Trivia Jesus: Just Another Myth ?

[GildartsTale]

𝐉𝐄𝐒𝐔𝐒: 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡?
-----

Critics often argue that the story of Christ is just a product of ancient mythology. Kung ito ay totoo, ibig sabihin ang Christianity ay bunga lang ng mga beliefs na hiniram sa iba’t ibang mga alamat. And like other so-called gods, Jesus is just another myth. Those who support this view disregard countless pieces of evidence that Christ is historically real. Ine-emphasize nila lahat ng makita nilang similarities ni Kristo sa ibang pagan gods habang ini-ignore naman lahat ng critical differences.The following are a few things to keep in mind when dealing with issues like this:

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐬; 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝.

Suetonius (c. 69–122 AD), a Roman biographer, reported that Julius Caesar became divine after his death. According to him, after Julius died, “a comet appeared…This was held to be Caesar’s soul, elevated to heaven; hence the star, now placed above the forehead of his divine image.” Ganito rin ang sinabi niya nang i-cremate si Emperor Augustus. He reported that his spirit was seen “soaring up to Heaven through the flames.” Political leaders becoming divine after their deaths is a common theme in ancient mythology. Sabi ng ilan, ganito rin naman ang case ni Jesus na ginawa lang daw na diyos later on.

Actually, this accusation is baseless. Seutonius’s writings were written around 121 AD. That was about 165 years after the death of Julius (d. 44 BC)! And around 107 years after the death of Augustus (d. 14 AD)! Masyadong matagal ang gap kaya wala na ring witness ng event na buhay pa para sabihin kung totoo ngang ganyan ang nangyari. The New Testament was written by the same people who witnessed the life of Christ and/or had access to the witnesses of the event they were recording. In other words, the Gospels are just recordings of recent happenings at the time and not tales from the distant past. “Legends do not develop if the stories are written while eyewitnesses are still alive to refute inaccuracies.” (N. Geisler).

𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝.

May mga nagsasabi na ang kwento ni Jesus ay kinopya lang mula kay Osiris, an Egyptian deity, who was also resurrected from the dead. Others claim that the Gospel is just “retelling” the mythology of Horus, another Egyptian deity who was said to be born of a ******. Ang pagiging Son of God ni Jesus ay hindi raw unique, dahil katulad lang din Siya ng iba pang sons of god like Perseus and Hercules. Ang pagkakatawang-tao ni Kristo (incarnation) ay similar daw kay Krishna, a Hindu deity who was an avatar (incarnation) of Lord Vishnu. Critics argue that these similarities prove that the story of Christ is not unique after all.

A careful examination of the ancient mythologies reveals that these similarities are not true in the first place. For example, contrary to what critics claim, Osiris was not resurrected and did not return to earth. After his death, his body was just recovered and rejoined. He became a "dead" god who later journeyed to the underworld and became the lord of the dead. Christ was truly resurrected with a glorified body and walked on the earth again. He was reportedly seen by more than 500 people. Marami sa kanila ay buhay pa noong sinulat ang Gospels. Si Horus din ay hindi born of a ******, dahil it is a known fact na ginamit ni Isis, kanyang mother, ang dismembered ***** ni Osiris para mabuntis. (Medyo strange pero ganito raw ang nangyari.) The ****** birth story of Christ is never similar to this. Ang mga sons of gods sa Greek mythology ay tinuturing na mga demigods or half human and half divine, making them lesser deities. Christ was never described that way! He is fully man and fully God, who was with God in the beginning and is, by Himself, God (Jn 1:1).

Sa Greek mythology, ang mga gods ay nagdi-disguise lang na tao. In Christianity, God became actually human. In Hindu mythology, there are ten known avatars of Vishnu —si Krishna ay isa lang sa mga ‘yon. In Christianity, incarnation happened only once, through the person of Christ (Gal 4:4). Krishna is just an avatar of Vishnu, one of the three main Hindu deities. In Christ “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col 2:9). Critics often change or invent some details in the myths to make them appear parallel to Christian beliefs. In reality, there are no real similarities between Christ and these myths.

𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐦𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝.

