22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

OLAADEGBU:
22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

22 Reasons All Scholars Agree Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Gods
By James Bishop - July 17, 2017

By James Bishop| As Dan Brown in his book 'The Da Vinci Code' writes: "Nothing in Christianity is original."

But as you can imagine, there are some instances that are vageuly similar. But this does NOT mean that they were copied. Just because two things resemble one another doesn't mean that one was the source of the other. We have many instances of stories that predate events that contain eery similarities to future moments in history, but that does not mean the r

It is in recent times that a great number of people are claiming that Jesus is simply a rehash of older pagan secretive religions, and of the religions of dying and rising gods. We see this masqueraded as truth in films such as Zeitgeist, The Da Vinci Code and Irreligious which, to the layperson, seem to be factual and convincing.

But how factually based are these claims? Surely anyone can misconstrue evidence to suit their presuppositional biases, especially if they don't want to believe something. The first step for anyone really seeking to understand these allegations would be to consult the scholars in the relevant and necessary fields of expertise. What do they have to say? Is such an issue even on the table of debate nowadays? If so, or if not, then why?

In a nutshell this study will be focused on analyzing these comparisons, the educated opinions of the scholars, and trying to see if anything of these pagan parallels are seen in the Jesus of the New Testament.

To be continued...

OLAADEGBU:


22 Reasons All Scholars Agree Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Gods
By James Bishop - July 17, 2017



To be continued...

Who are the mythicists?

Bart Ehrman, the world's leading sceptical New Testament scholar, asks: "What is driving the mythicist's agenda? Why do they work so hard at showing that Jesus never really lived? I do not have a definitive answer to that question, but I do have a hunch. It is no accident that virtually all mythicists (in fact, all of them, to my knowledge), are either atheists or agnostics. The ones I know anything about are quite virulently, even militantly atheist."

Ehrman is certainly correct in his hunch. One of the leading mythicists of today is that of Richard Carrier, and Carrier happens to be an avowed atheist that writes for the Secular Web. Now Carrier with two or three other proponents are the only few propounding this view of mythicism, they are not even scholars in the relevant fields of expertise – such is seen of Bill Maher (Irreligious), Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code), James Coyman (Zeitgeist), and Brian Flemming (The God Who Wasn't There).

Jesus is obviously a copy of the previous pagan gods. But that's not really a big deal anymore. The reason was to keep people up to date with the knowledge of divinity of every human. Jesus, Horus and co are only a symbol of unconditional love present in al life forms

Christians need to watch this Karamah( miracle) of Jesus(p). Please watch from 35mins. Are your Pastors like this?. Also you christians that accuse muslim of "72 virgins". Watch number of women Jesus will have in Paradise

This video is for those who speak and understand yoruba


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzSEDjRbKqY&t=1681

ifenes:


Jesus is obviously a copy of the previous pagan gods. But that's not really a big deal anymore. The reason was to keep people up to date with the knowledge of divinity of every human. Jesus, Horus and co are only a symbol of unconditional love present in al life forms

The article debunks your fake theory.

ifenes:
Jesus is obviously a copy of the previous pagan gods. But that's not really a big deal anymore. The reason was to keep people up to date with the knowledge of divinity of every human. Jesus, Horus and co are only a symbol of unconditional love present in al life forms

exactly

From the book: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

The core of Christianity—the worship of a miracle working, walking, talking godman who brings salvation—was also the core of other ancient religions that began at least a thousand years before Jesus.

Heaven, hell, prophecy, daemon possession, sacrifice, initiation by baptism, communion with God through a holy meal, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, immortality of the soul, and many other "Christian" ideas all belonged to earlier, older Pagan faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture. Along with miracle working sons of God, born of a mortal woman, they were common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religion. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more.

When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we understand that as a myth.

When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a myth.

In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a myth.

When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a myth.

When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a myth.

When the Pythia, the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years the prophecies came true, we understand that as a myth.

When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth.

When Dionysus believers are filled withatay, the Spirit of God, we understand that as a myth.

When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a myth.

When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal, we understand that as a myth.

When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

When Scipio Africanus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

So how come when Jesus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy, turning water into wine, raising girls from the dead, and healing blind men with his spittle, and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hades—er, I mean Hell—for the bad folks... how come that's not a myth?

OLAADEGBU:

22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

The allegation in a nutshell

Proponents of this view, known as mythicists, say that Jesus was nothing more than a copy of popular dying and rising fertility gods in various places from around the world, some of these gods would include Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia Minor, and Horus in Egypt.

It has only been in recent times that the mythicist allegations have been re-established due to the rise of the internet and the mass distribution of information from unaccountable, unreliable sources. In this article we are going to examine these parallels, and see whether or not they stand up to scrutiny.

