My Review of "Bible Myths and Their Parallels In Other Religions" by T.W. Doane

Yes, and the the original composition of the epic of Gilgamesh is much older than the 700 BCE Babylonian edition I referred to. A lot older: from around 2500 BCE.

But it was the fact that there was a Babylonian edition around the time of the Babylonian Captivity that was interesting. If, say, we had a Gilgamesh from a thousand years earlier but no Babylonian version, there'd be no really plausible link to the Hebrews.

Doane has several chapters which deal with similarities between Babylonian mythology and the Bible.

I don't know if you're trying to deliberately make sport of Dayton, or if you're just horribly confused, but earliest that any Meso-Americans had anything even closely related to Quezalcoatl was somewhere between 100 B.C. and 100 A.D.

Also, there is not a SINGLE piece of Pre-Columbian evidence that Quetzalcoatl had any similarities to Jesus whatsoever. In fact, it was the CATHOLIC MISSIONARIES who tried to portray Quetzalcoatl as a "type" of Jesus to aid in the conversion of the Natives.

The pieces I've read about Quetzalcoatl all date the first mentions of him to around 600 BC, but even if we go for your date, that still pre-dates Christianity by 100 years.

So, you're saying those pre-Columbian artifacts which state that the Big Q was born of a virgin, preached, was crucified, and then rose from the dead are entirely different than what happened to Jesus?

OR Post-Dates him by 100 years. I didn't say "100 B.C.". I said, "100 B.C. to 100 A.D.". That means, no one knows where, but somewhere in that 200 year span. Which is actually irrelevant because...

I'm saying that not one of those Pre-Columbian artifacts say any bloody thing of the sort. All of the sources. ALL of the sources, I repeat ALL of the sources without exception that give Quetzalcoatl any attributes that parallel Jesus are secondary sources. EUROPEAN sources.

Modern scholarship (secular and religious alike) do not give any credence at all to the idea that Quetz. is similar to Jesus. It's simply not true.

From the suppressed gospel, the Book of Meshugganah:

I think we all know the real answer here, we're just afraid to admit it.

Was this before or after Jesus and his wife and kids retired to India, or Kazakhstan, or Great Britain, or wherever it is the kooks claim that married Jesus went to?

Either way, it still leaves a figure who has a life nearly identical to that of Jesus (and a number of other godlike figures who were said to have born of virgins) appearing in a culture which had no contact with those on the opposite side of the planet.

So, you're saying that the fact that Quetzalcoatl being born of a virgin is nothing like Jesus being born of a virgin? Of course, there are a number of different versions of the Quetzalcoatl myth, with some of them having him not being born of a virgin. There are also differing accounts of the birth of Jesus, not merely apocryphal ones, but the accounts in the Bible differ as well. One has him being born in a cave, and another has him being born in a stable. Even Mary's virginity is debated since the term used in the New Testament could simply mean "young woman" and have nothing to do with her being a virgin.

Duh. Shows what you know. You think that Jesus was some kind of commoner or something? They went to the south of France (and then somehow became the Merovingian dynasty or something).

Did Quetzalcoatl say anything about cheese-making?

Props to @Dayton3 for reading it, although by the sounds of it he was either unable to grasp the concepts involved, or made no effort to.

Assuming he made it all the way through. It's some 600 pages of very dense text, acres of footnotes, and rather archaic spelling. It's a tough slog for most people.

Where is that in the Bible?

If you believe Justin Martyr, Isaiah 33:15-16. But that's the OT, so it doesn't count, except when it does.

I went to your link. Even that doesn't say Jesus would be born in a cave.

Belief has nothing to do with scientific historical assessment. And while the Book of Mormon is clearly bullshit right out of Joseph Smith's ass, the Bible is not. Peel away the layers and you've got a collection of even older stories; maybe even written down for the first time. It's rather fascinating even if you don't believe it's divine or something.

Quetzalcoatl was not believed by Mesoamerican peoples to be born of a virgin.

The only accounts of a virgin birth for Quetzalcoatl come from Catholic missionaries that wanted to equate Q. with Jesus to more easily convert the Aztecs.

There are no differing accounts of Jesus' birth in the Bible, and certainly nothing in the Bible about Jesus being born in a cave. The Protoevangelium of James claims that Jesus was born in a cave, but the Protoevangelium of James was never given much consideration by Christians as an "authentic work" at any time in the history of the Church.

The word used in the New Testament is "parthenos", which unambiguously means "virgin". You are confusing the New Testament Greek with the Old Testament Hebrew. In the OT Hebrew, the word that is translated as "parthenos" in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) and as "virgin" in the English OT is "almah", and that can mean ANYTHING from "young unmarried woman" to "teenage girl" to "virgin".

