I have a question for all of the non-Christians. When I read the Bible, it talks about how the Jewish leaders did not like Christ. They saw Him as a radical and someone that made them look stupid. They saw Him as someone that would over throw them. I also see the Roman Empire. They also had a vested interest in suppressing the message of Christ. Even Herod did not like Him, because He was suppose to be the King of the Jews. Those 3 parties would be the ones that write most of the History books at that time. All had a vested interest in suppressing the message of Jesus. Therefore, how much evidence, outside of the Bible is reasonable, if the people that would be in charge of recording history had a vested interest in not recording Jesus?

Have you ever heard of the Egyptian God Horus?

His myth came a long time before that of Jesus, and the stories are so similar it becomes quite clear that the story of Jesus was borrowed from this ancient myth. Check out the parallels here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jc...

Eric --

I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you trying to say the lack of historical evidence surrounding the Jesus myth is due to suppression by the ruling powers at the time?

There is several objections to this logic:

1. Records were not centrally controlled, no global knowledge base existed to edit. Records were under the control of antagonistic parties. No possible conspiracy could have existed at the time.
2. Many Greek historians wrote at the time, they were neither Jewish or Roman. Christians in fact turn to the histories of Josephus for evidence in fact.
3. If Jesus existed, very few would have known of his stature, but many in the Mediterranean would have heard of his deeds, and recorded it, in the years afterward.
4. History cannot be edited before it happens. According to the myth Herod did not know which child was the messiah, and so ordered all Jewish babies killed. So how would he could he remove all future references to Jesus, after his own death?
5. There was in fact a massive editing of history done later, but this was by the Christian church itself. Using your logic, one could say the vested powers removed all evidence that contradicted the divinity of Jesus, and in fact embellished the myth in several instances (the miracles, the virgin birth) and would have real historical evidence to support the claim.

When skeptics claim that there is no evidence of a God, theists like to point out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You seem to be trying to modify this into "absence of evidence is evidence"

If an omnipotent (or merely exceptionally powerful) being had wanted to make his presence known, he could have performed a miracle that would have had a lasting and verifiable effect.

For example, instead of curing a handful of lepers, he could have instantaneously cured all of them throughout the world, while simultaneously eliminating the disease altogether.

Instead of turning a few bottles worth of water into wine, he could have turned the entire Dead Sea into ginger ale.

Or he could have rotated the Moon such that a different portion of its surface would face the Earth.

Or he could have recited a string of seemingly meaningless numbers, explaining that some day in the future, the descendants of those listening would come to understand that those were the one billionth through one billion one hundredth decimals of pi.

As it happens, Jesus did nothing that couldn't be explained away as tricks, lies or delusions.

In fact, on the subject of why were the miracles of Jesus not chronicled at the time, if must be noted that the middle east was full of "prophets" performing miracles.

One more prophet would not have been noteworthy at the time. I think that explains why the historical record for Jesus only begins after the myth had become popular.

Hey Rick,

Sounds a little like you wanted Jesus to do magic tricks. He was sent to help the Jews understand that there was to be a change in the way things were, that they were no longer condemned by the law but saved by him.

So he was sent primarily to prepare the Jews for a new way of living which would send them to teach the Gentiles instead of avoiding them.

He could have done the things you mentioned but it would not have helped with his mission, and perhaps if he did you would claim that somebody had edited the text to account for his knowledge of Pi. So in any case the sign may have been ignored.

Adam --

Rick makes no claims whatsoever -- Christians do.

Christians insist on the virgin birth, in order that prophecy is fulfilled.

Christians insist that Jesus was crucified in order to absolve believers of God-created sin.

Christians insist on the resurrection, in order establish the divinity of Christ (remember, their have been many historical "messiahs". This is why you pick Jesus over the others.

The system of logic here is the Christians. No burden of proof lies on the non-Christians.

If you are uncomfortable with the inconsistencies, don't look to others to bail you out.

R.C.,

There are records outside of the Bible that talk about Jesus. Also, in Luke 23, Jesus was sent to Herod and Pilate before being crucified. I am not talking about history being edited before it happens, I am talking about the crucifiction.

