The Evolution From Osiris to Christ

Rory, Kurgan is right. Your claim that the Story of Jesus was not set in stone as proven by Iranues is simply not a Valid Argument.

Consider for a moment the diverse theories about other Historical Figures, such as Julius Caesar, or George Washington, or even Oliver Cromwell. In Cromwell’s case, little is known of him from his Early life, and some people report contradictory things about him. EG, some say he inherited a Farm in the west of Kent, others say this was actually a cousin of his. By your Logic this proves the Story of Oliver Cromwell was not set in Stone a mere 100 years after his death, and lends to the idea that he may never have existed at all.

There is disagreement as to when, exactly, Julius Caesar became a General in the Roman Military, so this discrepancy shows that, like Jesus, his life story was not set in Stone and he may never have lived.

Hell, we can dispute the exact time when Abraham Lincoln learned to read, and much of his early life before he became a Prominent Lawyer. Historical theories and speculation have always exited simply because our records are not complete. I can show you any number of books on the Crusades, the English Civil War, the American Revolutionary War, American Civil War, the Roman conquest of Gaul, or even the Bolshevik evolution or World War 2 that all contain contradicting Theories or assessments about key Historical events or figures. These Theories fill our gap of understanding into those men’s lives and try to explain something about them, either their personality or merely how they got form pint A to point B in their lives, and are usually based around existing evidence, but are not solidly known, and are thus presented to us as Theories if the Historian is Honest. Sometimes, those Theories go on to become the accepted Narrative, but sometimes been the accepted Narrative is overturned with further research. Take the Crusades for instance. The negative image we have of them, and especially the blame we lay at the feet of Christians as clearly being in the wring, came about as the result of Propaganda, first form Protestants who needed to depict the Catholic Church as Bloodthirsty and corrupt to justify their own revolution against it, and later by the Enlightenment thinkers who needed to demonise all of Christendom to justify their desire to overthrow it.

Later, a Man named Runciman wrote what at the time was seen as the Definitive work on the History of the Crusades, but he had largely accepted the Criticisms of the Crusades, and approached it from an Orthodox and Eastern view. He obviously Favoured the Byzantine perspective, which was just as Christian, but which many westerners seem to overlook. (Many on these websites think all Christians participated in or supported the Crusades for instance, ignoring the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Churches didn’t fight them at all, and at one point were the victims of a Crusader Sack of Constantinople.)

Runcimans narrative depicts the Crusades as being maintained largely to enrich the nobility of Europe by increasing their land holdings and opening up the East to Trade, and for them to loot the Treasures of Palestine. Runciman saw the Spiritual Motivation for the Crusades as nothing but an excuse used to justify the actions o the Crusader leaders, and as Propaganda used to recruit new Knights to fight. To Runciman, it was all about increasing the Wealth and Prestige of the European Nobility by creating the Crusader Kingdoms of rule over. This Narrative was once prominent in Academia, and was the accepted story for the most part in most other Histories, and is still rather commonly believed, even influencing the movie “Kingdom of Heaven”. However, this narrative is no longer held by Academics, who, upon further research, have concluded that Runciman was mistaken in his assessment. Crusading as an expensive endeavour and often the Nobles who financed campaigns went broke,. Worse, they knew they would go broke, and never expected more money out of it. Also, this narrative rests on the assumption that Muslims had given up expansionism into Europe, and the threat of them taking over was minimal, but blown out of proportion by the Church. It wasn’t, they really were expanding ad planning on conquering Constantinople. This was a feat they finally accomplished in 1453 AD.

Sauruman the Great even wanted to invade Rome herself.



Today’s Academics see the Crusades as mainly a defensive war in which the Christians of the Western Catholic Church sought to preserve their way of life and to ensure the Freedom of Passage into the Holy Land for Christian Pilgrims. While atrocities did occur over the 800 year History of the Crusades, they are not the sole defining aspect of them nor were they motivated out of hatred, greed, or ambition as Runciman had proposed, or as is used often today in Criticisms of Christendom.

What does nay of this have to do with Jesus and whether he existed or not? Simple, your following the same pattern. It’s also a pattern I see when I try to explain the Loyalist perspective to Americans in regards to their Revolutionary War. Americans have so much fondness for the mythic version f the American Revolution, of noble Founding Fathers, all of one mind, standing together on common and universally agreed upon principles to overthrow an evil and tyrannical Kings stranglehold on the Colonies that the real History is seen as a vile lie. EG, not all of Americas Founders believed in Republicanism, King George was not really a Tyrant, and American Colonists were really not overtaxed. In fact, in many ways the American Revolution was an unjustified act of Rebellion against Lawful Authority, made by people who paid lower Taxes than the motherland and who were on average richer, but who complains because they wanted the Empire to not tax them to provide their own defence and to pay off a debt they had incurred.

When out that way, and when we consider that many of Americas Founders did not like each other, often disagreed, and also often had personal motivations for wanting Intemperance that included personal enrichment, the whole affair becomes less Noble and less obviously a story of good guys VS Bad guys.

To support this, Americans, or those who want to defame Christianity by using the Crusades, do the same thing you do, or that GodALmighty does, they selectively look at the evidence and believe whatever fits into their predetermined desires and prejudices.

But at the same time, you ignore the fact that much of your evidence only works if we don’t look at how things work in the real world.

When you say Iranues proves that the life of Jesus was not set in stone because he said Jesus lived to be in his 40’s, you act as if this shows the Story of Jesus was flexable, and pretend that if Jesus’ life had been real and agreed upon, then all fact would be known and no room or theories would exist, but this isn’t even True of men who lived less than 50 years ago. People create theories about real people all the time. Hell, today there’s a conspiracy Theory that says Barrack Obama was not born in the United States, but in Kenya, and is thus not eligible to serve as President of the United States. Some people speculate on the Early life of Abraham Lincoln, or George Washington. Some people think that perhaps Adolph Hitler survived an attack in WW1 by hiding in a barn, but no one can confirm this, so it just remains a plausible theory. You can name any number of Historical theories about people who are nonetheless not questioned to have been real people, and the overall structure of their biographies remain the me. I mean, really what changes in Jesus’ Life Story that comes to us from the Gospels is significantly different if we imagine Jesus starting his Ministry at age 42 and dying at age 45? Luke says that Jesus was “About 30” when he started, but Iranius defenders may say that is was not he beginning of his proper three year ministry, or lese he did not die at the end of that ministry but settled down for a few years. I don’t buy this myself, but my point is that Iraneus’s theory doesn’t really contradict the Gospels accepted of Jesus, the life story is the same and all the details agreed upon. Your theory is that beaus there is disagreement in this or that aspect of an unknown or as yet unsupported fact and speculation exists regarding those missing portions, such as the much talked about missing years of Jesus, that this means his life story wasn’t set in stone, and lends credence to the Jesus Myth proposition. But it doesn’t lend credence to anyone else being a Myth, why should it with Jesus unless you simply want it to?


Now, this is my official lass post on IMDb for the week. I will be back to handle other objections you made later.