Is Jesus copied from an Egyptian God?

[PenguinBear]

I am trying to work out where I am religion wise at the moment and clearly DP and I are not on the same page.

He is adamant that Christianity is made up and has said that The story about Jesus is almost an exact copy of that of an Egyptian God called 'Horus'. I have done some research and it does appear there are many, many similarities. As DP pointed out, Horus came first so how can Jesus be true?

This has really sewn huge seeds of doubt in my mind and wondered what other people's take on it is?

Haven't got time right now to go into this, but it is an area of interest to me. It's good to read up on the mystery religions - this kind of thing is often cited, most usually about Mithras, as being proof that Jesus was not unique/was made up etc - but many scholars agree that mystery religions are in fact so mysterious that not a lot is actually known, and certainly not a lot written down until after the first century ad, so a common consensus is that they actually borrowed from Christianity rather than vice versa. Sorry can't go into this more now - I'm sure someone will be along soon to tell you I'm spouting bollocks and Jesus was just one of many messiahs that died and rose again and was born of a virgin etc...

Put it this way, if the character of Jesus was borrowed from a different religion would it then follow that the original religion must be true?

hi, no serious historian or scholar would question the existence of Jesus. As well as the New Testament itself which compared to other historical documents has an incredible richness in the weight of manuscripts from which it is drawn.

I'm cutting and pasting below from the Alpha Course: but there are two key questions when testing the reliability of historical documents:

1. How quickly after the original was written was the earliest copy made? 2. How many copies are there?

So, Herodotus and Thucydides were both written in the 5th century BC. The earliest copy that we have is around AD 900 so there's a 1300 year gap. For each of these works we have 8 copies........And yet no classical scholar would doubt their authenticity. Tacitus: a thousand year gap between original and first copy ? total of 20 copies. Caesar's Gallic War: 950 year gap between original and first copy ? total of 9 or 10 copies. Livy's Roman History: 900 year gap between original and first copy ? total of 20 copies. The New Testament, written between 40 and 100 AD, the earliest copy we have is AD 130. And we have full manuscripts AD 350. So, at most, there's a 300 year gap. And not just 8 or 20 manuscripts: we have, 5,309 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, 9,300 others. You look at this and you see it: the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone amongst ancient prose writings ........and no secular historian would disagree with that conclusion.

There are also various other historians of the time who wrote about Jesus including Roman Historians Tacitus and Suetonis and the Jewish historian Joseph.

The real and properly interesting question is not whether he existed but whether he was who he said he was - the Messiah and Son of God.

I really would recommend an Alpha course to help you think through these questions as they are great fun, non-pressurised and encourage you to ask questions and think through answers with others who are searching.

Divine Blessings for the journey ahead!

hi, no serious historian or scholar would question the existence of Jesus. As well as the New Testament itself which compared to other historical documents has an incredible richness in the weight of manuscripts from which it is drawn.

I disagree. Even if you put weight in the authenticity of the manuscripts, they hold no truth in the existence of Jesus regardless of whether he was the son of god or not.

We have plenty of examples of parables and anecdotes involving characters who are entirely fictional and created just to tell a story or send a message. I'm not saying he didn't exist, but I certainly wouldn't suggest that authentic manuscripts put his existence beyond reasonable doubt by a long shot.

Well that's the thing. If we're going to accept that Jesus was divine because it says so in the bible then in the name of intellectual integrity we have to accept what the Quran says about Muhummed no? How do we choose one text over the other or ny other religious text?

Hmmm. Don't we Christians believe in Jesus as the son of God, because he said so in the bible? (the Liar/Lunatic/Lord theory)

I'm new to this myself, so I'm sure there is much more to it!

And I believe that Dumbledore's a wizard cos he said so in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.....

The problem with the liar/lord/lunatic argument is that it assumes that what is in the bible is exactly what the person called Jesus said. It doesn't give the other option, which would be legend, which is the most likely.

Good points, both.

By Legend, do you mean, what is in the bible is what Jesus was 'reported' to have said, and therefore may not have happened at all?