There was in fact a massive editing of history done later, but this was by the Christian church itself. Using your logic, one could say the vested powers removed all evidence that contradicted the divinity of Jesus, and in fact embellished the myth in several instances (the miracles, the virgin birth) and would have real historical evidence to support the claim.

How do you know? We are talking about a point in History that is a long time ago, and we are reading different records. For example the historian Josephus. I would admit that Christians have done some terrible things. As far as to say that the Church made up Jesus and changed historical records to prove thier claim...sigh...Does not seem likely to me.

Rick,

Jesus could have done those things, but He was on a assignment. That was not His main task. I agree with Adam.

Also, I would like to point out that I know the lack of evidence does not remove the burden of proof, and I am not trying to suggest that. I am trying to simply ask, how much proof is logical to expect, since those that had the authorty had a vested interest to suppress His message?

About the Egyptian God Horus. Very interesting, I must admit...however in the old testament, thier were plenty prophecies about Jesus before He was born...the first being in Genesis 4 I think. Which predates the Horus stories.

Horus was worshipped thousands of years before Jesus supposedly lived.

Do you really think
however in the old testament, thier were plenty prophecies about Jesus before He was born...the first being in Genesis 4 I think. Which predates the Horus stories.

is a satisfactory answer to the parallels between the stories? I don't even feel it was an answer at all. It was dismissive at best.

What prophecies in the old testament could possibly show that the Jesus story was the original story and the Horus story was borrowed?

The opposite is quite obviously true. Horus predates Jesus.

The funny thing is that the catholic Church as well as many other religions admit that Horus predates Jesus. Do you know what they attribute the similarities to?

They say that Satan created the story of Horus so that it would make the Jesus story not look original. This is their serious position.

While their argument is crap, please don't try to make it seem like Horus was borrowed from the OT prophecies. It wasn't.

"There are records outside of the Bible that talk about Jesus."

Original records from the time? Or later, edited records, after the Church controlled all the documents?

The original records, of the time, quite detailed in their way, make no mention of Jesus and his miracles. There are a lot of records from the 1st century in conflict with later writings (Gnostic Gospels, etc) which show a vivid imagination about the life of Jesus.

If you are talking about Josephus, whose writings place Herod in a different time and place, supply the Quirinius citation which show Luke in error (or Matthew, take your pick) and whose only reference to Jesus is "the brother of James" clearly a different person.

You can't pick and choose from the ancient writings based only on the criteria it conflicts with your dogma.


"How do you know? We are talking about a point in History that is a long time ago, and we are reading different records"


You are missing my point. Your logic cannot claim one vested group edited history, while another vested group did not. (Plus we have documentation of the Church editing (Council of Nicea).


"As far as to say that the Church made up Jesus and changed historical records to prove thier claim...sigh...Does not seem likely to me."


So you have no problems with the Muslim's or the Mormon's claims, it being unlikely that people would make up a religion.

About the Egyptian God Horus. Very interesting, I must admit...however in the old testament, thier were plenty prophecies about Jesus before He was born...the first being in Genesis 4 I think. Which predates the Horus stories.



There is absolutely no prophecy of Jesus or his deeds in the Bible. There is much retrofitting, but no verifiable prediction.

By the way, the earliest messianic reference (Genesis 3:15) is probably the one you mean by Genesis 4 It is not really a prophecy, but a basis for the Christian pogrom's against the Jews, and is one of the most racist claims ever made.

Also, the myth of Horus predates Genesis by 3000 years, the Torah by 1500 years.

Eric,

No matter how many hypothetical (or even factual) explanations you have for why historical records of Jesus might have been suppressed, this certainly wouldn't prove a single thing about Jesus. You could invent an infinite number of beings (say, a fire-breathing cyclops a cappella group) who would fit this criteria for people whose existence would be suppressed. This certainly doesn't prove, or even increase the likelihood, that any of them ever existed.