So, let us uncover the many reasons 'why scholars know that Jesus is not a copy of pagan religions.' And when I say "scholars" it is not solely those of a Christian orientation but from diverse other backgrounds and religious views as well, including atheists.

OLAADEGBU:


22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

1. Professional scholars unanimously reject the claim that Jesus is a pagan copy.

Today just about every scholar in the relevant historical specializations unanimously rejects the notion that Jesus is a copy of pagan gods. It seems that the available evidence has persuaded them against these alleged parallels. For instance, T.N.D Mettinger of Lund University opines:

"THERE IS, AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, NO PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS IS A MYTHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT…"

Warner Wallace, a former homicide detective, who himself looked into the allegations found that "The more you examine the nature of the gods who were worshiped before Jesus, the more you will notice their dissimilarities and the dishonesty of trying to compare them to the historical Jesus."

Professor Ronald Nash, a prominent philosopher and theologian notes in his writing ‘Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?': "Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth—at least during its early stages." Nash then goes on to say,

"TODAY MOST BIBLE SCHOLARS REGARD THE QUESTION AS A DEAD ISSUE."

Another leading New Testament scholar Professor Craig Keener writes that: "When you make the comparisons, you end up with a whole lot more differences than you do similarities."

JZ Smith, a historian of religion and Hellenistic religions claims that:

"THE IDEA OF DYING AND RISING GODS IS LARGELY A MISNOMER BASED ON IMAGINATIVE RECONSTRUCTIONS AND EXCEEDINGLY LATE OR HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS TEXTS."

Michael Bird, who is on the editorial board for the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, as well is a Fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity, clearly shows his annoyance when he writes:

"Now I am normally a cordial and collegial chap, but to be honest, I have little time or patience to invest in debunking the wild fantasies of "Jesus mythicists," as they are known. That is because, to be frank, those of us who work in the academic profession of religion and history simply have a hard time taking them seriously."

As Bart Ehrman, atheist professor of Religious Studies at UNC, has said:

"The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" saviour-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions)."

Professor James Dunn in his article on "Myth" in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, writes: “Myth is a term of at least doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels."

OLAADEGBU:


22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

2. Experts in the field unanimously agree that Jesus lived and that we can know things about him.

The most credible New Testament, Biblical, historical, and early Christianity scholars today, from all backgrounds of belief, agree wholeheartedly that Jesus existed. Of course the debate arises in what we can know about Jesus but of which is irrelevant to this discussion. This very much separates Jesus from many of the dying and rising gods that often have no place in history as historical figures.

As the once skeptical professor Bultmann penned: "Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community."

As Paul Maier, a former Professor of Ancient History, likewise remarks:

"THE TOTAL EVIDENCE IS SO OVERPOWERING, SO ABSOLUTE THAT ONLY THE SHALLOWEST OF INTELLECTS WOULD DARE TO DENY JESUS' EXISTENCE."

Professor Craig Evans, widely known for his writings on the historical Jesus, says that: "No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria."

Even leading anti-Christian skeptic, professor Bart Ehrman compares mythicism to young earth creationism: "These views are so extreme [that Jesus did not exist] and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology."

Grant says, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.'"

As The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History of Western Michigan University Dr. Paul Maier wrote in an article on whether or not Jesus existed:

"No, he didn't!" some skeptics claim, thinking that this is a quick, powerful lever with which to pry people away from "the fable of Christianity." But the lever crumbles at its very first use. In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by "the village atheist," [and] bloggers on the internet.

SKEPTICS SHOULD FOCUS INSTEAD ON WHETHER OR NOT JESUS WAS MORE THAN A MAN. THAT, AT LEAST, COULD EVOKE A REASONABLE DEBATE AMONG REASONABLE INQUIRERS, RATHER THAN A POINTLESS DISCUSSION WITH SENSATIONALISTS WHO STRUGGLE TO REJECT THE OBVIOUS."

So, if anything, the claim that Jesus never existed as a historical figure is viewed as an absurdity and is not even on the table of historical scholarship. Burridge and Could suggest an absence of such thinking in professional scholarship: "I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that (that Jesus did not exist) anymore."

Obviously historians agree that Jesus walked the earth, the only people who don't think so are NL Antichrist keyboard warriors , aka atheists and unsurprisingly their opinions remain inconsequential.

Atheists are typically very irresponsible people, they hardly research topics before spreading avalanches of misinformation. They'll wait until someone else does the research for them then presents it to them. Unfortunately many atheists will still refuse being corrected and will continue to spread misinformation.

hopefulLandlord:


exactly

From the book: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

The core of Christianity—the worship of a miracle working, walking, talking godman who brings salvation—was also the core of other ancient religions that began at least a thousand years before Jesus.

