Tablet May Reveal Christian Story As Unoriginal

[Travis Clementsmith]

Though not confirmed, there is a Jewish tablet currently dated first century BCE, that describes the idea of a dying/resurrecting Messiah before the advent of Christianity. If this is true, it is strong evidence that the concept was not unknown to Jews before Jesus supposedly walked the earth.

Truth Be Known News | Blog of Acharya S: Ancient Tablet Evidence of Jesus Myth?

[Eolas Pellor]

I posted this story a couple of days ago

[Travis Clementsmith]

My apologies, didn't notice it there!

-TC

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by Travis Clementsmith

My apologies, didn't notice it there!

-TC

Still, it's good that both of you thought to bring the story to our attention. Don't stop being the bearers of interesting news and views, either of you!

[sendy47]

I thank you both...i missed it the first time around...

[arthra]

I've long suspected that the ceremonial and mythic part of Christianity was added later to accomodate new believers with pagan backgrounds.

This doesn't mean though that there was not a historical Jesus these myths were built around...I kind of go along with John Dominic Crossan on this.

- Art

[Travis Clementsmith]

Originally Posted by arthra

I've long suspected that the ceremonial and mythic part of Christianity was added later to accomodate new believers with pagan backgrounds.

- Art

I don't quite follow. The significance of this find, if deemed authentic, is that it constitutes primary source material that the idea of a dying/resurrecting messiah existed in some Jewish sects before Christ. If the motif was already there in both Pagan and Jewish thought, what need is there of an historical person? What part of the Gospels is even compelling enough to posit the idea? In other words, if we still hold out some hope for an historical Jesus, there's a good chance the Gospels have absolutely nothing to do with him other than a name from a location, and a very common name at that. We have nothing to distinguish this person without the dying/resurrecting motif, thus making the Jesus of the Gospels mythic, through and through. Could there have been a strong and noble warrior named Herakles. Sure. But, without any of the stories that make the famous version memorable, why would we? Heracles is known for his labors, Jesus for his victory over death on the cross. Without them, its a description of anybody, and an anybody is a nobody.

-TC

[evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think it's impossible that a historical young "rabbi" named (possibly) Jeshua preached around Judea at some point around the early first century. There were lots of them, in fact, and many of their names were probably reasonably well-known among some of the populace.

That there were also "mystery" religions abounding around the Mediterranean is also no secret, and those mysteries, before Christ, involved some of the same ideas as the story that the Gospel writers later put together. Again, no surprise.

The Gospel writers themselves, especially Mark, the first and simplest, were at no great pains to write history. Elaine Pagels says, in her book "The Origin of Satan,"

"But historical accuracy may not have been the gospel writers' first consideration. Further analysis demonstrated how passages from the prophetic writings and the psalms of the Hebrew Bible were woven into the gospel narratives. Barnabas Lindars and others suggested that Christian writers often expanded biblical passages into whole episodes that "proved," to the satisfaction of many believers, that events predicted by the prophets found their fulfillment in Jesus' coming.

So really, why would we not expect the same of other important mythological or theological ideas abounding around the same time?

[Amergin]

Originally Posted by Travis Clementsmith

The significance of this find, if deemed authentic, is that it constitutes primary source material that the idea of a dying/resurrecting messiah existed in some Jewish sects before Christ. If the motif was already there in both Pagan and Jewish thought, what need is there of an historical person?

The Virgin born god-man hero saviour who was slain and resurrected is very common in the Pagan or Non-Semitic religions. An offshoot of Zoroastrianism was Mithraism. The God the Father, Ahura Mazda (Ormuzd) impregnated a human virgin to produce his son, Mithra, who is the Sun God. The Mithraic Trinity consisted of a Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Ahura Mazda, Mithra, and Spenta Maingu.) Mithra is slain, but resurrected to bring salvation to the world. Mithraism first invented the idea of "grace," the ritual cannibalism of the divine redeemer (Eucharist), baptism, and being born again. Mithraic Eucharistic Communion of ritual eating of Mithra was originally the blood and/or flesh of a bull. Later they economised by making Mithra into a piece of bread cooked into a Solar Disc of Mithra.

Christianity over 3 centuries adopted the virgin born man-god who died and resurrected, baptism, eucharistic meal (ritual cannibalism of the god), a Holy Spirit in the Trinity, from several Pagan religions. Mithraism and Celtic Paganism had a Father God (Ahura Mazda) or Celtic Father God (Aed Alainn or Dagda) who impregnated a human virgin to produce the Son God (Mithra for Persia and Lugh/Lieu for the Celts) who is slain and resurrected. I am sure that those were not the only Pagan religions with the favoured virgin born god-man who dies and resurrects. Kersey Graves estimates that there were 16 of them.

Originally Posted by Travis Clementsmith

What part of the Gospels is even compelling enough to posit the idea? In other words, if we still hold out some hope for an historical Jesus, there's a good chance the Gospels have absolutely nothing to do with him other than a name from a location, and a very common name at that. We have nothing to distinguish this person without the dying/resurrecting motif, thus making the Jesus of the Gospels mythic, through and through. Could there have been a strong and noble warrior named Herakles. Sure. But, without any of the stories that make the famous version memorable, why would we? Heracles is known for his labors, Jesus for his victory over death on the cross. Without them, its a description of anybody, and an anybody is a nobody.

-TC

I propose that Paul started Christianity but did not have all of the Pagan Myth clearly absorbed. Paul clearly admits that Jesus is a secondary god or messiah who is subservient to God the Father, and who brings the words of God and not himself (Jesus). I think that the Gospel writers were Greek citizens of the Roman Empire perhaps former Jews who when they wrote the Gospel Stories consciously or subconsciously applied the core theme of Mithraism. It may not have been deliberate plagiarism but simply a cultural blending that over a few generations was truly believed to apply to those of one of the 9 Jesus cults.

I don't know if Jesus was a historical Palestinian Jew or not. I think he likely did exist but his actual biography has been long lost in the fantasy story. Perhaps he was the Yeshua ben Pandira or ben Pacheria son of Miriam of Magdala who practiced sorcery which he learned in Egypt more than a century before the mythical Jesus. Yeshua ben Pacheria was tried by the Jewish religious authorities during the independence of the Maccabee Israel. He was convicted and stoned to death, then he was hung on a tree as a warning to all would be sorcerers. I find that story from the Talmud to be compelling as the real human who inspired the Jesus Myth.

This is the Movie story that Mel Gibson led the Scottish Fight for Freedom but it was really a little known (little known outside Scotland) man named William Wallace was the man who inspired the movie with Mel Gibson fighting Edward I.

Unfortunately there is no convincing evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Realistically, such a man might well have left no evidence behind after a century or two. It is harder than finding fossils of a species, family, or order of animals. Finding one particular individual 2000 years old would be difficult. I don't know anything about my direct Grandfather X50 other than he likely lived somewhere in Scotland or possibly Northern Ireland. I know he definitely existed but if I wrote a book about him I would have to use a fictional name or get egotistical and say he was Cuchulainn.

Amergin

[Travis Clementsmith]

True enough, but we're not talking about "just anyone", are we? If the "historical" Jesus was anonymous, what sense does it even make to try and say "he was the one they built a myth around"? People don't make myths about anonymous people, they had to have done something worth noting. So the question becomes, what, that wasn't already a popular mythical motif preceding the time of Jesus, did this anonymous person do that was unprecedented? Nobody remembers the great man who quotes somebody else or copies what someone else did.

-TC