If I'm late for work and I tell my boss that it's because I was chased all over the city by a pack of wolves, and then, when he asks why there are no news reports of this pack of wolves running wild downtown, I explain that the wolves are part of a secret government genetic experiment and that there was a huge cover up, he would have no reason to believe me. I have provided a technically plausible explanation for why there is no evidence, but still, until evidence is produced, I should not be believed.

Regardless of how high or low the likelihood that evidence may exist, the standard should always be the same. If there is little chance of evidence existing for something, that doesn't mean we should lower our standard so that we still might somehow be able to prove it. Some things we will simply never be able to prove because the evidence no longer exists. In that case, we should simply not believe these things.

Some things we will simply never be able to prove because the evidence no longer exists. In that case, we should simply not believe these things.


I disagree slightly. If the evidence no longer exists, but it fits within a framework of reliable evidence, I would accept. The fossil record meets this criteria -- most fossils are missing, the missing fossils fit within a believable framework.

The Jesus myth does not meet this criteria, as a supernatural Jesus, if he existed, would violate the entire framework of the natural world as we know it.

If his miracles had continued into modern times, and modern science then he would fit into a framework, and I would be more likely to accept his existence, even if the original records are lost.

Ok, because I'm tired, I have no clue who I'm supposed to side with so...
1. If Jesus is real and does all these great things, why don't people who get cancer always live? Why are disease and poverty and many more things still causing deaths? If he is real, why doesn't he make his presence very clear?

2. Back in the time when Jesus was supposably born, many people were saying that they were the son of God. One guy just got lucky.

3. The bible. If it was written by man, how could it be the exact word of God? And it was written over many centuries, so even if part of that was true, I'm willing to bet that most of it wasn't.
And then there are some variations of some of the stories. Therefore it can't be God's exact word.

Oh MP,

In response to your last point (3)....there are no contradictions. You just are misinterpreting the scripture!!! No matter what, you just can't read it right.

I am kidding. It just makes me laugh because every single time I point out a contradiction in the Bible, I am told I am misinterpreting the passage.

Nathan,

This is of course their answer to everything -- "you must be reading it wrong" or "you just don't understand it." How extraordinarily arrogant and self-serving. And they see this as a strength, not a weakness -- as they see the self-correcting nature of science as a sign of it's "untruth", when if they stopped to think about it, all advances in technology, medicine, our standards of living, have come about through change -- in a sense, through admitting to error, or at least to admitting that something can be done better.

But somehow, this 2,000 year old document which is clearly - to anyone with any faculty for critical thinking whatsoever - open to numerous interpretations, and is obviously self-contradicting in thousands of places - is perfect and obviously true - except in the areas where it is not and where virtually all Christians have let go (i.e. stoning people, not eating meat on Fridays, etc etc) How convenient.

RC,

I agree with your point. I think the difference is just semantics. When I talk about things for which evidence no longer exists, I don't mean things like the fossil record, because the fossil record is evidence. The framework of which you speak is evidence. If there were no fossil record at all, it would be one thing. But we need not have fossils of every single life form, every stage in evolution, to have evidence of the process.

Hey Everyone,

I would like to thank you for bringing up Horus. I am doing a little research about it. Just by taken another glance at the link that Nathan supplied, their are some pieces of information that is not correct. For example, Jesus was not born on the 25th of december, we just celebrate His birthday then. There were not 3 wise men, the Catholic Church says that it is 3, however the Bible does not supply a number. With that being said, there is still a lot to research. Since I am the most talkative Christian here...you guys may be a little bored until my return.

Nathan,

There is a way to read and interpret the Bible. This is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutic... This being said, I do understand your viewpoint of it being a cop out. I would hope that the person that told you that actually explained how it was misinterpreted. I have found that their has been many misinterpretations, even among ministers. I will never make a claim that the church is perfect and does things correctly, however I don't think that people should hold that against God.

Eric,

A big part of the problem with the "read it in context" argument is that often these arguments are little more than rationalizations. Some people, when offering or suggesting context, basically follow this process:

1. There is an apparent contradiction in the bible (or some other aspect of the religion).
2. That can't possibly be true, because I have already presupposed the bible to be infallible.
3. If x, y & z were true (although they're not mentioned anywhere in the bible) then the apparent contradiction would not be a contradiction.
4. X, Y & Z must be true.