Heaven, hell, prophecy, daemon possession, sacrifice, initiation by baptism, communion with God through a holy meal, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, immortality of the soul, and many other "Christian" ideas all belonged to earlier, older Pagan faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture. Along with miracle working sons of God, born of a mortal woman, they were common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religion. Mithras had 'em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more.

When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we understand that as a myth.

When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a myth.

In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a myth.

When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a myth.

When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a myth.

When the Pythia, the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years the prophecies came true, we understand that as a myth.

When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth.

When Dionysus believers are filled withatay, the Spirit of God, we understand that as a myth.

When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a myth.

When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal, we understand that as a myth.

When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

When Scipio Africanus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

So how come when Jesus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy, turning water into wine, raising girls from the dead, and healing blind men with his spittle, and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hades—er, I mean Hell—for the bad folks... how come that's not a myth?

Interesting. . . Maybe in about a thousand or two years from now, historians will talk about the 'Myth of Jesus'

So the alleged creator of the universe came down to earth about 2000 years ago to live with men and the ONLY evidence for that is a bunch of very contradictory them say them say stories written by unknown people decades after the said events abi? Wuna well done ooo.

Dalam0n:
So the alleged creator of the universe came down to earth about 2000 years ago to live with men and the ONLY evidence for that is a bunch of very contradictory them say them say stories written by unknown people decades after the said events abi? Wuna well done ooo.

imagine the nonsense of it all

Jesus died and then a earthquake happened and dead people rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem but no contemporary account of this happening exists anywhere
as extremely unbelievable as it all sounds there are still several details omitted. Did the zombies look like rotten corpses, or were they provided with fresh bodies? Where did they go after rising from their tombs and appearing to many people? Did they die a second time, or did they walk back into their graves? Who were these zombies?
You would think that zombies walking around would generate at least one historical written account of this event. There are none.

hopefulLandlord:


imagine the nonsense of it all

Jesus died and then a earthquake happened and dead people rose from the dead and walked around Jerusalem but no contemporary account of this happening exists anywhere
as extremely unbelievable as it all sounds there are still several details omitted. Did the zombies look like rotten corpses, or were they provided with fresh bodies? Where did they go after rising from their tombs and appearing to many people? Did they die a second time, or did they walk back into their graves? Who were these zombies?
You would think that zombies walking around would generate at least one historical written account of this event. There are none.

William Craig says this isn't historical but an apocalyptic narrative when he is debating the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Obviously he doesn't believe in all the resurrection narratives written inside the bible. To him some like the Zombie resurrection are apocalyptic while that of Jesus is historical.

OLAADEGBU:
22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

Einstein, na failure for school. His first degree, wasnt even in sciences, yet he his a reference point for scientists!? Wth do all these scholars have that a right thinking, logical individual cant arrive at?!


Jesus's birth was made special due to d supposed immaculate conception, in that age of restricted access to books n information!?


Now, imagine my amazement, when I realised d messiah's birth wasnt that special! Various cultures, far apart in distance(different continents/centuries apart) n culture, have their own variation of an immaculate conception!
All of them, before d birth of christ!


Do u need a scholar to draw d next conjecture?

I actually begrudge xtians n other worshippers their religion, d joy of having a hero to come down n save u from ds world of tribulations!? To believe in an heaven of unending bliss.

Ignorance is bliss. I've lost mine

ashjay001:



Einstein, na failure for school. His first degree, wasnt even in sciences, yet he his a reference point for scientists!? Wth do all these scholars have that a right thinking, logical individual cant arrive at?!


Jesus's birth was made special due to d supposed immaculate conception, in that age of restricted access to books n information!?


Now, imagine my amazement, when I realised d messiah's birth wasnt that special! Various cultures, far apart in distance(different continents/centuries apart) n culture, have their own variation of an immaculate conception!
All of them, before d birth of christ!


Do u need a scholar to draw d next conjecture?

I actually begrudge xtians n other worshippers their religion, d joy of having a hero to come down n save u from ds world of tribulations!? To believe in an heaven of unending bliss.

Ignorance is bliss. I've lost mine

*Salute*

ashjay001:



Einstein, na failure for school. His first degree, wasnt even in sciences, yet he his a reference point for scientists!? Wth do all these scholars have that a right thinking, logical individual cant arrive at?!


Jesus's birth was made special due to d supposed immaculate conception, in that age of restricted access to books n information!?


Now, imagine my amazement, when I realised d messiah's birth wasnt that special! Various cultures, far apart in distance(different continents/centuries apart) n culture, have their own variation of an immaculate conception!
All of them, before d birth of christ!


Do u need a scholar to draw d next conjecture?

I actually begrudge xtians n other worshippers their religion, d joy of having a hero to come down n save u from ds world of tribulations!? To believe in an heaven of unending bliss.

