Jan 14, 2008

Is Jesus Christ a Fairy Tale?
















I am a Roman Catholic. I have been a Roman Catholic before I could even say, "Dumb-ass".
I was baptized three months after I was born; so you could definitely say I had no choice on the matter.

I studied in a Roman Catholic School for 12 years.
By the time, I got out of that school, I was definitely a hard-core Roman Catholic.
And if that 12 years weren't enough, my parents made sure that I see all other religion as false and Roman Catholic doctrine as the absolute truth.

I am still a Catholic but I do not just accept teachings like a 3-year-old would. I do not jump hoops because the Pope said so. I question.
Unfortunately, with those questions came answers that I would have preferred to have not known.
As a form of compromise, I just go with the "So, who made all these things if there was no God?" theory.
It still works for me.
And you could say I really believe God exists. I do not have to ask proof to believe. I know he does. In times when my life was most silent or tumultuous, He was there.

Along with God comes my belief in Jesus Christ. After reading this forum though, my beliefs were slightly shaken.

Especially after reading Kathryn's post.
"Actually, no. There is NO historical proof that Jesus existed. The authors of The Bible (No. God did not write it!) were among the world’s first plagiarists, borrowing from myths older than themselves to create the mythical figure they called Jesus Christ.

Almost all the events of the supposed life of Jesus appear in the lives of other mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Nearly all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Christ’s supposed utterances and wise statements are equally commonplace, being variously stolen from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.


Here are five fictional gods who served as the basis for the mythical Jesus Christ:


Three thousand years before the Alleged Christ, there was the mythical Egyptian savior known as Horus. He was born of a virgin on December 25 in a manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men. At 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized in the river Jordan by "John the Baptist". He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses.” He performed miracles. Horus walked on water. He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount". He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected. - He was also described at the time as the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God's Anointed Son," "the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc. - He was "the Fisherman" and was associated with the Fish. - Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One." - Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."


Next, just twelve hundred years before the alleged Christ, there was the mythical Greek god named Attis. Attis was born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. His priests were "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven." He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On "Black Friday," he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25 (the same day later claimed for Jesus) and called the "Most High God."

Also twelve hundred years before the alleged Christ, there was the mythical Persian god, Mithra.
Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts. He had 12 companions or disciples. He performed miracles. Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. His resurrection was celebrated every year. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ. His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

Then, just nine hundred years before the alleged Christ, there was Krishna in India.
Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") on December 25. His earthly father was a carpenter. He died around the age of 30 on a tree, crucified between two thieves. He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He was deemed the "Son of God" and "our Lord and Savior," who came to earth to die for man's salvation. One more. Just five centuries before the alleged Christ, there was Dionysus, a Greek god. Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was considered the "Only Begotten Son," Savior," “Redeemer," "Sin Bearer," Anointed One."

And, of course, we all know the story of Jesus Christ because we just read it FIVE times.
The earliest defenders of an earthly flesh and blood historical Jesus came along in the 2nd century, and even at that time none of them was able to provide proof for the existence of Jesus, instead they relied on theological reasoning and scriptures to support their claims, eventually winning out through political force, not the validity of their claims."
I didn't know all these. It would really make you wonder if the foundation of the Catholic Faith is entirely questionable. This is like Da Vinci Code for me all OVER again.




4 Gorgeous People Said --:

RBarryYoung said...

Tinggay, when somebody tells you something, especially on the Internet, that may shake the foundation of your beliefs, you should always ask them to provide credible references for their claims. The problem with the Internet is that anyone can say anything.

And the problem with Kathryn's claims is that they are about 80% incorrect. There is way too much for me to respond to so I will just deal with the simplest, the claim that all of these Mythical deities were born on December 25th.

* * *
Here are the problems with this:

1) "December" is a month in the Gregorian and Julian calendars. There is no such month in the Egyptian, Jewish, ancient Hindu or any other calendar. Thus, 4 of the 5 gods cited could NOT have been "born" on December 25th because there was no such date!

2) The 5th god cited (Mithras) did have his birth celebrated on Dec 25th in ancient Rome from the 1st through 4th centuries AD. Thus Christians could not have copied Christ's birth story from Mithras because Christ's birth preceded it.

3) The date that the naysayers are actually alluding to is the Winter Solstice. And as you might imagine almost every Sun god and goddess of agriculture or fertility both "died" and was re-"born" on the Winter Solstice.

4) So why was Jesus born on the same day? Simple, he wasn't. Nor has any Church ever claimed that he was. The fact is that we don't know when Christ was born, though the Bible does indicate that it was in the spring, NOT the winter. Dec 25th is just when we *Celebrate* Christ's birth. It is likely that this date was chosen intentionally to supplant the festivals of those mythical gods.
* * *

And I promise you that all of those other claims have just as many problems with them.

And you can confirm the facts I have cited at Wikipedia or in any good Encyclopedia.

Tinggay said...

hello barry,

Thank you for clarifying those things. My problem is that I am a believer of Christ, but for the life of me, I cannot defend my faith.

I just believe.

RBarryYoung said...

Tinggay:

You don't have to defend your Faith. That is why it is called "Faith". It is not Science or Law or Philosophy. Those are all good things that correctly require assertions to be defended. But Faith can NOT be proven and if it could be, it wouldn't be "Faith".

Likewise, it cannot be Disproven either. And you should therefore require that those who attack your faith must support and defend their claims with credible (authoritative) evidence. In argumentation (as in Law) there is something called "Presumption", which is the side of an argument that is presumed to be correct unless it can be disproven. This means that the other side has the "Burden" of making their case first. If the side with the Burden cannot make a convincing case first, then the side with the Presumption does NOT have to even defend itself.

The Law always defines where the Presumption and the Burden lies in a legal case, but in the matter of your own Faith you decide this yourself and of course you should always give yourself the Presumption. Therefore whenever anyone attacks your Faith, you should always require that they defend their claims first. Require that they provide evidence of the proofs that they claim. And if they try to make you do the same, simply reply "My Faith does not have to have proof sufficient for YOU, it only has to satisfy ME, and it does."

Tinggay said...

That's brilliant.
I cannot say anything more.
Are you a lawyer perhaps?
A writer?