For a lot of people, the "correct" way to read or interpret the bible is whatever way confirms its veracity. To understand the context of what certain words or phrases meant at the time the bible was written is one thing. To invent facts or infer unstated meaning is something else altogether.

Let's look at the argument currently taking place on the Jesus Lovers board concerning iron chariots. Due to some ambiguous writing and translation, it's unclear whether God or Judah was the one unable to overcome iron chariots. It's been suggested that it must be Judah's weakness, because it's illogical to conclude that God could be bested by iron chariots since elsewhere in the bible he seems to be omnipotent. This is confirmation bias, interpreting the evidence in a way that confirms the presupposition. This is what a lot of Christians do when they talk about finding the "right" context: the "right" context is the one that supports the pre-drawn conclusion.

Let's look at what's really going on. We have information we're trying to interpret: God appears to not be omnipotent. We have other information from the same source suggesting that he is omnipotent, or at least far more powerful than the situation in question would require. There are many ways to interpret this information:

1. Since other information establishes God's omnipotence, the iron chariot information/interpretation must be flawed.

2. Since God's lack of omnipotence is established by the iron chariot information, the other information must be flawed.

3. All the information is correct. Since God sometimes does extraordinary things and other times fails to do so, he is very powerful but not perfect, and therefore not omnipotent.

What many Christians do when they talk about context is begin by presupposing that which they're trying to prove (God is omnipotent, in this case), and then dismiss the interpretations (2 & 3) that contradict this. For them, scenarios 2 & 3 can't possibly be correct, because they don't support the presupposition. But of course they could be correct. Any number of explanations for why the bible says what it says could be correct.

We have no obligation to interpret the bible in a way that makes its claims seem true, plausible or even self-consistent. The bible could be a complete fabrication. Therefore, we cannot use the bible as our guide for how to interpret the bible. You would never let a liar establish for you the rules you use when interpreting his lies. And since you never know in advance who is or isn't a liar, you always need to use external criteria to interpret everything.

The criteria we use when interpreting the bible is reality. The bible makes claims that are completely inconsistent with observable reality. Until evidence emerges suggesting that some of these things are even possible, there is no reason to take biblical claims seriously or count them as evidence of anything. The only alternative is the ultimate cop-out: "God can do whatever he wants, that's why he isn't bound by the laws of nature and that's why only Jesus ever performed miracles, etc." Sure, this could be true, but so could an infinite number of alternative, fantastic explanations. The fact that scenarios can be imagined that would absolve the supposed evidence of any inconsistencies or shortcomings certainly doesn't prove anything.

Adam,

"Sounds a little like you wanted Jesus to do magic tricks."

No, it was Jesus' choice to perform magic tricks; all I did was point out that his tricks were so feeble that they left no lasting mark. (And incidentally, the examples I chose could hardly be characterized as tricks. Particularly compared to, oh say, walking on water.)

The opening post was poorly worded but it seemed that Eric was asking how much evidence we would expect to have survived years of evidence-purging. I chose to answer by suggesting that a sufficiently powerful Jesus -- motivated by a desire to be believed, and preternatural foreknowledge of the coming purge -- could easily have created evidence that no human would have been capable of erasing.

"He could have done the things you mentioned but it would not have helped with his mission..."

Of course proving his bona fides would have helped his mission. And it might have saved mankind from some of the incalculable suffering that fighting over him has caused over the past two thousand years.

"...and perhaps if he did you would claim that somebody had edited the text to account for his knowledge of Pi..."

Paper and ink can be dated. And how could every copy of the Bible in the world be re-written in order to conform to the new calculation after it had been released for the first time? No, those digits would have been evidence of something unusual, and they would have made rational thinkers take notice. Too bad Jesus never thought of providing them. Or rather, too bad the chroniclers of his myth were incapable of calculating them.

Eric,

"Jesus could have done those things, but He was on a assignment. That was not His main task. I agree with Adam."

So he can take the time to go to a wedding and turn water to wine but he can't take the time to eliminate a disease and prove his identity in the process? Please.

