The Christ as a Roman Myth
by
Dennis "Nazgno"
Tackett
In the 1800's Scholars and wanna-bes descended upon the knowledge of
other Christ "saviors" of previous cultures. In their haste
to prove that the Jesus story was indeed a copy of past ancient savior
myths, they began to form the other myths around that of the Romanized
Christ. As an example Mithras was not born of a virgin nor on December
25th. Horus was not born of a virgin nor is it proved that he was born
on Dec.25th as many tried to claim. This has done a great disservice
to efforts to establish the true knowledge of the Ancients. More modern
misconceptions have become "fact" while the original ancient
writings are ignored.
It is not a word for word or event for event comparison that is
to determine the actual validity of any one claim of similarities among
these myths. We accept the multitude of other God/Men as just that,
myths. We accept that Horus was a myth, as was Mithras,Glycon, Dionysus
and Opheus. So how did the ancient forge their myths? The Ancients had
ideas concerning the characteristics that a God/man would have. They
revealed or created their Gods according to that formula.. When a new
god/man was created as a part of a new myth it was a new god/man based
upon old ideas or concepts. So the ideas stayed steady as the names
and details of the stories changed from one god/man to the next.
Proto-Christian scholars and clergy have long employed a tool known
as "If not all then none" This really means that if any facet
of the previous myth is not as such in the Christ story, then the Christ
story was not copied but is an original. It works for them except that
it is a fallacy of reasoning. Copyright infringements are usually brought
for small sections of stolen materials, not entire stories. In other
words no two myths are exactly a like and this in itself does not prove
copying of ideas and concepts did not happen.
If we begin to drop the illusion of the earlier "scholarly"
efforts to expose the "16 saviors" and return to original
text we can forget the blow by blow descriptions and focus on the important
concepts and ideas that are shared. If these God/men myths were created
based upon certain characteristics, properties and principles, we should
be able to isolate these and make a good comparison of the Roman Christ
myth to see if it shares these also.
We need to set a criteria of inclusion which encompasses a large percentage
of repetitions in various myths to merit inclusion. By doing this we
can gain a consistent idea of the characteristics and properties of
the Pagan or ancients god/men. Therefore these are listed somewhat in
an order of occurrences in all other myths. Also those that apply to
the Roman Christ myth will be noted as such.
1) Came from Heaven Roman Christ (yes)
2) borned via a mystical birth- (yes)
3) God as father, mortal as mother. (Yes)
4) Son of God. (Yes)
5) In fulfillment of prophesy. (Yes)
6) Proclaimed by God in divine sent dreams. (Yes)
7) Performed miracles. (Yes)
8) Brought Salvation. (Yes)
9)Suffered and died. (Yes)
10) Came back to life. (Yes)
11) Asscended to heaven. (Yes)
12) Had disciples. (Yes)
13) Raised the dead. (Yes)
Not all myths share every detail. Like all soft drinks don't share
the same ingredients yet all are known as soft drinks. Jesus was a new
Pagan god/man built on the understanding of those of that time which
were heavily influenced by the concepts and properties of the god/men
and religion of the ancient pagans. Jesus was a god/man of his time
and place. A fabrication of a pagan god/man of Roman flavor. It is hard
to deny this if one looks solely at the similartities for that which
they are, as written historically recorded concepts.
This is not to say that Christ did not exist. It is to say that
anyway you cut it, the similarities of his story and the Pagan myths
are remarkable. We have a double standard in that we accept everyone
elses story as a myth. Yet, when it comes to Jesus it is not a myth,
it is historical fact.
|