I had understood that some of the gospel books were written within 30-100 years of the event, within the lifetimes of the disciples, and as such are more likely to be accurate accounts.

You see, 100 years doesn't sound like long, but could you write an accurate account of an event that occurred in 1913 when all you have is word of mouth which is almost certainly at least third hand at best.

Some of the stuff was written quite soon after wasn't it? E.g. The book of John was written by him so must have been while he was alive? :)

I had understood that some of the gospel books were written within 30-100 years of the event, within the lifetimes of the disciples, and as such are more likely to be accurate accounts

I'm not sure of when and whom wrote the gospels, but what I would ask is that if you believe it 'because it was written down' how and why are you able to reject the sacred texts of other religions seeing as they fill the same criteria?

Just found this on Wiki

Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.

I think there is enough evidence that Jesus existed.

Whether or not he is son of God is debatable.

also what gospels are you beleiving? the ones the church want you to believe

the version of christianity that gives them all the power and has created such utter chaos, torture, persecution, rape, theft of property, buggery, in its name

horus is the least of your worries.

you need to just do a very quick, super simple WIKI -

the history of christianity and the politics for its VERY INCARNATION should get the best of you doubting

There's a list of most likely dates for the books of the NT (it's not the best site, but it does a nice list) remember you're also taking off 30 odd years to get how removed from Jesus' death it would be...

One of my musings is that if God and Jesus do exist why was the last evidence 2000 years ago, why is there nothing after this?

one of my musings is

why do we have to worship god

what kind of being is so conceited that it wants conditional worship...conditional in that ohhhhh worship me or go to hell / don't live in paradise

seriously, if that was any person you met you would flip them the bird

ooh worship me and you can have a tin of beans - fuck off

worship me and you can come into my big house and you will be safe forever as long as you worship me

fuck off

remember you're also taking off 30 odd years to get how removed from Jesus' death it would be...

From his death, perhaps, but from his birth or from any of the earlier points in his life that were 'reported' upon you'd be taking off less than 30 years. I'm presuming the disciples didn't just pop up a week before he was crucified.......

I thought that there was limited evidence for Jesus having existed. For a start, the name Jesus is an alternative name for Joshua ( yeshu'a/yehōshu'a).

I read 'The Jesus Mysteries' (by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy) a few years ago, and much of what they said makes sense.

I'm not a christian, I'm a pagan. But I have no problem with others beliefs. There are many similarities between Horus, Jesus, and Mithras. And others. There are many flood stories in other religious cultures.

Ultimately, I'm not sure that it matters. If 'investing' in a faith is helpful to someone, then that's fine.

Of course if you're talking about writing after the birth of Jesus, then yes there's a much bigger gap... But as a non-believer in taking a lot of that with a pinch of salt anyway.

I'm of the opinion (for what that's worth anyway, lol) that the new testament exists solely to deal with Jesus, it's trying to make him fit with the old testament and that's problematic, which does suggest that he's not entirely a creation. If you were going to create a messiah from nothing then it would work much better, but trying to create a messiah from a real person is much more complicated.

There aren't many scholars that deny his existance - exactly who he was and what he did is another matter, but most people acknowledge that there is a basis for him being a real person.

Are you sure he doesn't mean Mithras?

Mithras' mother was a virgin, he had 12 special followers, he had to die for the good of everyone else and came back to life 3 days later.

it's trying to make him fit with the old testament and that's problematic, which does suggest that he's not entirely a creation.

That's not a great argument for his existence if I'm honest. You also have to remember that the stories were written by lots of different people at lots of different times, and like you say, they are trying to fit with the OT. They're also trying to convey various messages. There's plenty of ways he can be fictional and still carry the ambiguity.

There aren't many scholars that deny his existence

Not true. There's actually a complete lack of physical evidence that Jesus existed. No contemporary Roman records of execution, no carpentry work, no artifacts, no self-written manuscripts. In fact any scholar who thinks that he did exist is doing so on belief rather than evidence.