And just why exactly couldn't he participate in extracurricular activities? Not enough time? Not enough energy? Was he on a tight schedule? Was it budget problems? How much time does it take to perform a miracle anyway? And how exactly do you determine what constitutes part of Jesus' assignment, and what constitutes a waste of time?

Really, this claim that he was "on assignment" is a sad excuse for an explanation.

God just can't seem to "make the time."

This is what I'm saying!

You'll have to forgive my lack of immediate sources...I'm going on memory here. In college I studied Classics and Philosophy. During classes we were often cautioned that our texts came from sources that were questionable, primarily because they had been hand copied by monks. At the time, monastic libraries kept and copied texts by hand, leading to copy errors (deliberate and accidental).

The Annals by Tacitus was one example. Much of the text remains, but for some years only fragments survived. Interestingly, the years when Jesus would have been alive are completely missing...we don't even have a sentence. The professor asked why we thought, given monks were the ones copying the text, why only those years were missing. Wouldn't those years have been the most important to them? Could there be a reason the monks didn't want those particular years preserved, such as an unflattering description? Or did he not even make it in? Of course, there's no way to know why some texts are intact and others are only fragments, it's all guesswork.

So my response to Eric's "Those 3 parties would be the ones that write most of the History books at that time. All had a vested interest in suppressing the message of Jesus. Therefore, how much evidence, outside of the Bible is reasonable, if the people that would be in charge of recording history had a vested interest in not recording Jesus?" is, I'm not at all convinced that History had a vested interest in suppressing Jesus. It's equally likely that Christian monks had a vested in supressing negative views of Jesus.

Postulating a conspiracy between Romans, Jews and Herod is about as likely as the mass conspiracy to cover up alien abductions.

Wait---alien abductions aren't real!?!?!?!?! ;-)

I have been looking up Horus...not done...but I will post some things that I am reading. His birth and death seems different then Jesus. I do believe that the link that you posted is NOT accurate. It seems that his mother was not a virgin. Was not named Mary. People are debating the 12 disciples. And it appears that he was not crucified.

http://www.touregypt.net/horus.htm
http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/c...
http://paxblog.vox.com/library/post/zeit...
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copyc...

Eric,

Before you go all crazy trying to disprove correlations between Horus and Jesus, I will agree that one-to-one tabular comparisons are tenuous at best.

But that is not the point. Nathans overstated intent was to show that the essential elements of the Jesus myth are not new. It is not important to be able to prove that Horus was or was not of virgin birth (he was not because he did not really exist). What is important is that ancient peoples routinely believed Gods were of virgin birth, and Isis was often celebrated as a virgin goddess.

The key word here is motif. All religions borrow essential elements from others (case in point Mormonism), and embellish to meet the needs of the time.

Good luck proving otherwise.

What is important is that ancient peoples routinely believed Gods were of virgin birth, and Isis was often celebrated as a virgin goddess.

My point is that my research is showing otherwise. I understand that there are certain aspects of all religions that are similar. I am not trying to disprove that. The story of Horus seemed identical to Jesus when Nathan posted his link, however the stories are very different. This information does not make my question invalid. Nor is this an answer. Truthfully, this information broadens my question. If the origin of Horus is extremely different, why did someone change the story to make it identical to Jesus? I can not say for certain what the motive was, but it may be because they wanted to suppress the message of Jesus...or sell more books. Either way my question is still very much so valid.

Therefore, how much evidence, outside of the Bible is reasonable, if the people that would be in charge of recording history had a vested interest in not recording Jesus?

"If the origin of Horus is extremely different, why did someone change the story to make it identical to Jesus"

You are really getting off track here. Some writers (bad historians with ingrained biases) have tried to draw explicit connections between the Horus myth and the Jesus myth that are not there. But it would be a mistake to think that all suggestions about the influence of older myth on the Jesus myth is suspect because of these authors. There are plenty of respected academic resources that have traced the mythologies of the ancient cultures and found the Jesus myth to be a derivative one (combined from many resources).

