The many gods from which Jesus arises?

[SteveB]

Numerous atheists have attempted to claim that Jesus is just a myth, derived from the various gods of antiquity.

This guy says no. He's not.

https://reasonsforjesus.com/zeitgeist-debunked-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

It’s often claimed that the story of Jesus was plagiarized or adopted from pagan deities. That the ideas of his virgin birth, his baptism, his gathering of disciples, his miracle working, his title as the son of god, his death and his resurrection are ideas that were taken from pre-Christ pagan myths and mishmashed together to give us the unoriginal and recycled story of another dying and rising saviour-figure: Jesus Christ.
Zeitgeist, Religulous, and other such films and books have popularized this idea, which has since then become a favourite talking point of skeptics in the blogosphere. I personally have seen this point brought up so many times it is hard to keep track, with the same sensationalist memes being recycled around the internet:

 

[The Pixie]

Numerous atheists have attempted to claim that Jesus is just a myth, derived from the various gods of antiquity.

This guy says no. He's not.
...

Not as simple as that,

I think it most likely Jesus was real and was crucified, and the the disciples believed they had seen him resurrected, but pagan influences certainly started to work themselves into the story after that.

The virgin birth is a great example. The Jewish Christians did not believe that, they needed Jesus to be a direct male-line descendant of David - hence two genealogies that supposedly show that. The gentile Christians borrowed a virgin birth from other gods, and added it to the existing mythology, to make Jesus more divine.

Resurrection was what the Jews expected, but they expected to be resurrected in new bodies that shine like the stars - like Paul saw. The pagan influence here may have helped change that into resurrection in the original body, as Luke and John recount.

 

[CrowCross]

The virgin birth is a great example. The Jewish Christians did not believe that, they needed Jesus to be a direct male-line descendant of David - hence two genealogies that supposedly show that. The gentile Christians borrowed a virgin birth from other gods, and added it to the existing mythology, to make Jesus more divine.

One genealogy is of Joseph, the legal father which leads back through David while the other is of Mary His Mother.

I trust you stand corrected.

 

[The Pixie]

One genealogy is of Joseph, the legal father which leads back through David while the other is of Mary His Mother.

I trust you stand corrected.

And yet they both claim to be through Joseph, not Mary.

Mat 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.​

17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.​

​

Luk 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,​

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,​

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,​

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,​

Matthew's genealogy clearly is via Joseph, and then Joseph's father Jacob. Luke's genealogy does not even mention Mary. Looks like you are wrong again.

 

[CrowCross]

And yet they both claim to be through Joseph, not Mary.

Mat 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.​

17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.​

​

Luk 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,​

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,​

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,​

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,​

Matthew's genealogy clearly is via Joseph, and then Joseph's father Jacob. Luke's genealogy does not even mention Mary. Looks like you are wrong again.

Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Click here for more information.

 

[The Pixie]

Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Click here for more information.

CrowCross, this is just yet another example of make believe. The text clearly states "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli," There is no way around this, Luke is saying Heli's son was Joseph. There is no mention of Mary - that is a fantasy Christians have concocted.

I have cease to be amazed how Christians can pretend their sacred text says things it clearly does not.

To try to bring this back on topic to some degree, what we see in Luke is the transition from Jewish Christianity, with Jesus as the new king, a direct male-line descendant of David, to the gentile Christianity, with Jesus as the divine, now borrowing from pagan religions with the virgin birth. The author is doing his best to reconcile the two, so includes the genealogy for the Jewish Christians - and because it was part of the old narrative - but throws in "so it was thought," to appease the gentiles who wanted their virgin birth.

 

[CrowCross]

CrowCross, this is just yet another example of make believe. The text clearly states "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli," There is no way around this, Luke is saying Heli's son was Joseph. There is no mention of Mary - that is a fantasy Christians have concocted.

I have cease to be amazed how Christians can pretend their sacred text says things it clearly does not.

Madam, Thats what the learned biblical scholars and theologians say it went down in those days....

Sooooooooooooooooooo, either prove it wrong or retract. Simply saying Christians pretend...is pretty lame.

Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Click here for more information.

 

[The Pixie]

Madam, Thats what the learned biblical scholars and theologians say it went down in those days....

Sooooooooooooooooooo, either prove it wrong or retract. Simply saying Christians pretend...is pretty lame.

Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter.

Right, because they too were Christians having this problem that they had to explain the obvious contradiction in the Bible.

The simple explanation is that none of it is true. It was all made up. Jesus was not a direct male-line descendant of David, so a genealogy had to be made up for him, and the people doing so did not consult with each other. It may be that both authors were aware of these verses:

Jeremiah 22:24 “As I live,” declares the Lord, “even if [g]Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pull [h]you off; ...​

30 This is what the Lord says:​

‘Write this man down as childless,​

A man who will not prosper in his days;​

For no man among his descendants will prosper​

Sitting on the throne of David​

Or ruling again in Judah.’”​

Coniah the son of Jehoiakim is King Jeconiah, the last king of Judah, and these verses are about the fall of Judah to Babylon. The author is rationalising the captivity - the king was bad, so God had the Babylonians conquer them. The author of Luke's genealogy therefore devised a genealogy that avoids Jeconiah, given the curse that states no descendant of his will ever sit on the throne.