Critics often cite the myth of Mithras, a Persian deity, as the basis of the story of Christ. Sabi nila, si Mithras daw ay born of a ****** din, isa ring teacher and master na may twelve followers, na nag-sacrifice din ng sarili para sa humanity. May mga legends din patungkol kay Alexander the Great na nagsasabi na siya rin ay born of a ******, gumawa din ng miracles, at naging divine. Dahil nauna raw ang mga myths tulad nito kaysa sa Christianity, dito kinuha ang kwento ni Kristo. Gaano katotoo ang claim na ito?

Ang mga myths na sinasabing pinagkopyahan ng Gospel records ay nag-develop lang noong may Christianity na at hindi bago dumating si Jesu-Kristo. There was no record in Mithraic tradition indicating that Mithras was born of a ****** (according to myth, he was born out of solid rock), a teacher, or a master of twelve followers. Ang tanging nasa story lang niya ay kinalaban niya ang isang bull; walang story ng pagsasakripisyo ng sarili para sa humanity. Ang mga legends na ito ay lumabas lang a hundred of years after the appearance of the New Testament, at wala sa earliest myths about Mithras. Ang mga legends patungkol naman sa mga miracles ni Alexander the Great ay nag-develop over a period of 1000 years, at wala sa mga earliest record ng buhay niya. Dr. Ron Rhodes said, “Leaders of pagan cults that were challenged by Christianity would logically seek to counter the challenge by offering a pagan substitute.” Evidence proves that these myths actually copied Christianity, not the other way around.
------
Walang basehan na isipin na nag-imbento lang sila ng kwento patungkol kay Kristo mula sa mga myths ng mga gods na kinamumuhian nila bilang mga Jews. “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Ptr 1:16). The Gospels were based on the testimony of those who actually saw Christ. “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (Jn 20:31).

CTTO

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Eto analogy. For instance, Disney's Pinocchio. We can agree that it was "copied" from the book "Adventures of Pinnochio" na sinulat ni Carlo Collodi in the 1880's.

Pero pag binasa mo ung novel, clearly iba ang storya doon sa movie. Can we then say that Disney's Pinnochio is NOT based on Collodi's novel just because binago ng kaunti ang storya?

The mythical Jesus' story is clearly based on old myths. That how they justified the claim of him being "prophesized". There could have been a real revolutionary activist named Jesus who suffered a horrible fate.. Pero the very first accounts of him was written 40 yrs later at best, and went through a telephone game by people who has an strong interest and hope to go against Roman rule.

This is like getting an eye witness for a crime that happened 40yrs ago, with the witness having clear biases to the case (example: Relative of the victim or the perpetuator)

 

[GildartsTale]

Eto analogy. For instance, Disney's Pinocchio. We can agree that it was "copied" from the book "Adventures of Pinnochio" na sinulat ni Carlo Collodi in the 1880's.

Pero pag binasa mo ung novel, clearly iba ang storya doon sa movie. Can we then say that Disney's Pinnochio is NOT based on Collodi's novel just because binago ng kaunti ang storya?

The mythical Jesus' story is clearly based on old myths. That how they justified the claim of him being "prophesized". There could have been a real revolutionary activist named Jesus who suffered a horrible fate.. Pero the very first accounts of him was written 40 yrs later at best, and went through a telephone game by people who has an strong interest and hope to go against Roman rule.

This is like getting an eye witness for a crime that happened 40yrs ago, with the witness having clear biases to the case (example: Relative of the victim or the perpetuator)

Trivia - A Case for Historical Jesus (in few paragraphs)

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Pliny the younger's writing - 112 AD
Suetonius lived between - 69AD to 122AD
Celsus writings - 170AD to 180AD
Phlegon writings - 184AD to 253AD
Josephus writing - 93 AD to 94 AD

What does that prove? None of these people are eye witnesses themselves. They are merely describing the early Christians and their claimed beliefs. Some of them used the term "Superstitio" to describe these people excessive devotion. Which is understandable considering yung sinapit nila sa prosecution ng Rome.

This is similar to the mostly ethnic people worshipping Rizal 40-50yrs later after his death.

