Is there anything original in the Jesus story?

[MCWAY]

I didn't want to answer lists of points but I will (this once). Afterward perhaps we can go back to individual points (rather than McWay repeating all these points with his petty "na-ha"'s). 


...Once the godman has been revealed (or revealed himself to his disciples) as the "son of god" he is then usually represented as the constellation Orion (Osiris to the Egyptians, Hercules to the Greeks and Romans, Mithras to the Persians, Achilles to Macedonians and some older Greek traditions etc etc) for one pre-death chapter/story detailing his thirty third birthday... the first "son of god", Alexander the Great, died before his thirty fourth birthday, so the godman (or new "son of god") knows his time is short.

Problem is, once again, Osiris NEVER LEAVES the underworld. That's where he is when Isis does the wild thing with him (in falcon form).

This story usually has some obvious references to folklore regarding the Orion constellation. Most notably, Orion usually has a female sexual consort: either his sister or mother, in some stories one woman fills both roles in an incestuous reproductive cycle of birth and rebirth. In the Jesus story there is some hint of this... Jesus mother is named Mary (after Mary Isis, the wife/mother of Horus... or sometimes the wife/mother of Osiris), as is Jesus' wife/consort/concubine/sister figure Mary Magdalene.

Love the slashes. It's your feeble attempt to piece your claims together. There is no incestuous or sexual relationship involving Jesus Christ. Unlike Attis, Jesus doesn't lust after his own mama. Furthermore, (and I don't know how many times this has to be said) Mary Magdalene ain't Jesus' wife or sister or concubine.

Mary Magdalene has many astrological roles in the Jesus story.
As Jesus' clandestine thirteenth disciple she represents the hidden thirteenth zodiac symbol Ophiccus (spelling?), which is used in the Northern European barbarian/Gallic lunar calendar (28 days x 13 lunar months = 364 days). As the female reproductive cycle is also linked to the moon she likewise fulfills the role of the lunar representation as the godman's (Jesus) wife: always following Jesus, usually involved in nocturnal activities (prostitution?). Sun and moon continuously entwined.

You miss again. First, NOWHERE in Scripture is Mary Mags called a "disciple". Second the "13th disiciple", as it were, was Matthias, the guy that replaced Judas.

And, as mentioned before, Jesus wasn't married to Mary Mags and had no sexual relations with her, whatsoever. So, all that gibberish you just posted above here is quite moot.

Other than having a lunar-deity/wife the only interesting thing about Orion is that the constellations "foot" dips below the horizon just before Easter.

-The Aztecs/Incas/Mayans/Toltecs knew Orion as the constellation deity Tezcatlpoca, who loses his foot.
-Perseus (originally a solar deity dying/resurrecting godman) loses his sandal
-Achilles (originally a solar deity dying/resurrecting godman) is killed by an arrow to the heel

And??? None of that has a blessed thing to do with Jesus Christ. One, Jesus doesn't lose his foot or his sandal; nor is he shot in the foot. He was getting his feet washed. It's a TAD easier to do that, when you have your shoes OFF.

You (and/or the authors of the book from which you got this foolishness) are STRECTHING. Even by normal skeptic standards, this is pitiful.

Do we have a story in the canonical gospels in which Mary Magdalene does something involving Jesus' feet and which leads to Jesus revealing he may not be long for this world? Something that happens in the lead up to Easter?

It's called washing his feet. And, last time I checked, Jewish people removed their sandals, before entering someone's house.

Why does Jesus have his feet washed rather than being amputated? Because from Israel the Orion constellations "foot" is obscured by or dips into the sea rather than land/mountains... it's a matter of vantage point.

Yep, people prefer having their feet washed, WHILE THOSE FEET ARE STILL ATTACHED TO THEIR LEGS!!!

...Pilate was a bastard of the highest order. His crowd control methods amounted to indiscriminately hacking member of the the uproarious mob to pieces. First century Jews hated him and considered him a tyrant: a representative of the tyrannical Roman authority that persecuted Christians under Caligula and Nero.