Ignorance is bliss. I've lost mine

Hands up for you.

OLAADEGBU:


22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

3. We actually know very little about these pagan secretive religions

As of history it seems that these pagan religions were really only known by those in the relevant communities, and most of whom had no intention of sharing it with outsiders. Of course this would leave modern historians in a tricky situation, as we can know only little snippets of who these groups really were, and what their practices were like. As Bart Ehrman explains:

"We know very little about mystery religions – the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this."

C.S Lewis, a former atheist who looked into the issue himself, write that "The Pagan stories are all about someone dying and rising, either every year, or else nobody knows where and nobody knows when."

As I quoted in the same manner in point 1, J.Z. Smith, a historian of religion and Hellenistic religious scholar writes: "The idea of dying and rising gods is largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts."

If we have late and ambiguous texts, a lack of these texts, and many of these texts postdating Christianity, then where, may I ask, are these mythicists getting these alleged parallels from? As J.Z. Smith notes above, it comes from highly speculative "imaginative reconstructions" solely in the minds of the mythicists who have anti-religious/Christian agenda.

OLAADEGBU:


22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

4. Most of what we know of secretive pagan religions comes after Christianity, not before it.

If it is true that most of what we know of these secretive religions postdates Christianity, then why, may I ask, are mythicists propounding the view that these texts predate Christianity? Why do they claim that the early Christian community copied elements of these secretive religions when they could not have?

Professor Mettinger of Lund University, and the majority of other scholars in the relevant fields, hold that there were no dying and rising gods before Christ, or before the advent of Christianity in the early 1st century: "The consensus among modern scholars — nearly universal — is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century." Mettinger goes on to say that: "The references to a resurrection of Adonis have been dated mainly to the Christian Era."

Scholar Edwin Yamauchi writes that: "the supposed resurrection of Attis doesn't appear until after AD 150." And in the case of Mithra, professor Ronald Nash himself opines that: "Mithraism flowered after Christianity, not before, so Christianity could not have copied from Mithraism. The timing is all wrong to have influenced the development of first-century Christianity."

Historian Gary Habermas has said:

"I DON’T KNOW ANYBODY WHO THINKS THAT DIONYSUS IS PRE-CHRISTIAN, NOT THE RESURRECTION PORTION."

OLAADEGBU:

22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

5. The Jewish were a people who refrained from allowing pagan myths to invade their culture.

Many times in the Old Testament the Jews would reject their one true God, and engage in idolatry. We know of this because it is reported in our biblical texts but no evidence suggests that this happened in 1st century Palestine when Jesus was living. In fact, the New Testament overwhelmingly confirms that the Pharisees were very strict in application of the law (Paul, as a former Pharisee & prior to his conversion, went to the extent of authorizing the killings of early Christians for their blasphemous claim of a risen Jesus.

Knowing this it hugely strains my belief that they would encourage paganism influences). Philosopher William Lane Craig writes that "For Jesus and his disciples they were first century Palestinian Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood."

Professor Ben Witherington notes that: "This notion was not a regular part of the pagan lexicon of the afterlife at all, as even a cursory study of the relevant passages in the Greek and Latin classics shows. Indeed, as Acts 17 suggests, pagans were more likely than not to ridicule such an idea. I can understand the apologetic theory if, and only if, the Gospels were directed largely to Pharisaic Jews or their sympathizers. I know of no scholar, however, who has argued such a case."

William Craig goes on to say:

"The spuriousness of the alleged parallels is just one indication that pagan mythology is the wrong interpretive framework for understanding the disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection." And that: "…anyone pressing this objection has a burden of proof to bear. He needs to show that the narratives are parallel and, moreover, that they are causally connected."

Craig concludes: "It boggles the imagination to think that the original disciples would have suddenly and sincerely come to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead just because they had heard of pagan myths about dying and rising seasonal gods."

Professor Sanders likewise seems to suggest that Jesus is best made sense of within the world of the 1st century Judaism "…the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism."

Professor Martin Hengel notes:

"HELLENISTIC MYSTERY RELIGIONS … COULD GAIN VIRTUALLY NO INFLUENCE [IN JEWISH PALESTINE]."

The reason why the myth of Christ is still being propagated is because of MONEY. It has made some people stinking rich and if this gravy train is to be stopped how are they going to service their loans? The bible is a storybook and it's not even a particularly good story. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo written by drug addicts and jesters.

OLAADEGBU:


22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

6. The New Testament canon is history unlike much of the pagan secretive mysteries

The gospels and the other literature of the New Testament are our most reliable sources of information we have on Jesus. The gospels, for example, are classified as Greco-Roman biography. Graham Stanton of Cambridge University writes: "I do not think it is now possible to deny that the Gospels are a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of 'lives,' that is, biographies."

