation of the Lords Imperial and their whole household, by Nymphaeus us, a freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch'. The reference to 'the Lords Imperial'-a joint title given only to the Emperor Tiberius and his mother Livia, the widow of Augustus-fixes the date of the inscription between AD 14 (the year of Tiberius' accession) and 29 (the year of Livia's death). On the strength of this and other evidence we may well be satisfied with the verdict of the historian Eduard Meyer, that Luke's reference to Lysanias is 'entirely correct'.'

http://www.Bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce-ch7.htm

The basic argument that X predated Y, X and Y are similar in some way; therefore, ths story Y depends on X, is pretty weak.

Hi Ray!

This is really interesting stuff. I haven't read any of her books, but I think this deserves a look. You're right. There isn't anything new about the concept, but it's still fascinating.

You may want to consider posting this thread over on Mormon Think Tank as well, if you're looking for responses.

We're attracting quite a few scholarly types over there on both sides of the aisle. :)

Here's the link:

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/index.php

Of all the Biblical royalty, we only have confirmation of one: David, and his story is debated. Was he a major player or a minor irritation? Did the writers of the books of the Bible exaggerate his importance for political purposes, or accurately portray his power? Is the Bible a record of God's interaction with his chosen people, or a series of books designed to promote a particular political purpose? And 2000+ years after the fact, who can tell?

We worship a myth. It has always been so.

liz3564 wrote:Hi Ray!

This is really interesting stuff. I haven't read any of her books, but I think this deserves a look. You're right. There isn't anything new about the concept, but it's still fascinating.

You may want to consider posting this thread over on Mormon Think Tank as well, if you're looking for responses.

We're attracting quite a few scholarly types over there on both sides of the aisle. :)

Here's the link:

http://www.kevingraham.org/forum/index.php

Liz, I'll post it over there some time today. I still have more to post here on this subject.

harmony wrote:Of all the Biblical royalty, we only have confirmation of one: David, and his story is debated. Was he a major player or a minor irritation? Did the writers of the books of the Bible exaggerate his importance for political purposes, or accurately portray his power? Is the Bible a record of God's interaction with his chosen people, or a series of books designed to promote a particular political purpose? And 2000+ years after the fact, who can tell?

We worship a myth. It has always been so.

You think that we have confirmation of one Biblical royalty? What about Ahab, Hezekiah, etc..

Harmony,

Here are some Assyrian references to Hezekiah:

In our paper on Sargon and Esarhaddon we show the more updated history of these late Assyrian kings. Sargon II/Sennacherib inherited a potentially enormous empire. Right away he began to expand it even more. After two campaigns against enemies in the north he turned his attention to Syria/Palestine. His army attacked Sidon and its king Luli fled into the sea and perished. Sennacherib appointed a new king and received tribute from him. Arvad and Ashdod, Ammon and Edom, brought him gifts and "kissed [his] feet." Sennacherib encircled Beth-Dagon, Jaffa, and Bne-Brak and conquered them. "The people of Ekron became afraid and called upon the king of Egypt, the bowmen, chariots and horses of the king of Melukha [Ethiopia], a boundless host, and these came to their aid." The Assyrian army met them at the walls of Eltekeh; neighboring Ekron was stormed and its people killed, their corpses hung on poles around the town. "As to Hezekiah, the Judean [Ha-za-qi-(i)a-u Ia-u-da-ai], he did not submit to my yoke." Sennacherib besieged the "strong cities" of Judah and the "walled forts" and "countless small villages in their vicinity," and took them by assault carrying their people into exile. Then he turned against the capital. "I made (Hezekiah) like a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage." Nevertheless, Jerusalem held out and Sennacherib withdrew, even though not before exacting a heavy ransom. "Hezekiah himself, whom the terror-inspiring splendor of my lordship had overwhelmed ... did send me, later, to Niniveh [0950], my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones ... couches (inlaid) with ivory ... elephant hides ... and all kinds of valuable treasures, his own daughters, concubines, male and female musicians. In order to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance as a slave he sent his (personal) messenger."

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/assyria.html

I watched his series of videos called the power of myth, and he seemed to come to the same conclusion, that Christ stemmed from egyption myth.

What Campbell and others fail to understand is that Christ was the same God who instructed noah to build the Ark, and from the writeings of Noah, an apostate Egypt developed their beliefs.

Abr.1:21-28

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the bblessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
28 But I shall endeavor, hereafter, to delineate the chronology running back from myself to the beginning of the creation, for the records have come into my hands, which I hold unto this present time.

From Hugh Nibley, Temple and Cosmos: pg. 26-27

We have been assuming..... that our temple is of the same class as the temples of the Egyptions. Let me explain that. The ordinances of the Egyption temple were essentialy the same as those performed in ours. And that is to be explained very simply: they have a common origin. The clue is given in Abraham 1:26: " Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the bblessings of the earth". he sought diligently, he sought earnestly, to imitate that order that went back to the fathers of the first generation in the first patriarchal reign. The egyption ordinance also always had one purpose - to go back to the sp tpy - the First time, the time of the first man, who was Adam. the Egyptions didn't have it, and they knew it. So they sought to imitate it. Interestingly, Oharaoh spent his days in the archives in the House of Life, searching through the geneological records with the nobles of the court turning over the records, looking for some geneological proof that he really had authority. he never found it, and it broke his heart. And "Pharoah being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah" - made a very good imitation, seeking very earnestly to imitate that order which went back to the beginning.

From this we see that this ancient religion was actually based on Christian teachings, albeit corrupted. To assign Christianity was stolen from Egyptology is rather amuseing through this light.