Many of these sects or religious movements believe that Rizal is still living and that he will deliver his followers from oppression and poverty. Rizalist groups have differing views on the divinity of Jose Rizal. Some believe that he is God himself, some believe that Rizal was the second son of God, the reincarnation of Christ, but alike Islam they Pray to East with that Rug. Others claim that Rizal is the Philippines (promoting Nationalism/Countryhood) without Him there family key environment, the Childrens and the Country, the Neighbors that surround them would that not that be. Some of these groups also identify Rizal as the god of the pre-Spanish Malay religion.

The myth gave them a sense of hope, and gave meaning to their suffering. And if we are all being honest here, these are the same motivations people believe Christianity to this day. (And Rizalistas)

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Meron nga proof kung saan nalibing si Jesus Christ. Based on archeological evidence. Ang teeny weeny problem lang kase ay tatlo ang nakita nila kaya ayun , nagkagulo na. Hindi na malaman kung ano ang totoo. Parang ano lang ata..... based on what people interpret sa sinasaliksik nila na associated din sa kanilang beliefs. Parang ganun ang nakikita ko.​

 

[GildartsTale]

What does that prove? None of these people are eye witnesses themselves. They are merely describing the early Christians and their claimed beliefs. Some of them used the term "Superstitio" to describe these people excessive devotion. Which is understandable considering yung sinapit nila sa prosecution ng Rome.

What does it prove? It proves that Jesus was truly a historical figure. They may not be eyewitnesses but some of them were scholars/philosophers of their time. Do you really think they would believe such claims without available evidence? Based on their writings as none believers, they confirm what the gospels wrote from the persecution, death up to the resurrection.

"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus" PG. 96
- Bart Ehrman (Agnostic Atheist)

This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.... The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources.... If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism, because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish.
- Bart Ehrman (Podcast Interview)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering sa mga sinapit ng mga disciples ni Christ. Would they really allowed themselves to be persecuted and die for a lie? (while totoo naman na maraming nammaatay because of a lie, but there is a big difference between knowing and not knowing)

The mythical Jesus' story is clearly based on old myths. That how they justified the claim of him being "prophesized". There could have been a real revolutionary activist named Jesus who suffered a horrible fate.. Pero the very first accounts of him was written 40 yrs later at best, and went through a telephone game by people who has an strong interest and hope to go against Roman rule.

If Jesus was just an activist? Why would His followers be not? And why would Christianity be not?

If the goal was to overthrow Rome? Why would the early Christians allow themselves to be burn and persecuted until death and never did a revolution against Rome?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the Bible and the Life of Christ was really made by man. Why would it go against of all of man's desire?

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Teka lang po. The reason why ginawa mo ang thread topic na ito para e-disprove ang lahat ng accuse sa Christian as a whole like Jesus Christ ay hindi galing sa Pagan ? Ganun ba iyon? Bale , ito ba iyon documentary na dini-disprove mo? I mean hindi man galing sa iyo literal speaking ang isinulat mo , but siyempre galing sa ibang tao na eksperto patungkol sa ipinapaliwanag mo. Ito ba iyon? => You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

But to be honest ha? Meron ako nabasa somewhere na kapag ang isang tao ay nag-aaral ng social anthropologist ay e-aassociate nila si Jesus Christ sa Egyptian Horus and since iyon ang field mismo , hindi pwede mag-reklamo na kailangan e-rely sa bible ang Jesus Christ o e-rely sa "thelogy" dahil ibang usapan na po siya. Dagdag pa kung isama pati ang pag-aaral ng Egyptologist po and so , ibang field of study na po kase siya. So yung mga scholar na nagdedefend o sabihin natin na tipong mga eksperto , iba din kase ang ipinag-aaralan po nila. Ang ipinag-aaralan po nila malamang ay field ng all about Christianism and so , iba talaga ang maaaring makita ng bawat isa.

Kung kaya , wala ba kayo napapansin? Walang course na "Egyptologist" , "Sexologist" at saka "social anthropologist" ? Papaano naman kase , ang bansang Pilipinas ay Christian society po siya. Anything na labas sa pagka-Christianism ay natural , wala or hindi siya mag-eexist.

P.S.