Also, the distinguished New Testament scholar Charles Talbert in his book 'What are the Gospels' speaks highly of another influential book that influenced scholars of the true genre of the gospels; he claims that "This volume ought to end any legitimate denials of the canonical Gospels' biographical character." Likewise David Aune, a prominent specialist in ancient literature, opines:

"Thus while the [Gospel writers] clearly had an important theological agenda, the very fact that they chose to adapt Greco-Roman biographical conventions to tell the story of Jesus indicated that they were centrally concerned to communicate what they thought really happened."

What further corroborates the fact that the gospels texts are biographical literature is archaeology. As Urban von Wahlde, a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, concluded that archaeology "demonstrates the full extent of the accuracy and the detail of the Evangelist's knowledge…. The topographical references …. are entirely historical …. some [parts of the gospel] are quite accurate, detailed and historical"

Professor Ehrman also comments that "If historians want to know what Jesus said and did they are more or less constrained to use the New Testament Gospels as their principal sources. Let me emphasize that this is not for religious or theological reasons—for instance, that these and these alone can be trusted. It is for historical reasons, pure and simple."

What this shows is that the gospels are routed in history and that they are inspired by an actual person of history: Jesus of Nazareth.

OLAADEGBU:


22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

7. Unlike the pagan secretive religions, Jesus is an ancient figure we can actually know about, what He thought of Himself, and what He did as a historical figure of history:

Whether one holds that Jesus was really the Son of Man, thus God himself, or just a religious genius of the 1st century, we can both glean facts about his life, and ministry – according to the scholars. Professor Craig Evans informs us of scholarly consensus:

"…and so the consensus is, look, Jesus existed, he was Jewish, he wasn't out to break the law. He was out to fulfil it. Jesus understood Himself as the Lord's anointed, that is as the Messiah."

Professor Sanders states that: "Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism."

Sanders goes on to say explain that miracle healings and exorcisms are part of what we can know about Jesus: "I think we can be fairly certain that initially Jesus' fame came as a result of healing, especially exorcism."

Stanton, a former prominent and widely respected New Testament scholar, once opined that "Few doubt that Jesus possessed unusual gifts as a healer, though of course varied explanations are offered." Tomson, a lecturer in New Testament Studies claims that: "Although he apparently considered himself the heavenly 'Son of Man' and 'the beloved son' of God and cherished far-reaching Messianic ambitions, Jesus was equally reticent about these convictions. Even so, the fact that, after his death and resurrection, his disciples proclaimed him as the Messiah can be understood as a direct development from his own teachings."

Professor Robert Grant explains that "Jesus introduced a very singular innovation. For he also claimed that he himself could forgive sins." Grant goes on to say that that: "Jesus lived his last days, and died, in the belief that his death was destined to save the human race."

The late scholar Maurice Casey wrote that: "He believed that his death would fulfil the will of God for the redemption of his people Israel."

Again Professor Sanders believes that we can know that Jesus' post-mortem appearances really convinced his earliest followers of his resurrection: "That Jesus' followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know."

What this illustrates is that we can actually know quite a lot about the Jesus of history, according to the experts. In other words the majority consensus of historians is that Jesus actually existed, that we can actually know what he set out to accomplish, and what he seemed to have thought of himself.

This is unlike the sketchy traditions we find in the secretive religions. Sometimes scholars are highly uncertain about the existence of some of these historical figures behind a few of the pagan religions.

OLAADEGBU:


22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

8. The Jesus of history does not fit the profile of someone that would be a myth.

In many aspects of Jesus' life he was unique. This was evidently so compelling to those in his day that they followed him and often to their deaths and in their sufferings. Today scholars continue to be surprised by Jesus, as historian Edwin Judge notes:

"An ancient historian has no problem seeing the phenomenon of Jesus as a historical one. His many surprising aspects only help anchor him in history. Myth and legend would have created a more predictable figure. The writings that sprang up about Jesus also reveal to us a movement of thought and an experience of life so unusual that something much more substantial than the imagination is needed to explain it."

C.S Lewis, best known for his essays on Christianity and for the fantasy series The Chronicles of Narnia, regarding the Gospels comments: "All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian, that's my job. And I am prepared to say on that basis if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legend or novels, then that person is simply showing his incompetence as a literary critic. I've read a great many novels and I know a fair amount about the legends that grew up among early people, and I know perfectly well the Gospels are not that kind of stuff."

Yet at the very centre of our gospels, we have the activities, the life, the ministry and the person of Jesus. Much of what is recorded in the gospels is concretely based on the historical record.