The earliest copies of the Book of Revelations (written during Caligula's pogroms) refer to "the number of the Beast" being the number of a man, and that number being 661... if you write out Gaius Ceasar (Caligula was only his nickname) in Greek, but treat the letters as numerals and add up all the figures it comes to 661, this is known as Gemmatria code and was common practice among Jewish Kabbalist mystics.

Later, during the reign of Nero, this number was changed to 666... if you write out Ceasar Nero (as he was known) in Greek, but treat the letters as numerals and add up all the figures it comes to 666, using Gemmatria code. Claudius openly tolerated Christians and dismissed their refusal to swear allegiance to him, his number is not in any extant copy of Revelations.

Later this was redeemed after the reign of Constantine, when a Gospel according to Pontias Pilate was written portraying Pilate as a sympathetic Christian believer forced to order Christ's death in order to fulfill prophecy... similar to the predicament of a heroic Judas in the Gospel of Judas. But whereas the Judas Gospel is a deep metaphysical thesis on the dual nature of the soul as both corporeal and ethereal entity, the Pilate Gospel in just plain pandering to the Roman base.

You fundies should try reading it, it's provenance is just as good as any of the canonical gospels... and it's a laugh riot!

The problem with that spiel is that much of the prophecies, mentioned in Revelation DO NOT get fulfilled during Nero's time or that of Caesar. All the plagues that are to hit the Earth prior to the return of Christ don't happen during those time period. So, the "666" figure doesn't apply to either of those men.

...The solar deity version of Attis is NAILED TO A TREE (representing the constellation of The Southern Cross) and is castrated so he bleeds to death.

WRONG!!! Attis chops his own nuts off and bleeds to death (perhaps under a tree). That tree, or a log from another one, is used to carry off his ALREADY-DEAD body.

What you also conveniently forget was that crucifixion was one of Rome's preferred ways of executing people. That has NOTHING to do with Attis.

Osiris is indeed dismembered... cut into 72 pieces if I remember correctly (by the evil tyrant Sett) which is an important astrological number as the precession of the equinoxes backwards through the zodiac progresses (regresses?) by one degree every 72 years (actually now known to be 71.8 years). But it is the method of dismemberment that you forgot; he's quartered. Nailed up on a rack or tree and chopped into pieces which are then scattered to the four cardinal points: north, south, east and west... represented by the constellation of The Southern Cross.

Unfortunately for your take, Jesus wasn't dismembered AT ALL. In fact, that's part of the Messianic prophecies (His body would NOT be broken). When the Jews asked that the crucified victims be taken down off their crossed before the Sabbath, the guards break the legs of the thieves to speed up their death. But, they don't break Jesus' legs, because He was already dead. One skeptical guard stabs Him in the side, however, to ensure that He is deceased. But, there's no dismemberment involved, PERIOD.

...Most poor people are simply buried, and most would be burned in that climate (Jews are buried). Only the rich are placed in a tomb.


Isn't there a big deal made in the gospels about Jesus being placed specifically in a TOMB?

I suggest you brush up on your Bible reading. Joseph of Arimthea asked Pilate for custody of Jesus' body and placed it in his own tomb. As for it being a "big deal", that would likely be in relation to that tomb being sealed and guarded to ensure that the disciples didn't steal Jesus' body. The Pharisees feared that would happen and the disciples would claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

...I already answered this point: it's an astrological allegory just like the rest of the Jesus story.

Regarding a source... well that might be tricky. I'm more of a mystery enthusiast than a Google-Fu Blackbelt like my opponents here. So it's probably best (and faster) if I let them do the searching.

In other words, you can't back your claims with actual legitimate references.

When he came to power, the Roman Emperor Constantine (a habitual murderer now a canonised saint in the catholic firmament) attempted to harness the burgeoning popularity of newfangled "common man" versions of the Mystery Religion (which offered salvation to ALL those initiated into the Mystery Religion, not just the moneyed donors) by instigating Mithraism as the state religion.