The author of Matthew's genealogy, on the other hand, has also read this:

Haggai 2:23 ‘On that day,’ declares the Lord of armies, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like a [w]signet ring, for I have chosen you,’” declares the Lord of armies.​

This is a reversal of the curse, marking the end of the captivity, and Zerubbabel, the grandson of Jeconiah becoming ruler (though not king). Clearly a descendant of Jeconiah did get to rule Judah!

And then the pagan influence came into it, and everyone wanted Jesus to have a virgin birth, so that had to be in there too, despite clearly contradicting the genealogies!

The authors of Luke and Matthew do not care, but those nameless "learned biblical scholars and theologians" apparently did, and so did what they could to salvage the mess, and declared Luke's genealogy to be for Mary. It makes no sense. The Jews did not care one bit about who a woman's family was, and there is no mention of Mary in the genealogy, but with faith you can convince yourself of anything.

And of course centuries later the idea is so embedded in Christianity that modern Christians literally cannot conceive that it is not true.

Click here for more information.

What do you think that link adds to your argument? It asserts "Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s" but gives no evidence to support that other than the claim that "there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” ". the reason there was no word for it is that no one gave a hoot about the mother's family!

Seriously, go look at the various genealogies in the Bible. No women. The idea that they would trace a genealogy though Mary is just plain nonsense.

 

[CrowCross]

Right, because they too were Christians having this problem that they had to explain the obvious contradiction in the Bible.

The simple explanation is that none of it is true. It was all made up. Jesus was not a direct male-line descendant of David, so a genealogy had to be made up for him, and the people doing so did not consult with each other. It may be that both authors were aware of these verses:

Jeremiah 22:24 “As I live,” declares the Lord, “even if [g]Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were a signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pull [h]you off; ...​

30 This is what the Lord says:​

‘Write this man down as childless,​

A man who will not prosper in his days;​

For no man among his descendants will prosper​

Sitting on the throne of David​

Or ruling again in Judah.’”​

Coniah the son of Jehoiakim is King Jeconiah, the last king of Judah, and these verses are about the fall of Judah to Babylon. The author is rationalising the captivity - the king was bad, so God had the Babylonians conquer them. The author of Luke's genealogy therefore devised a genealogy that avoids Jeconiah, given the curse that states no descendant of his will ever sit on the throne.

The author of Matthew's genealogy, on the other hand, has also read this:

Haggai 2:23 ‘On that day,’ declares the Lord of armies, ‘I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, My servant,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like a [w]signet ring, for I have chosen you,’” declares the Lord of armies.​

This is a reversal of the curse, marking the end of the captivity, and Zerubbabel, the grandson of Jeconiah becoming ruler (though not king). Clearly a descendant of Jeconiah did get to rule Judah!

And then the pagan influence came into it, and everyone wanted Jesus to have a virgin birth, so that had to be in there too, despite clearly contradicting the genealogies!

The authors of Luke and Matthew do not care, but those nameless "learned biblical scholars and theologians" apparently did, and so did what they could to salvage the mess, and declared Luke's genealogy to be for Mary. It makes no sense. The Jews did not care one bit about who a woman's family was, and there is no mention of Mary in the genealogy, but with faith you can convince yourself of anything.

And of course centuries later the idea is so embedded in Christianity that modern Christians literally cannot conceive that it is not true.


What do you think that link adds to your argument? It asserts "Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s" but gives no evidence to support that other than the claim that "there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” ". the reason there was no word for it is that no one gave a hoot about the mother's family!

Seriously, go look at the various genealogies in the Bible. No women. The idea that they would trace a genealogy though Mary is just plain nonsense.

I have presented you a centuries old explanation. if you don't like it, so be it. You can feel free to use your argument against God as you stand before the Great White Throne.

Then again when you die you're simply going to "puff" away into non-existence. Right?....

 

[SteveB]

Not as simple as that,

I think it most likely Jesus was real and was crucified, and the the disciples believed they had seen him resurrected, but pagan influences certainly started to work themselves into the story after that.

The virgin birth is a great example. The Jewish Christians did not believe that, they needed Jesus to be a direct male-line descendant of David - hence two genealogies that supposedly show that. The gentile Christians borrowed a virgin birth from other gods, and added it to the existing mythology, to make Jesus more divine.

Resurrection was what the Jews expected, but they expected to be resurrected in new bodies that shine like the stars - like Paul saw. The pagan influence here may have helped change that into resurrection in the original body, as Luke and John recount.

So. Whatever you can do in order to discount, and dismiss, and disregard it.... you'll do!

Makes sense.

It is after all written,

There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end result is death.

Congratulations! You're letting others tell you what to think.

As I'd stated to another poster yesterday,

Mat 15:7-9 WEB 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 8 ‘These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 And they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.’”

The problem here isn't that a lot of different people who have a lot of different ideas of God and the past.

The problem here is one of "there are a myriad of voices clamoring/vying/yelling for your attention. Who are you going to listen to?"

God's voice is a softly stated, gentle whisper, while the other voices are loud.