OLAADEGBU:


8. The Jesus of history does not fit the profile of someone that would be a myth.

In many aspects of Jesus' life he was unique. This was evidently so compelling to those in his day that they followed him and often to their deaths and in their sufferings. Today scholars continue to be surprised by Jesus, as historian Edwin Judge notes:

"An ancient historian has no problem seeing the phenomenon of Jesus as a historical one. His many surprising aspects only help anchor him in history. Myth and legend would have created a more predictable figure. The writings that sprang up about Jesus also reveal to us a movement of thought and an experience of life so unusual that something much more substantial than the imagination is needed to explain it."

C.S Lewis, best known for his essays on Christianity and for the fantasy series The Chronicles of Narnia, regarding the Gospels comments: "All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian, that's my job. And I am prepared to say on that basis if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legend or novels, then that person is simply showing his incompetence as a literary critic. I've read a great many novels and I know a fair amount about the legends that grew up among early people, and I know perfectly well the Gospels are not that kind of stuff."

Yet at the very centre of our gospels, we have the activities, the life, the ministry and the person of Jesus. Much of what is recorded in the gospels is concretely based on the historical record.

9. Much of these secretive pagan religions have little to do with concrete history.

Edwin Yamauchi, a well known Professor history, notes that "All of these myths are repetitive, symbolic representations of the death and rebirth of vegetation. These are not historical figures …"

Similarly, Professor and biblical exegete William Lane Craig writes that: "In fact, most scholars have come to doubt whether, properly speaking, there really were any myths of dying and rising gods at all!"

It would thus prove difficult to draw parallels to Jesus from these pagan myths that had little to do with history in the first place.

While it's a very popular claim that the story of Jesus was copied and plagiarized from pagan myths, this idea is not taken seriously by historians and experts. Here is how we can be certain that the story of Jesus was not taken from pagan god stories:

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

OLAADEGBU:


9. Much of these secretive pagan religions have little to do with concrete history.

Edwin Yamauchi, a well known Professor history, notes that "All of these myths are repetitive, symbolic representations of the death and rebirth of vegetation. These are not historical figures …"

Similarly, Professor and biblical exegete William Lane Craig writes that: "In fact, most scholars have come to doubt whether, properly speaking, there really were any myths of dying and rising gods at all!"

It would thus prove difficult to draw parallels to Jesus from these pagan myths that had little to do with history in the first place.

10. Evidence of dishonest pseudo-scholar work – Dorothy Murdock:

Another known mythicist would be that of Dorothy Murdock; someone I've interacted with her on her Facebook page, Youtube channel, as well as also having consulted some of her articles on her personal website. When I tried to point out faults in her arguments she accused me of being a sexist and a chauvinist; she then banned me.

However, banning me is no remedy for crappy work. For example, there is one lengthy back and forth debate between here and prominent historian Mike Licona. Licona really does a solid job of critiquing Murdock's work. In fact, some of the quotes below come from Licona in that interaction while many others hail from scholars he consulted in certain, relevant fields of expertise.

Firstly, agnostic Professor Bart Ehrman (no friend of Christianity) upon review of Murdock's book (The Christ Conspiracy) opines that:

"IT IS FILLED WITH SO MANY FACTUAL ERRORS AND OUTLANDISH ASSERTIONS THAT IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THE AUTHOR IS SERIOUS."

He goes on to write that "all of Acharya's major points are in fact wrong," and that "Mythicists of this ilk should not be surprised that their views are not taken seriously by real scholars, mentioned by experts in the field, or even read by them."

Atheist historian Robert Price (a fellow mythicist) calls Murdock’s book "sophomoric." He also commented that her book is

"A RANDOM BAG OF (MAINLY RECYCLED) ECCENTRICITIES, SOME FEW OF THEM WORTH CONSIDERING, MOST DANGEROUSLY SHAKY, MANY OUTRIGHT LOONEY."

In her book, Murdock claims that Jesus was a copy of one the Hindu god, Krishna. In fact, Murdock is even willing to take this further in her book 'Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled.' However, regarding this point that Krishna was crucified before Jesus, Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism and translator of the Bhagavata-Purana (life of Krishna) responds by saying:

"That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion." Bryant then writes that:

"She doesn't know what she's talking about! Vithoba was a form of Krishna worshipped in the state of Maharashtra. There are absolutely no Indian gods portrayed as crucified."

And regarding the alleged parallels that Murdock tries to draw between Hinduism and Christianity, Benjamin Walker in his book ‘The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism’ says that: "[t]here can be no doubt that the Hindus borrowed the tales [from Christianity], but not the name."

Murdock further claims that Christianity has failed in India because "the Brahmans have recognized Christianity as a relatively recent imitation of their much older traditions." To this, Bryant simply commented, "Stupid comment."

In his critique, New Testament historian Mike Licona goes on to say that:

"MURDOCK’S CLAIM THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS BORROWED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM HINDUISM IS WITHOUT MERIT. HER CLAIMS ARE FALSE, UNSUPPORTED, AND EXHIBIT A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE HINDU FAITH."

