theprof00 said:
Jesus is not in the Jewish texts. And don't be too sure about what people will believe. The Jews didn't exactly accept the Christians, as shown in the fall of Alexandria. Let's not forget that most Christian/catholic holidays also occur exactly on previous pagan holidays, and also let's not forget Jesus' similarity to previous religious leaders. Buddha: Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom. Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty–seven days and Jesus for forty. Both wandered to a fig tree at the conclusion of their fasts. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry: “When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self–possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince, determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great renunciation. At the time he was twenty–nine years of age… “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age.” (Luke 3:23). Both were tempted by the “devil” at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: “Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents.” To Jesus, he said: “All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me” (Matthew 4:9). Buddha answered the “devil”: “Get you away from me.” Jesus responded: “…begone, Satan!” (Matthew 4:10). Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic’s eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away. Jesus said: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;.” (Matthew 5:29). Krishna: Zarathustra: Attis of Phrygia: Horus:
Interesting how most of these come from areas that the Roman's occupied. |
Oh, yeah, the similarities to other religions are numerous and cataloged. In fact there are a number more than you pointed out. That's not the point.
The point is that for making a religion from scratch, Judiasm is the last one you would have picked. Judiasm was one of the few religions in the Roman empire which took itself seriously because it assumed it was a factual religion. Religions for the rest of the empire were much more pragmatic and relativistic. The Jews were much more historically aware and convinced of their past than other cultures, and if you doubt compare the Torah with Virgil's Aeneid. The Torah was a history text which literally included censuses. dictating their history. Comparatively speaking, the Roman "we're descended from the Trojans" story has almost no historical detail and just about everyone who read the Aeneid regarded it as revisionistic. History just wasn't culturally important to the Romans, and it wasn't that important for most of the people they conquered. The present was always what was on their minds.
And to compound all this, Judiasm and Jews in general were distinctly unpopular because of their holier-than-thou attitude. Again, religion which took itself seriously when everyone else didn't care.
Expecting me to believe Roman aristocrats fabricated Christianity is insane. Maybe a Jewish sect would have the knowledge and means (although motive is another matter) but Roman? How many Romans actually knew Judiasm well enough to fake it's EXTREME historophilia? When Israel was a tiny province filled with dime a dozen trouble makers? It just makes no sense.