1. You failed to answer my question.
2. Where is the information to back your claim

2. Where is the information to back your claim

Just type "Jesus Horus" into Google and you'll get tons of hits. The very first one is rather interesting, and contains lots of references to other books and websites:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jc...

Muzzle,

Did you read any of the links that I posted about this link?

D'oh, I didn't look that closely did I? Not awake yet. Should not partake in this discussion at this moment, am not really up to it now. Carry on.

The story of Horus seemed identical to Jesus when Nathan posted his link, however the stories are very different.

First, it never was claimed to be identical. The claim was that the jesus story paralleled that of Horus. This it does do.

I find it odd that two of your sources are quite clearly biased. They are from the Christian perspective which, most likely, presupposes that the story of Jesus is true. A third says "I'm not egyptologist, but..."

The Catholic church acknowledges that these stories, as well as many others, are similar to the Jesus story. They just make an odd claim that these stories were planted in the society by Satan to throw everyone off of Jesus' scent.

The stories parallel one another---there are elements of the Jesus myth that are clearly taken from the Horus myth. The virgin birth is a negligible aspect when so many of the other points match up.

Also, the idea of the virgin birth can be one of the aspect of the myth that changes from telling to telling....just like in Christianity. There are sects of Christianity who think the virgin birth is ridiculous----others say it is of utmost importance. However, all believe Jesus is god.

I find it odd that two of your sources are quite clearly biased. They are from the Christian perspective which, most likely, presupposes that the story of Jesus is true. A third says "I'm not egyptologist, but..."

I supplied more then 2 links. One from an Atheist who is clearly not biased that states the stories are drastically different. I did this because I have been looking at information from different sources to make sure that there are no bias.

The Catholic church acknowledges that these stories, as well as many others, are similar to the Jesus story. They just make an odd claim that these stories were planted in the society by Satan to throw everyone off of Jesus' scent.

I am not Catholic and I don't always agree with what they say. I don't buy the stories were planted by Satan defense. The stories are different, however there are some rituals that are the similar in action but not in meaning.

I would also like to point out that the link that you have given me is also a Biased link.

...and again...

1. Did you answer my question?

What question?

If you mean what evidence outside the bible is needed if the people in charge of recording historty gained from suppressing it.....the answer is, still a lot.

It is a lot becuase your "what if" is a huge what if. You have no evidence to support your what if so it is little more than a supposition.

I could say "what if the people who recorded history all really wanted to spread the message of Jesus? Why aren't there any records outside of the bible?"

We really shouldn't spend time on what ifs like this and you certainly shouldn't draw extraordinary conclusions from them---in other words, "People may have been able to have personal gain from suppressing the message and story of jesus. There is no actual historical record of Jesus, therefore the biblical stories about him must be true!!!!"

This is a rather grand leap to make.

The amount of evidence one should expect is certainly more that a few archaic mythological stories. If i were going to depend on these types of things, I could just as well determine Zeus is real.

42379 If you mean what evidence outside the bible is needed if the people in charge of recording historty gained from suppressing it.....the answer is, still a lot...There is no actual historical record of Jesus, therefore the biblical stories about him must be true!!!!"

I have been gone for awhile and still...no answer. If you asked me a similar question and all I did was restated what I believed, you would have a major problem with me. I do not feel that the people on this board really wants to discuss...but want to prove their position. Therefore guilty of having a closed mind like the Christians you talked about in the Jesus Lover's forum. Another example.

by R.C. 11/16/2008 08:54PM

Also, the myth of Horus predates Genesis by 3000 years, the Torah by 1500 years.

by R.C.11/19/2008 08:39AM

You are really getting off track here. Some writers (bad historians with ingrained biases) have tried to draw explicit connections between the Horus myth and the Jesus myth that are not there. But it would be a mistake to think that all suggestions about the influence of older myth on the Jesus myth is suspect because of these authors.

So...when the Horus story is thought to be the same as Jesus, you say nothing about it. When it is found that the story is completely different, examining the story is getting off base. The truth is that the story proves my point. Someone thought to alter the Horus story to make it appear that the Jesus story is unauthentic. This in turn makes my question completely valid. With people that are in charge of writing history (Jewish leaders, Rome government, historians like the ones that changed the Horus story) having a vested interest in suppressing the Gospels...How much proof should we expect?