Mithraism (based on the Persian Jesus known as Mithras) was wildly popular among the pagan citizenry of the Roman Empire (especially among legionaries) and offered Constantine (an amoral atheistic alchemist himself) huge sway over the ignorant plebs (and military) if he could institute himself as the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of an empire-wide Church of Mithras.

It didn't work... Constantine thought everyone would accept Mithraism as in his eyes all the solar deity Mystery Religion gods were interchangeable... the populace, mostly ignorant of such symbolism, thought differently.

19 years later he tried again, instituting the Cult of Sol Invictus (the Invincible Sun) as the state religion and declaring himself both "Son of God" and Pontifex Maximus (which is still the Catholic Pope's official title to this day). A religion that openly equated/accepted all other versions of the solar deity (dying resurrecting godman) as interchangeable with their own.

And NONE of this indicates that the account of Jesus Christ was borrowed from these other so-called "mystery religions". If anything, the opposite occured. The aspects of the Christian faith were grafted onto these other celebrations.

Romans (even the previously suppressed Christians) would be free to worship whichever "facet" of Sol Invictus they preferred... any of the dozens of gods:
-born on 25th December to a virgin
-who were attended/recognized by three kings
-who was wise at an early age
-who was baptised in a river (the Milky Way)
-who chose 12 disciples
-who had a secret wife/consort/discipline
-who performed miracles
-who raised the dead
-who was crucified
-who was buried in a cave
-who rose from the dead after 3 days

(ALL of which are astrological metaphors/allegories)

...so long as they accepted that their particular dying/resurrecting godman was merely an aspect of the generalized Sol Invictus (and thereby recognized Constantine as their religious/secular authority) their beliefs were granted state protection (or at least state tolerance).

That reminds me. You still have yet to back your claim, regarding the Bible citing the date of Jesus' birth as December 25th (or any date from the Hebrew calendar, corresponding to Dec. 25).

For that matter, you also have yet to show in Scripture where exactly three magi/wise men find Jesus.

Mary Magdelene is not identified as Jesus' wife.

John 19:25-27:Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

A married man's top priority is his WIFE, not his mother ("For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife....." With Jesus' death, the priority of care would gone to Mary Magdalene, NOT Jesus' mother, had Mags been Mrs. Christ.

As for crucifixion, Horus, Dionysus, Attis, and others from that list DO NOT DIE IN THAT MANNER.

In the ensuing centuries the Catholic Church rewrote the history books to re-envision Constantine as the first Holy Roman Emperor... total bullshit.


If you are interested in reading more about the Mystery Religion then look up "The Cult of Sol Invictus", as a composite faith amalgamated from the many and various pre-Christian Mystery Schools it is the best place to start your research. Alternatively, authors Gandy and Freke have written an excellent academic treatise on the Jesus Myth "The Jesus Mysteries" (dismissed by true believers because it is so very convincing). Or perhaps Google the phrase "Christs before Christ".

It's dismissed by true believers, because it's been shown to be utterly ridiculous and has been soundly refuted REPEATEDLY!!!

If you are interested in reading about how the founding Church Fathers (Ireneaus, Eusebius etc) openly admitted that several pre-Christian Mystery Religion gods were substantively indistinguishable from Jesus, then simply research the "Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry". A doctrine, which, though patently laughably absurd is still the Church's official position.

If you want to read about how Christians rewrote history and burned books in an attempt to eradicate the Mystery Religions and co-opt Constantine as the founder of institutionalized Christianity, then look-up the phrase: "Donation of Constantine"... that's a good place to start.

I've researched them, already. Again, that's why refuting these claims of yours takes little effort on my part.

...Actually I think you might be right here McWay. Didn't the Egyptians split their solar-deity dying/resurrecting godman deal into two generations?

Osiris doesn't assume bodily into heaven... my mistuke... it's his son, Horus the miracle child, who mimics just about every detail of the Jesus story thousands of years before Christ.

You got me... my bad.

The Luke
PS... short posts people, so I can give short answers... please.

