The Virgin Birth? The following information is from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b.htm [ "The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century CE. In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin. Some Christian groups may have slightly modified this fable and adopted it as their own, in an attempt to show that Jesus was an person of very great importance. The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion. History records that: Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her. The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings. In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama. A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin. In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death. The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus." In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. Zoroaster was also born of a virgin. (Many common beliefs between what Zoroaster taught and Christian doctrines, Wayne) In India, the god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki. Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece. One source is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have: Been male. Lived in pre-Christian times. Had a god for a father. Human virgin for a mother. Had their birth announced by a heavenly display. Had their birth announced by celestial music. Been born about DEC-25. Had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant Met with a violent death. Rose again from the dead. Almost all were believed to have: Been visited by "wise men" during infancy. Fasted for 40 days as an adult." ] I found the orgin of the virgin birth myth to quite interesting. Most people do not care to find the origin of their beliefs and traditions. Religious beliefs systems promotes religious ethnocentrism and religious pride, which causes blindness to those that say, 'I already see!' In John 9:39 + 41 it writes, "For Jugment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those 'who see' may be made blind." --- "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, 'We see!' Therefore your sin remains." Religious ethnocentrism prevents individuals of a certain religious belief to love those of a different religious belief, for example the JWs, Mormons, Pentecostals, Catholics, and etc. Ethnocentrism is the same as group self-centeredness in which ethnocentric pride is manifested by believing that their group is the First. There are many such self-centered religious organizations within the Christian world that believe they are First over the others. What does the testimony of Jesus say about those that say, "We are proud to be First"?
God is mysterious, putting proof of a common ancestor for men and apes in our DNA, putting fossils in the ground indicating prehistoric life, putting decay rates for matter that indicate an extremely ancient Earth and now putting mythical stories in our midst that refute the truth about Christ. As much as He is given credit for there is no doubt that He likes to have fun at our expense.
Fascinating. I disagree with only a few things here as somethings were taken for granted. 1. The Birth of Jesus Christ is unknown. 2. Jesus death was not violent. It was an execution. (as opposed to be stoned) 3. There is a large difference between Ethnocentrism and Monotheism. They are not one and the same. From the Christian Perspective: It is not unsual or odd that there are similarities of some of these points. For example, Been male. Males are inheritors Lived in pre-Christian times. Not really relevent Had a god for a father. Pre dating the Flood the bible speaks about "Men of Fame" as human / Angel Hybrids. These individuals dominated and subjugated. They may have been the very origins of the Roman and Greek God's themselves. Their children would have considerable strenght. Human virgin for a mother. Indeed, not uncommon. Virginity is higly sought for males as a garauntee of exclusive ownership, it also is related with cleaness something which is a constant theme biblically. Had their birth announced by a heavenly display. Post Flood civilizations seemed to have been very preoccupied with celestial events. If the Global Deluge was indeed the cause of other-worldly or cosmic proportions it may be a point of apprehension. The biblical difference would be a sign of hope for mankind. Had their birth announced by celestial music. To my knowledge there was no music associated with the Birth of Jesus Christ Been born about DEC-25. The day of the winter soltice Date of the celebration The Encyclopedia Americana informs us: “The reason for establishing December 25 as Christmas is somewhat obscure, but it is usually held that the day was chosen to correspond to pagan festivals that took place around the time of the winter solstice, when the days begin to lengthen, to celebrate the ‘rebirth of the sun.’*.*.*. The Roman Saturnalia (a festival dedicated to Saturn, the god of agriculture, and to the renewed power of the sun), also took place at this time, and some Christmas customs are thought to be rooted in this ancient pagan celebration.”—(1977), Vol. 6, p. 666. M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia says: “The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of N[ew] T[estament] origin. The day of Christ’s birth cannot be ascertained from the N[ew] T[estament], or, indeed, from any other source.”—(New York, 1871), Vol. II, p. 276. Had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant Because in ancient times inheritance was only through the eldest male child, attempts on the lives of children of royalty makes it a very common method of revolution and rebelion. The Christian difference of course would be that Christ was not to become a King of Israel. His lineage through the Davidic Line was rather for annointed approval and prophetic recognition. Met with a violent death. Rose again from the dead. Scripturally resurrections were decidedly pre-chrisitian and not indicative of Christ. Elijah (I believe preformed a resurrection of a widow son) 970 years earlier. Those would be the fascinating aspects that would like to know more about. I'll certainly jump into the reaseach just as soon as I can. Otherwise this was most informative. If you do actually find any links between the biblical story of Christ and Other ancient tales I'm always intrested.