The New Testament, however, is unambiguously clear about the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

There is no birth narrative in the Gospel of Mark, and Jesus's origins are a little more cosmic in the Gospel of John, but the Gospels of Matthew and Luke make it unambiguous that Mary is a virgin. It isn't the matter of translation of a single word.

The point of contention on the translation of the word is in the Hebrew prophecy that Jesus is said to be the fulfillment of. But even if the word in that prophecy means only "young girl," it doesn't change that the story presents Mary herself as a virgin.

Right. The title of the piece is: Did You Know that Jesus Was Born in a Cave? It's right there in the URL, not to mention this statement

Yeah, right.

Okay, cite pre-Christian sources to back this assertation up. We do have lots of pre-Columbian carvings which have survived, so you should be able to document this.

You calling Justin Martyr a liar?

Given that a number of Biblical scholars disagree with you, I'm going to have to see something of substance on your part for that. Then, we also have the issue that if there was a Jesus, the people around him would have spoken Aramaic not Greek, but the earliest copies of the NT we have are written in Greek, so we have to deal with ambiguities of imperfect translations, as well as distortions that would have occurred with copying of manuscripts, since we don't have anything that even dates to within around 100 years of when Christ is said to have lived.

I'm saying the article in your link refers to a piece of Old Testament prophecy.

Yet even in that verse it DOES NOT SAY that "Jesus was born in a cave".

The verse simply never says that. How can you take that article seriously if it makes such an obvious, simple yet critical error.

Frankly, there's not a lot of good in anything that Mr. Tuckerfan has presented. So at this point it's just casting pearls before swine.

I freely admit that Christians should study books like the one mentioned here more thoroughly and be able to defend their beliefs better.

More knowledge is a good thing.

The Bible also says that bats are birds, and rabbits chew their cuds, Jesus curses a fig tree for failing to produce fruit out of season, and while Jesus never says a single word about gays, Paul, or abortion, people have no trouble saying that he's opposed to gays and abortion, and that Paul was his messenger on Earth. That is just a brief sampling of Biblical absurdities, and yet you're upset over an interpretation of a verse made by a Christian Father that many people subscribe to because it doesn't explicitly say something. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say that Paul preaches the true word of God. You have Paul claiming that Jesus told him this, but that kind of falls flat since Paul never met Jesus, and none of the gospels supposedly (but not really) written by Jesus' disciples mention anything about it.

Give me a source which says that the virgin birth myths of Quetzalcoatl are made up by the Catholic Church, and I'll read it. It is entirely possible that this is correct, as the Catholic Church was more than happy to co-opt local myths and transfigure them to fit their own prejudices. The "black Madonnas" all over Europe are most assuredly not representations of the Virgin Mary, but pre-Christian idols who have been co-opted by the Catholic Church. There's lots of documentation to support this, so if what you're saying is true (and it might well be), there should be documentation to back it up. Show it to me. Give me a link, I'll read it, and then we'll talk. Until then, don't expect me to take your word for it, since in contradicts everything I've read by a number of different authors on the subject. (Who might well be wrong, as they're working from a certain bias.)

Although it's often a dangerous thing for organized religion.

The quickest route to atheism is, for many people, actually reading the Bible.

Christ, why even bother arguing with Dayton. Obviously he does not have an open mind on the matter, and will categorically reject any evidence against the validity of Christian mythology.

Pauls claims and credentials were reviewed by the apostles who were alive at that time in Jerusalem (and who had in fact met Jesus and were chosen directly from him and been granted great powers by God) and they accepted him (Paul).

As for "bats are birds" and "rabbits chew their cuds". Not intended to be scientifically accurate. Simple observational. Like referring to the sun rising. Not accurate but locally observable.

As if virgin birth is a Christian thing... I think the Egyptians had them beat by a few millennia. Even the iconography is identical. Introducing Horus and his mother, Isis:



The Chinese had their mythological virgin births as well as the Greeks (Perseus) long before Christianity was around.

And what's the problem? The early Christians learned from the best when it came to incorporating older traditions. The Romans had been at it for a good 240 years already before Jesus was even born. Letting the conquered keep their gods was essential to keeping the empire together for hundreds of years. Worked for Christianity too. Pretty much every Christian holiday can be traced back to older ones too. Everyone did it. It's inevitable when people mix, reach out, meet others. The Christians obviously did it best

@Dayton3

Dafuq? Peter as The Flash, Judas as Loki and Simon as Captain America?