This is exactly why I don't buy the BS others peddle here. I read the bible for myself and ask God to tell me the truth.

So, whose voice are you going to pay attention to?

I get that a lot of people who the impressive ideas. Things that make sense to you.

I think that this is one major reason why Jesus said that unless we become as a little child, we will by no means enter the Kingdom of God, and children are, "of such is the Kingdom of God." I.e., children are not exposed to all kinds of ideas that confuse, and twist the truth regarding God's Kingdom.

So, what do you actually want?
You keep claiming that you want to know the truth. Yet you continue to throw erroneous information into the mix, as though you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[The Pixie]

So. Whatever you can do in order to discount, and dismiss, and disregard it.... you'll do!

No, Steve. I look at the evidence, and look for the most likely explanation, You assume the Bible is true; I do not. We therefore come to different conclusions about what actually happened.

Makes sense.

It is after all written,

There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end result is death.

Congratulations! You're letting others tell you what to think.

Not sure what your point is here. This is a discussion forum where people present their opinions. I am not telling people what to think, I am telling people what I think is true and why.

Just like you are - except the "why" bit.

This is exactly why I don't buy the BS others peddle here. I read the bible for myself and ask God to tell me the truth.

If God wants to tell me the truth, he can. He is supposedly all-powerful. Until that happens, I am going to look at the evidence and work out the most likely scenario,

So, whose voice are you going to pay attention to?

I get that a lot of people who the impressive ideas. Things that make sense to you.

I think that this is one major reason why Jesus said that unless we become as a little child, we will by no means enter the Kingdom of God, and children are, "of such is the Kingdom of God." I.e., children are not exposed to all kinds of ideas that confuse, and twist the truth regarding God's Kingdom.

So, what do you actually want?
You keep claiming that you want to know the truth. Yet you continue to throw erroneous information into the mix, as though you have no idea what you're talking about.

I was going to start this post by apologies for getting side-tracked and taking your thread off-topic, but as your response here utterly ignores the topic of your own OP, I will not bother.

 

[The Pixie]

I have presented you a centuries old explanation. if you don't like it, so be it. You can feel free to use your argument against God as you stand before the Great White Throne.

Then again when you die you're simply going to "puff" away into non-existence. Right?....

You have presented me with

• there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,”
• the church has been claiming this for a very long time

That is it.

On the other hand we have:

• the fact that Mary is not mentioned in Luke's genealogy
• the fact that Jews did not give a hoot about the mother's family
• the fact that Messiahship descended via the male line from david
• the fact that Koine Greek speakers could use other words to indicate “son-in-law,”

So far, I feel I am winning.

 

[Lucian]

The virgin birth is a great example. The Jewish Christians did not believe that, they needed Jesus to be a direct male-line descendant of David - hence two genealogies that supposedly show that. The gentile Christians borrowed a virgin birth from other gods, and added it to the existing mythology, to make Jesus more divine.

How does a virgin birth connote greater divinity? And for whom would it mean this?

 

[Lucian]

Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law"...

This is false: the word is γαμβρός (compare modern Greek γαμπρός), and is used in e.g. Josephus.

 

[Eightcrackers]

How does a virgin birth connote greater divinity?

Untainted by the (sinful) blood of men.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Seriously, go look at the various genealogies in the Bible. No women.

Which is rendered more absurd by the fact that Judaism is matrilineal - you are a Jew if your mother is a Jew.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Not as simple as that,

Heh - "this guy says he's not" is pretty simple.
But "simple" is a long way away from "correct".

I was once gave a Christian acquaintance a list of gods with identical or similar characterstics to Jesus, and asked him to explain the correlations. He said

"They all cribbed from Jesus - obviously."

I then pointed out that all of them were either contemporary to, or predated, Jesus.

 

[The Pixie]

Which is rendered more absurd by the fact that Judaism is matrilineal - you are a Jew if your mother is a Jew.

Sure, but the genealogies were via the father. Look in the Bible, it has plenty of examples, but the obvious two are the ones in Mark and Luke, and it is all via the male line.

 

[CrowCross]

You have presented me with

• there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,”
• the church has been claiming this for a very long time

That is it.

On the other hand we have:

• the fact that Mary is not mentioned in Luke's genealogy
• the fact that Jews did not give a hoot about the mother's family
• the fact that Messiahship descended via the male line from david
• the fact that Koine Greek speakers could use other words to indicate “son-in-law,”

So far, I feel I am winning.

Then, win. I don't really care anymore. I've presented you with what the biblical scholars have figured out.

The thing I hate most about the anti-bible sect is when they are given a proven an accepted answer....they still balk.

NEXT

 

[CrowCross]

Heh - "this guy says he's not" is pretty simple.
But "simple" is a long way away from "correct".

I was once gave a Christian acquaintance a list of gods with identical or similar characterstics to Jesus, and asked him to explain the correlations. He said

"They all cribbed from Jesus - obviously."

I then pointed out that all of them were either contemporary to, or predated, Jesus.

I don't know if they were all cribbed from Jesus...in an earthly historical manner....but the fallen spirits certainly understand who Jesus is and through out the history have tried to fake His diety.