Talaga naniniwala noh na historical figure si Jesus Christ. Okay lang naman pero Jesus Christ na nag-peperform ng miracle pagkatapos literal na "namatay" ot "nabuhay" ? Then literal na "umakyat sa langit" ? Mga ganun? Alam niyo ba? Kapag nagkatotoo iyan this 21st century na halimbawa , si Jesus Christ this 21st century ay malamang magtatakbuhan ang mga tao sa tindi ng takot , pagkatapos magtatawag-tawag pa ng mga back-up swat or military dahil literal speaking , hindi nito maiisip na God si Jesus Christ or sabihin natin na hindi nila maiisip na "something special" si Jesus Christ bagkus baka maisip ng maraming tao na threat siya sa society. Ganun. Alam niyo naman sa panahon ngayon. Hindi katulad noon. Ngayon , matatalino na ang mga tao. Pagkatapos nasa mundo pa tayo ng science and technology.

Di nga. Halimbawa. Walang nakakaalam na siya si Jesus Christ pagkatapos bigla siyang nagpeperform ng miracles or ano , or di kaya bigla siya "nabuhay" galing sa "pagkakamatay niya" - mga ganun. Iba papasok sa isip ng tao as in. Pwede maisip ng tao na isang kulto ang ginagawa ni Jesus Christ. Iyan ay kung buhay siya sa modern present day ha? Pagakatapos magiging viral pa siya sa YøùTùbé , all over the world pa.
​

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

What does it prove? It proves that Jesus was truly a historical figure.

Existence lang pala. Sure He could have existed. But that does not mean ALL of the story is true. Tutal ginamit mong quote si Bart Ehrman, here is another idea from him:

Considering sa mga sinapit ng mga disciples ni Christ. Would they really allowed themselves to be persecuted and die for a lie?

Same reasons why hundreds of filipinos are willing to die during EDSA revolution. They are peaceful activists. The myth is intertwined with what they are fighting for.

If Jesus was just an activist? Why would His followers be not? And why would Christianity be not?

Actually it was. People were inspired by it, and it happened to get to a point that Christianity became a symbol of being anti-Roman empire.

But after the anti-Roman revolution, people just adapted it as a religion, because it is already tied in to their identity. But when it was brought to other countries.. they took the religion out of context. Specially in countries that already have highly spiritual indigenous people.

If the goal was to overthrow Rome? Why would the early Christians allow themselves to be burn and persecuted until death and never did a revolution against Rome?

If the goal was to overthrow Marcos, why did Ninoy allow himself to be killed?
Same thing bro.

If the Bible and the Life of Christ was really made by man. Why would it go against of all of man's desire?

Bhuddism also go against mans desire. Discipline goes against man desire. Maturity goes against man desire. YOU DON'T NEED A SUPERSTITION TO BE TRUE to go against man desire.

 

[GildartsTale]

Actually it was. People were inspired by it, and it happened to get to a point that Christianity became a symbol of being anti-Roman empire.

But after the anti-Roman revolution, people just adapted it as a religion, because it is already tied in to their identity. But when it was brought to other countries.. they took the religion out of context. Specially in countries that already have highly spiritual indigenous people.

Do you have credible sources on this? Maybe we are reading different versions of history. Because as far as actual history is concerned. The so-called "anti-roman" was the teaching of Christ to go beyond what even today cannot do. Is to love your enemy. To care for the oppressed. Many even Christians during the reign of Emperor NEO were burned to death and fed into lions. Do you call that activism?

Same reasons why hundreds of filipinos are willing to die during EDSA revolution. They are peaceful activists. The myth is intertwined with what they are fighting for.

Read again. No one would die just for a lie. People died in Edsa not knowing that they had been lied to. How about you would you die for a lie that will not benefit you?

If the goal was to overthrow Marcos, why did Ninoy allow himself to be killed?
Same thing bro.

No, it's not the same thing. It's night and day. Don't put politics into the mix. Christianity did not overthrow Rome.

Bhuddism also go against mans desire. Discipline goes against man desire. Maturity goes against man desire. YOU DON'T NEED A SUPERSTITION TO BE TRUE to go against man desire.