In addition to Krishna, Murdock cites similarities between the Buddha and Jesus as an example of how Christianity has borrowed from Buddhism. Professor Chun-fang Yu, a specialist in Buddhist studies, comments: "[The woman you speak of] is totally ignorant of Buddhism. It is very dangerous to spread misinformation like this. You should not honor [Ms. Murdock] by engaging in a discussion. Please ask [her] to take a basic course in world religion or Buddhism before uttering another word about things she does not know."

Subsequently, in a similar attempt by so many mythicist, Murdock tries to downplay one of the two references to Jesus within the work of 1st century historian Josephus Flavius (the passage on John the Baptist & Jesus’ brother James). She writes: "Although much has been made of these 'references,' they have been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, 'brother of Jesus.'"

In return Mike Licona comments that:

"Murdock's claim is grossly naïve as well as false. Josephus' passage on John the Baptist is regarded as authentic and is hardly disputed by scholars. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of History at Miami University writes, "No scholar has questioned the authenticity of this passage, though there are some differences between Josephus’s account and that in the Gospels . . ."

New Testament scholar, Robert Van Voorst of Western Theological Seminary likewise comments that the passage by Josephus on John the Baptist is "held to be undoubtedly genuine by most interpreters" and that "scholars also hold [it] to be independent of the New Testament."

Professor John Meier likewise says that Josephus' mentioning of John the Baptist & James is "accepted as authentic by almost all scholars" and that it "is simply inconceivable as the work of a Christian of any period." Jewish scholar, Louis Feldman of Yeshiva University and perhaps the most prominent expert on Josephus comments on this passage claims that: "There can be little doubt as to the genuineness of Josephus' passage about John the Baptist."

Therefore, Murdock's comment that this passage has "been dismissed by scholars and Christian apologists alike as forgeries" is demonstrably false."

In her work, Murdock claims that myth enveloped early Christianity due to "the signs or constellations of the zodiac." In response to this Noel Swerdlow, a Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago responds that:

"…she is saying something that no one would have thought of in antiquity because in which constellation of the fixed stars the vernal equinox was located, was of no significance and is entirely an idea of modern, I believe twentieth-century, astrology."

Mike Licona in response to Murdock claiming that Jesus never existed in history provides a challenge: "I challenge Ms. Murdock to name someone other than Jesus who lived in the first century (e.g., Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, etc.), who is mentioned by 17 writers who do not share his convictions, and who write within 150 years of his life. No first century person was as well attested as Jesus"

Things became even worse for Murdock when Mike actually researched the sources that she had cited behind her work: "Practically all of her sources are secondary rather than primary sources. For example, she quotes Adolf Hitler as saying that it was his Christian convictions which led him to attempt to exterminate the Jews. Where did Hitler say this? We cannot know from reading her book, because her source is The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets! On still another point, she quotes Otto Schmiedel. However, when you look at the endnote, you find that her source is Rudolf Steiner, a mystic."

Licona then goes on to give an analogy regarding Murdock's work: "It is like someone arguing that terrorism is justified and cites ten terrorists claiming that terrorism is just. However, this does nothing to support their position that terrorism is justified; only that some believe that it is. It also indicates that she has not checked out the claims of her sources, but rather uncritically accepts what they say." Licona concludes:

"BUT IN TERMS OF THIS BOOK BEING A RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY, IT IS UNSALVAGEABLE."

Are you finding the best way to resolve your all life problems in a quick manner ? If your answer is YES for the same. Then, you will absolutely landing at the right place of DEEPAK SHASTRI astrologer guru ji. He is the experienced pandit ji in the field of astrology.

So, now stop your thinking here, and get the perfect and real love problem solutions or all others issues. Also you can contact as first and ask the 1 free question related to your trouble. After that guaranteed you will happily live your life. Just need to call him and get the key of removing your all life issues.

Contact on: +91-7626955902
Also Click Here & Result : http://www.deepakshastri.com/love-problem-solution-baba-ji/
http://www.deepakshastri.com/

OLAADEGBU:
22 reasons all scholars agree Jesus is not a copy of pagans gods

The idea that Jesus is a knock-off of Horus, Mirtha or other pagan deities is not taken seriously by historians. Here are 22 major reasons scholars know Jesus is not a copy of pagan gods:

http://reasonsforjesus.com/22-reasons-all-scholars-agree-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-gods/

11. None Of The Mythicists Are Actual Scholars In The Relevant Fields Of Expertise.

Knowing this it should well encourage a pause for some thought. What we find is that no scholar in any of the relevant fields (independent of their personal worldview beliefs) holds to these radical views. Professor of New Testament Studies, Ben Witherington, explains that:

"Not a single one of these authors and sources are experts in the Bible, Biblical history, the Ancient Near East, Egyptology, or any of the cognate fields….they are not reliable sources of information about the origins of Christianity, Judaism, or much of anything else of relevance to this discussion."