Horus wasn't born of a virgin. His mama had sex with Osiris in the underworld.

[wavelength]

what descartes was wrong about most of what he said, thomas aquinas proofs of god are terrible and easily refuted.

nothing cannot create something therefore something always existed which is its essence to exist bing bang boom its god. thomas aquinas.

I agree with your statement about Descartes actually, and of course everything can be discussed philosophically.
Just not on the feeble level of scientific positivism.

Still all of those people would be considered great thinkers, at least of their time.

[The Luke]

McWay,


You're not convincing anyone. (But I think I might be)


Isis isn't a virgin because she had sex with Osiris in the underworld?

Well the ancients didn't think so, so far as I remember Osiris is killed before he and Isis consummate their relationship... hence the version of Isis that travels to the underworld to seek out Osiris is referred to as Mary Isis, the virgin. Seems sex with a ghost doesn't really count.


Mary Magdalene isn't Jesus' wife?

Read between the lines fundie! The wedding at Canae is the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (rightful heir of the House of David uniting with an end-of-dynasty female last member of the Royal House of Macabees... in accordance with prophecy).

Mary (virgin mother) tells Jesus that there is no wine left for the guests at the wedding. Why? Because in the Jewish tradition the grooms mother is responsible for providing the wedding reception. Granted, some of the explicit details have been redacted and rewritten, but there is still enough there to know how the story originally went. The thirty or so dying/resurrecting godmen preceding Jesus also provided a good blueprint.


You also claim Mary Magdalene wasn't the secret disciple representative of the moon/Venus/Ophiccus?

If only there were some source document that could shed some light on this...?

Would the Gospel of Mary Magdalene suffice?
Read it dude. Again, like the Gospels of Pontius Pilate and Judas, it's provenance is the equal of any of the canonical gospels (possibly 60 AD).

Other hints that the Magdalene is Mrs Jesus (canonical gospels):
-she washes Jesus' feet; something only a wife may do. An unmarried Jewish woman certainly wouldn't do this with an unmarried Jewish man.
-she travels to the tomb to anoint/wash Jesus' body. Only a wife or mother is permitted to do this.
-she is the first witness to the risen Jesus and asks the Magdalene not to "embrace" him.
-the wedding at Canae is hinted as being Jesus' wedding.
-she never leaves Jesus side, but stays with the Virgin Mary and Christ till the bitter end.

Other hints that the Magdalene is Mrs Jesus (from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene):
-Jesus keeps kissing her
-Jesus explains secret doctrines of faith to her he doesn't share with the other disciples
-she handles the groups money
-immediately after the crucifixion she heads the disciples till the misogynistic Peter ousts her (that's when Mattias joins up)
-she escapes to France after the crucifixion taking the Virgin Mary with her
-she carries on Jesus ministry in France  
-she is carried into heaven each day by angels to have sex with Jesus

The rest of your arguments are patently ludicrous... you're just splitting hairs again and again. There is a definite pattern of coincidence among all the dying/resurrecting godmen... once you understand that the stories are merely astrological allegories (explained by code keys in a revelatory manner) then the coincidences become obvious congruences.

You argue that these congruences might well have been grafted FROM the "original" Jesus story... that's Dubya dumb! Early Church Fathers (living at the time) openly admitted these coincidences in their writings and openly admitted these stories predated the Jesus myth (research the Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry). The first celebration of Easter occurred in 2,400 BC... except Mithras was Da Jesus then.



I don't think you are dumb enough to really believe the silly illogical arguments you are making here... I think rather that you WANT to believe what you believe SO BADLY that you view all the evidence with a preconceived conclusion: you believe the canonical Gospels to be literally true and so any evidence to the contrary must therefore be wrong. A preconceived conclusion  

No impartial observer would support such weak arguments... or so selectively choose which points to dismiss and which points to attack.


The Luke

[Deicide]

what descartes was wrong about most of what he said, thomas aquinas proofs of god are terrible and easily refuted.

nothing cannot create something therefore something always existed which is its essence to exist bing bang boom its god. thomas aquinas.