Did he not provide enough here? Christ is one in a long line of gods or prophets to share a number of similar traits. And dude, a crucifixion is violent. Being stoned would have been a walk in the park, comparatively speaking.
I read Ron Hubbard was born of a Virgin his father being the Great Xenu as dictated in a radio telepathic perfect message only Ron could hear....
It's true. I was there. Well, OK, I wasn't there, but Tom Cruise was, and he told me all about it. OK, it wasn't Tom, it was Katie, but don't tell Tom.
Prove? Decidedly not. Point out a string of similarities...Yes. At least he didn't make inappropriate speculations. Such as... Because the Babylonian origin theories were written before Genesis that it also means the Babylonian creation writings actually came first. A bit of a logic error I've heard on these forums. But even though battig1370's post was a bit of wishful thinking, it still informative. Always value the research. And...no too me the Death of Jesus was not violent to me. excruiating...Yes, but...acting with or marked by or resulting from great force or energy or emotional intensity; "a violent attack"; I would say OJ's victims were subjected to a true violent end.
It's true...if a "creation theory" predates another one ,then yes it did come first.What's so hard to grasp here? You're letting your bias for the ancient Hebrews interfere with true research. In other words if a group of ancient peoples or anyone for that matter claims to be "special" or "chosen"..this does bear close examination and the best thing to do is look into as much unbiased info on their claim and their history and definetely not just their version of history and events.
So the OP is saying there are too many similarities between all of these types of stories for Christ's story to be consider 'original' or 'special'?
The virgin birth myth of Jesus is a theology that most all Christians believe as historical fact. Does anyone know why?
If you believe the Bible to be historically accurate, then it only makes since that you would believe that the story of Jesus' birth, life, and death is a historical fact. It's all faith. As far as I can tell.
Which is why it had to be invented later. The problem with Jesus' virgin birth is that it removes him from the line of David, breaking another prophecy in the Old Testament. You can have one or the other, but most Christians try to have both. Doesn't work.
Ramming a load of thorns into someone's head before nailing their palms to a piece of wood, then leaving them hanging for a couple of days before taking them down to stab them is pretty violent. So stoning isn't a form of execution?
The crown of thorns wasn't apart of the execution. And not to nitpick but it is impossilbe to nail someone up by the palms. The nails would rip the flesh because of the weight of the body. It is far more likely Jesus was nailed through the wrist where the bones would anchor the nails And while the crucifixtion is torturous it still does not fit the definition of violent as in..marked by or resulting from great force or energy or emotional intensity; "a violent attack"; Stoning would require a great force or energy to propel a rock with enough force to cause death.
Most victims of crucificxion would also have their legs broken - this prevents them from being able to lift their torso to breathe (death by crucifixtion is most commonly through suffocation) - the roman version was preceeded by scourging - i.e.: beating and flogging. so your right - its not violent at all a deluded person says "what?"
Thats just an explanation for you, but it does not disprove the prophecy. Nope, he was a descendant of David. It was a custom for people to marry people they were related too. Both genealogies in the NT are traced to David. His son, Warrior61<><
Crucifixtioin does not include the placing a crown of thorn or flogging. Flogging is violent due to the force involved.