Historian John Dickson of early Christianity and Judaism, likewise informs that: "anyone who dips into the thousands of secular monographs and journal articles on the historical Jesus will quickly discover that mythicists are regarded by 99.9% of the scholarly community as complete "outliers," the fringe of the fringe."

Scholard Michael Bird goes on to explain that mythicists are fringe atheists that no-one takes seriously: "There is a reason why this view is the sole possession of an energetic bunch of fringe atheists and has never been entertained as a possibility by experienced and respected scholars working in the field of Christian Origins."

It seems that many of these mythicists are known to be atheists, and of the atheist crowd that is vocally anti-religion/Christianity. I suspect that this is why many of them are proponents of the mythicist theory. Such would also make sense, as what better way is there to try to discredit a religion than to attack the person behind it, in this case Jesus? As Professor Mettinger writes, I believe likewise:

"From the 1930s. . . a consensus has developed to the effect that the 'dying and rising gods' died but did not return or rise to live again. Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species."

OLAADEGBU:


11. None Of The Mythicists Are Actual Scholars In The Relevant Fields Of Expertise.

Knowing this it should well encourage a pause for some thought. What we find is that no scholar in any of the relevant fields (independent of their personal worldview beliefs) holds to these radical views. Professor of New Testament Studies, Ben Witherington, explains that:

"Not a single one of these authors and sources are experts in the Bible, Biblical history, the Ancient Near East, Egyptology, or any of the cognate fields….they are not reliable sources of information about the origins of Christianity, Judaism, or much of anything else of relevance to this discussion."

Historian John Dickson of early Christianity and Judaism, likewise informs that: "anyone who dips into the thousands of secular monographs and journal articles on the historical Jesus will quickly discover that mythicists are regarded by 99.9% of the scholarly community as complete "outliers," the fringe of the fringe."

Scholard Michael Bird goes on to explain that mythicists are fringe atheists that no-one takes seriously: "There is a reason why this view is the sole possession of an energetic bunch of fringe atheists and has never been entertained as a possibility by experienced and respected scholars working in the field of Christian Origins."

It seems that many of these mythicists are known to be atheists, and of the atheist crowd that is vocally anti-religion/Christianity. I suspect that this is why many of them are proponents of the mythicist theory. Such would also make sense, as what better way is there to try to discredit a religion than to attack the person behind it, in this case Jesus? As Professor Mettinger writes, I believe likewise:

"From the 1930s. . . a consensus has developed to the effect that the 'dying and rising gods' died but did not return or rise to live again. Those who still think differently are looked upon as residual members of an almost extinct species."

12. Jesus' Virgin Birth Is Unique

One of the events many Christians around the world celebrate on December 25th is that of Jesus' birth. Of course, no-where in the Biblical record does it anywhere allude to this specific date of Jesus' birth; we simply do not know when Jesus was born. The 25th of December date is also allegedly a breeding pool for the mythicists alleged parallels.

Thus in the context of the uniqueness of Mary's virginal conception the prominent Biblical scholar Raymond Brown concludes: "No search for parallels has given us a truly satisfactory explanation of how early Christians happened upon the idea of a virginal conception…"

And for those who claim that Mithras, a pagan god, was born of a virgin in the exact same manner as Jesus was Professor Manfred Clauss of ancient history explains that "The sequence of images from the mythical account of Mithras' life and exploits begins, so far as we can make out, with the god's birth. The literary sources here are few but unmistakable: Mithras was known as the rock-born god." Unless rocks count as virgins we do not have a parallel here.

And following his own critical examination of this allegation, Louis Sweet writes: "After a careful, laborious, and occasionally wearisome study of the evidence offered and the analogies urged, I am convinced that heathenism knows nothing of virgin births. Supernatural births it has without number, but never from a virgin in the New Testament sense and never without physical generation, except in a few isolated instances of magical births on the part of women who had not the slightest claim to be called virgins. In all recorded instances which I have been able to examine if the mother was a virgin before conception took place she could not make that claim afterwards."

In his book, 'The Virgin Birth' Thomas Boslooper notes that: "The literature of the world is prolific with narratives of unusual births, but it contains no precise analogy to the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke. Jesus' 'virgin birth' is not 'pagan.'" Again, William Craig informs his readers that

"THE GOSPEL STORIES OF JESUS' VIRGINAL CONCEPTION ARE, IN FACT, WITHOUT PARALLEL IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST."

If anything Jesus' radical virginal birth is explicitly unique.