Follow-up Question
Do you guys really want to discuss the Christian Faith and get a understanding on why Christians believe what we do, or is this board designed to have Christians concede and denounce God?

I WILL NOT RESPONSE TO ANY POST THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN AN ANSWER TO MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS

I WILL NOT RESPONSE TO ANY POST THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN AN ANSWER TO MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS

Ok, shouting is not necessary.

Your posts (and questions) are so confusing, I am not sure what you want at this point. If you are unable to understand the concepts of analogy and metaphor, how can I answer.

You are like a small child demanding to know why he cannot have ice cream. Please restate your questions without wrapping them in invective, and I will try to answer.

But be very clear here. I can try to explain many things to you. We could try mulitlinear algebra for instance. But without the proper background, I am sure you admit it would be useless.

I have already taken mulitlinear algebra, so no thanks.

What is so confusing about my post?

R.C.,

Please review post #1, my question has not changed. The fact is that most of the comments on this discussion has been pure dictum and evasive to my simple question.

Eric --

Looking back, your original question was I believe:

Therefore, how much evidence, outside of the Bible is reasonable, if the people that would be in charge of recording history had a vested interest in not recording Jesus?

Can we parse this out please?

1. Is there recorded history from the time period in which Jesus lived?
2. Was the recorded history from that time period known to those in power?
3. Were those in power able to influence the content of this recorded history?
4. Would those in power be motivated to remove references to Jesus from the recorded history?
5. How would such editing occur giving the technology of recorded history at the time.
6. Is there evidence such altering occurred?
7. If we assume the above occurred, what other evidence could we look for to establish the existence of the Jesus of the New Testament?

Stated this way increases its plausibility, because we have very good historical evidence of such a sequence occurring. But this evidence is for the suppression and editing of documents that contradicted the current New Testament stories of Jesus. The power that suppressed and edited was the early Christian Church. We know this occurred because of documentation by the church itself and by the discovery of competing gnostic gospels hidden away, but later discovered.

Would you agree to discuss this point by point as I have listed above?

Eric,

You have not shown that the Horus story is completely different than the Jesus story.

It's like you say, "Well Horus's name was Horus and Jesus's name was Jesus, so see how the stories are completely different."

The differences you have shown are debatable and negligible. The reliability of the sources for your information are dubious.

Even if a few elements of the stories are different, they are still very similar. You saying "they are completely different" does not make it so.

Also, you are so wrapped up in a question "why would someone wish to alter the horus story?" that it blinds you from the fact that it was the jesus story that was formed to match the horus story, not the other way around.

"Do you guys really want to discuss the Christian Faith and get a understanding on why Christians believe what we do, or is this board designed to have Christians concede and denounce God?"

Back in the Jesus group, the constant refrain from Eric and others was "This is not the place for debating religion! If you create a group for debating religion, we'll go there to debate religion!"

So here we are, in a group called ... what was that name again? Oh yes, "Debate Religion." And what goes on in here? Why, of all things, debating religion! But is Eric happy yet? No, he's still complaining about the fact that we're debating religion.

That's a great big bowl of What the Fuck! right there.

Eric,

As I understand it, your question is this: Since people in power may have been motivated to purge mention of Jesus from the historical record, what amount of evidence is it reasonable to expect?

It has been pointed out here several times that the claims of such a "Jesus purge" are dubious, and probably the opposite of the truth, but this doesn't address your question. I feel like your question has been answered, but maybe the answers have been lost in the jumble of the thread, so I'll restate my answer here:

How much the evidence has or has not been suppressed or erased is irrelevant. The standard does not change to meet the situation. We don't lower the bar just because the normal standard is too hard to meet. We are under no obligation to make Jesus's existence or divinity easier to prove. If the normal standard is too hard to meet, if the evidence has been destroyed or compromised, then those are the breaks. There is no good evidence for the existence of Zeus, Vishnu, unicorns, etc. It is certainly not the case that if we could come up with a plausible story for why this evidence has been destroyed, the likelihood of unicorns' existence would increase.