Read again. I said ALL of man's desires not just for a specific niche.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Do you have credible sources on this? Maybe we are reading different versions of history. Because as far as actual history is concerned. The so-called "anti-roman" was the teaching of Christ to go beyond what even today cannot do. Is to love your enemy. To care for the oppressed. Many even Christians during the reign of Emperor NEO were burned to death and fed into lions. Do you call that activism?

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

There is clearly a revolt. Not because may ibang hindi lumaban in physical battle, wala na activism na nangyayare. Kung iisipin mo nga, natural na maraming hindi lalaban considering ung cruelty ni Nero. It induces fear, and any rebellion would have been in secret and disguised as religious practice.

And yes meron din ilan na sa kawalan ng pag-asa, they just held on to the myth as if it was true. That was the only hope they had.

No one would die just for a lie. People died in Edsa not knowing that they had been lied to. How about you would you die for a lie that will not benefit you?

A myth is not equivalent to a lie. Political motivations are fueled by "narratives" just like in the recent Philippine election, there are two opposing narrative. And when people are motivated by narratives aka myths that they deem "bigger than themself" because they also have deeper cause behind it, they are willing to die for it.
If you live in tyranny, dying is not viewed the same as we do. We can site hundreds of examples of this phenomena (mostly political too). It is really more surprising that you think this is impossible.

No, it's not the same thing. It's night and day. Don't put politics into the mix. Christianity did not overthrow Rome.

Is it really? Do you have any sources then?

I know it hurts to realize that your excessive devotion is rooted on some political revolt of people who has nothing to do with you. So it is easier to just believe that you are right to do than face reality.

The condition is accurately described here:

¹⁶ For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. ¹⁹ If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

1 Corinthian 15

It shows all the deepest motivations of someone who believes (or pretends to do so) to keep on doing it, because admitting the truth is just that bad for them.

I said ALL of man's desires not just for a specific niche.

I did not mention niche.
Pero anyway, there is one desire of men it could not go against, the desire to be right, and be acknowledge to be right. Therefore not "all" desire.

 

[plhbg1]

na-excite ako dun sa countless pieces of evidence, unabot ako sa dulo wala mi-isang evidence hehe

 

[JokeUnavailbe]

jesus- hercules in middle east version,

 

[rumrum28]

bahala na kayu anu isipin nyu. basta proud Roman Catholic ako.

ang paniniwala kasi ay napakalaking tulong sa pang araw2 na pananaw mo. kung wala kang paniniwala puro ka lang what-if pero yung ibang nag what-if mayaman kasi puro explore, e ikaw?

 

[plhbg1]

ang paniniwala kasi ay napakalaking tulong sa pang araw2 na pananaw mo.

wow ha you speak for us hehe baka you just meant that nakakatulong sa pananaw mo instead of pananaw namin hehe or else you made all of us stu̾pid enough to not know a very basic principle of which things are nakakatulong and which are not

 

[rumrum28]

wow ha you speak for us hehe baka you just meant that nakakatulong sa pananaw mo instead of pananaw namin hehe or else you made all of us stu̾pid enough to not know a very basic principle of which things are nakakatulong and which are not

ok po if ganyan paniniwala mo. basta ibig ko sabihin ko na tulong satin is. kung palagi mabuti iniisip mo mabuti din gagawin mo, if mabuti nakikita mo ganun din gagawin mo, if mabuti itinuturo satin anung mali dun? as long as walang maling itinuturo saatin makaka tulong ito sa daily mindset mo.
like parati ka nag titiktok kaya ganyan asal mo.

 

[plhbg1]

ok po if ganyan paniniwala mo. basta ibig ko sabihin ko na tulong satin is. kung palagi mabuti iniisip mo mabuti din gagawin mo, if mabuti nakikita mo ganun din gagawin mo, if mabuti itinuturo satin anung mali dun? as long as walang maling itinuturo saatin makaka tulong ito sa daily mindset mo.
like parati ka nag titiktok kaya ganyan asal mo.

yes ganyan din naman ako, ang problema lang is yung mabuti para sa iyo is whatever nakasulat sa isang aklat, diyan tayu nagkakaiba