Kosh

I think you missed the gist of his claims.

From what I can gather (it would be easier if
he just came right out and said it!) he's arguing
that the *historical* Jesus was Tutankamen,
and then supporting Doherty's mythical Jesus
theory, based on a memory of Tut.

nerv111

It is clear that there are connections between Christian myths and Egyptian one; in fact the story of Heru (Greek: Horus) and his mother Aset (Greek: Isis), parallels that of Jesus and his birth. But I’m still skeptical about a direct link between Tutankhamen and the mythical Jesus. The connection between Akhenaton and Moses is a bit more clear; personally I believe the story of the exodus was based on the Hittite occupation and expulsion from Egypt at the end of the Second Intermediate Period.

Tomije

Thank you, but I don't think I missed a thing. The "historical Jesus" lived between 2 BCE and 33 CE. Tutankhamen lived a full 1300 years before that. To say the connection makes no sense is generous. But let's say it does make sense...

so this is just an argument that the mythology of Jesus parallels earlier, Pagan myth?

Well, of course. But time is still an issue. clearly, Jesus wasn't actually Tut, or Mithras, as both clearly predate him.

So the argument that early Christians stole pagan identities and holidays is totally valid. Suggesting that Jesus was actually any of these folks is not.

Romans were worshipping these folks way before Pontius Pilate was born.

Comparing Moses to old Pharoahs is easy, as one can use the lack of evidence to prove it. Egyptians were infamous for erasing the record of previous Pharoahs who displeased them. So the very fact there is no reference to Moses proves the point. But there is no reference of Jews at all in Egyptian records.

I'm sorry, but this whole thing should be filed under "Reaching".

The Romans (who next to the Nazis, were the most efficient recorders of murder, ever) have no record of Jesus of Nazareth. Now I'm supposed to believe that the Egyptian King line was tied to the Christian mythology? What proof of that is out there?

Panta Pei

ISis RA ELohim

...any conspiracy theories

boneyard bill

If you reject the Biblical Jesus and its apparent time line, there are any number candidates who could have been the Jesus worshipped by first century Christians. But this theory has Joshua dead before most of the achievements he is celebrate for.

RyanS2

Well, I really don't know who the early Christians worshipped. Let's look at two expert Christian commentators for details:

Minucius Felix:

Chapter XXIX.-Argument: Nor is It More True that a Man Fastened to a Cross on Account of His Crimes is Worshipped by Christians, for They Believe Not Only that He Was Innocent, But with Reason that He Was God. But, on the Other Hand, the Heathens Invoke the Divine Powers of Kings Raised into Gods by Themselves; They Pray to Images, and Beseech Their Genii.

"These, and such as these infamous things, we are not at liberty even to hear; it is even disgraceful with any more words to defend ourselves from such charges. For you pretend that those things are done by chaste and modest persons, which we should not believe to be done at all, unless you proved that they were true concerning yourselves. For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God... Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it..."

De carne Christi
(On the flesh of Christ) Tertullion:

Chapter 5:

"The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed just because men feel ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible."

So, who were these early Christians worshipping? Eusebius talks about seeing Christian sun-worshippers, Tertullion and Minucius Felix tell us that:

Jesus was not born through Mary
Jesus was not crucified
Jesus did not have the head of an ass

I think the original Jesus was an ass-headed God. After all, it's the earliest picture we have of Jesus.

Kosh

Nope, you're still not geting it. This guy is
claiming that Tut was the historical Jesus.
He's claiming that there WAS NO historical Jesus
2000 years ago. In order to suscribe to this,
you have to believe (as Doherty does) that the
Jesus of popular belief is a myth that grew out
of mis-understanding. That people eventually got
confused about the myth and believed there was
an actual person 2000 years ago. He believes
that the myth was based in a historical figure
who was Tutankhamen, and the rest was distortion.

In order to follow this guy's argument, you
need to get past the belief that there was
a *historical* Jesus 2000 years ago.

I don't claim this makes any sense, but this is
what the guy is saying. If you're not familiar
with the Jesus myth arguments, follow this link:

<a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus.html" target="_blank">http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus.html</a>

RyanS2

I'd also recommend Robert Price's works, available on this website:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/index.shtml</a>

Earl Doherty's "teacher", that's a bit of a misnomer but it'll do, H.G. Wells is also on this website.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/index.shtml</a>

Haran

Most of the early church fathers spoke against the heresies of their day. In doing so, they passed on as pure a tradition of Christianity as possible.

He also mentions the various names of the earliest heretics and describes the heresies that descended from them. He seems to believe that the church had been successful in detecting and speaking against false teachers.

Where did you get this from? A polemical book? I believe the above is just plain false with the exception of the last statement. Perhaps you misread. The translations of the early church fathers are notoriously difficult to understand.

Tertullian mentions something that sounds very much like this picture.

Apparently, Christian's still must fight against these misconceptions and heresies...

Haran

NOGO

This is off-topic but it reminds me of an arguement I had with a believer about the Romans.
Trying to compare Romans to the Nazis is rather strange. This is from memory...

An arguement occurred between Paul and some other Jews. They were going to murder him. The Romans intervened which effectively saved Paul's life. He was later going to be punished for disturbing the peace. He then told the centurion that he was a Roman citizen. He was immediately released.

What we see here is two fold.
The power of Roman law. No equivalent existed in Israel at the time.
The rights of a citizen even one who became citizen rather than having been born one.

Powerful stuff if you ask me.

Frankly, I still don't get it.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>