"Even if a few elements of the stories are different, they are still very similar"

If you think about it, the key elements of the story of Jesus are completely unnecessary if Jesus is a divine power on Earth, who has come to save man from sin. No virgin birth is required for this mission, no trip to the desert, no crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus merely has to appear, demonstrate supernatural powers, and give the message that following him is the only way to salvation, and then a big finish of ascending into the heavens.

But instead, we have a story that contains common mythical elements of the time, with a plot line that changes with each retelling. Fundamental elements seem to have been shoehorned in to match past prophecy, with additions that benefit the power of the church.

This, along with good historical and scientific evidence is what creates for skeptics doubt and disbelief.

That, coupled with the problem of evil makes Christianity a non-starter as a believable religion.

Eric,

Please take the time to read this...

http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthread....

Forget all the Zeitgeist blather; unfortunately some people took short cuts and attributed Horus with later traits as well as those of Osiris and Mithras. The point is that all those traits were attributed to VARIOUS Pagan Gods at one time or other; it only stands to reason that Christianity would combine and recreate them for an oppressed population.

Congratulations Eric, you are about to enter the wonderful world of Biblical History. Please do your best to stay on the path of facts and not bias your conclusions based on what fits in with your current belief system!
I write that with full sincerity and hope you don't take it as patronising.

So here we are, in a group called ... what was that name again? Oh yes, "Debate Religion." And what goes on in here? Why, of all things, debating religion! But is Eric happy yet? No, he's still complaining about the fact that we're debating religion.

Rick,

I am upset becasue very few has even attempted to answer my question. While reading the question, you will notice that it is not trying to prove anything and based on the Bible. The question in nature is purely opinion based. You guys could have said that a flying spaghetti monster would have to fly to your job, handing you a cup of tea and testify that it is true. That would have at least been an attempt to the answer. Most of what I got was, there is nothing that satisfy me because the Bible is completely false and Jesus never lived. How is that any different then if you gave me facts about Evolution and I stated that there is nothing that you could give me to even consider this fact because the Bible is true? If we can not answer a simple opinion based question, how can we discuss anything? This is not aimed at you, I feel that you are one of the few that attempted to answer my question.

For example, instead of curing a handful of lepers, he could have instantaneously cured all of them throughout the world, while simultaneously eliminating the disease altogether.

This is an answer...however I don't believe that it would have worked. There are people that saw Jesus perform miracles and did not believe. Therefore the leper in another land being healed would not have caused people to believe. Also, if Historian's at the time, did not record this event...we would be right back where we are now.

If you think about it, the key elements of the story of Jesus are completely unnecessary if Jesus is a divine power on Earth, who has come to save man from sin. No virgin birth is required for this mission, no trip to the desert, no crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus merely has to appear, demonstrate supernatural powers, and give the message that following him is the only way to salvation, and then a big finish of ascending into the heavens.

According to basic Christian Theology and Christology this statement is COMPLETELY false. We know the basics of inherited genes.

Virgin Birth

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Sin is inherited from Adam. A trait of fathers. Since Jesus biological father is divine, he inherits no sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


Cruxifiction

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Resurrection

Without this, there would be no one going to heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Daveh,

Thank you for the link. I will read this when I get more time. I am sure that there are aspects that are they same. I feel this is because there are finite possiblities. The general themes are that

1. Man needs to be saved
2. There is some clensing (whether body or spirit) that is done.
3. There is a God figure in the form of a man, that saves the people.

Is there anything else from the text that you supply. Not trying to be rude...I just have less time. Work is getting busier. The themes that I added above are common and do not prove anything but the result of limited possiblity. That is why the specifics like the virgin birth are important.

Nathan,

It's like you say, "Well Horus's name was Horus and Jesus's name was Jesus, so see how the stories are completely different."

The differences you have shown are debatable and negligible. The reliability of the sources for your information are dubious.

Where are your unbais sources?

I am getting ready to go to church now. Any prayer request???