I agree with you but you have to understand the Spectre; he believes that mental masturbation of the philosophical sort has some inherent value in and of itself and although leading to no answers o any sort, it should be done simply for the sake of it being done.

[wavelength]

I agree with you but you have to understand the Spectre; he believes that mental masturbation of the philosophical sort has some inherent value in and of itself and although leading to no answers o any sort, it should be done simply for the sake of it being done.

It's like bodybuilding, repetition after repetition.
Some people like to repeat rather than advance further.

[Deicide]

It's like bodybuilding, repetition after repetition.
Some people like to repeat rather than advance further.

That's not a good analogy; in fact it is idiotic. Progression in matters of bodybuilding and matters of thought have little to do with each other.

Still hardcore though.

[MCWAY]

McWay,


You're not convincing anyone. (But I think I might be)

Wishful thinking on your part.

As I said initially, your "challenge" is anything but that.

Isis isn't a virgin because she had sex with Osiris in the underworld?

Yep. Having sex tends to disqualify you from virgin status.

Well the ancients didn't think so, so far as I remember Osiris is killed before he and Isis consummate their relationship... hence the version of Isis that travels to the underworld to seek out Osiris is referred to as Mary Isis, the virgin. Seems sex with a ghost doesn't really count.

Virgins are those who haven't had sex, period. Unless you can produce this "phantom clause" for getting your freak on, Isis remains a NON-VIRGIN.

Mary Magdalene isn't Jesus' wife?

Read between the lines fundie! The wedding at Canae is the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (rightful heir of the House of David uniting with an end-of-dynasty female last member of the Royal House of Macabees... in accordance with prophecy).

Mary (virgin mother) tells Jesus that there is no wine left for the guests at the wedding. Why? Because in the Jewish tradition the grooms mother is responsible for providing the wedding reception. Granted, some of the explicit details have been redacted and rewritten, but there is still enough there to know how the story originally went. The thirty or so dying/resurrecting godmen preceding Jesus also provided a good blueprint.

Try reading, PERIOD!!! You can start with the Gospel of John, chapter 2.
On the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

Why exactly would Jesus need to be called TO HIS OWN WEDDING, genius??


Jesus charged John with the care of His mother. Why? Because the oldest UNMARRIED son was head of his household and care for the mother and younger siblings. If Mary Mags were Jesus' wife, His first priority would be providing for HER, not His mother.

And, nowhere does it indicate that the Cana wedding is that of Christ. He repeatedly stated that His kingdom was not of this world. Hence, He had no need for a family (that is, a wife or kids).

And, to top it all off, Mary was no longer a "virgin mother", has Jesus has four brothers and at least two sisters. You forgot that little detail. "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days."- John 2:12

You also claim Mary Magdalene wasn't the secret disciple representative of the moon/Venus/Ophiccus?

If only there were some source document that could shed some light on this...?

Would the Gospel of Mary Magdalene suffice?
Read it dude. Again, like the Gospels of Pontius Pilate and Judas, it's provenance is the equal of any of the canonical gospels (possibly 60 AD).

Other hints that the Magdalene is Mrs Jesus (canonical gospels):
-she washes Jesus' feet; something only a wife may do. An unmarried Jewish woman certainly wouldn't do this with an unmarried Jewish man.
-she travels to the tomb to anoint/wash Jesus' body. Only a wife or mother is permitted to do this.
-she is the first witness to the risen Jesus and asks the Magdalene not to "embrace" him.
-the wedding at Canae is hinted as being Jesus' wedding.
-she never leaves Jesus side, but stays with the Virgin Mary and Christ till the bitter end.

Wrong, on several counts.
1) While Mags was washing Jesus' feet, she is criticized by Simeon for being a sinful woman.

Luke 7:37-40

And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him]weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe [them] with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

They knew that Mags was NOT Jesus' wife, otherwise they wouldn't have referred to her as "what manner of woman" and a "sinner" .

2) Mary Mags and Jesus' mother weren't the only ones who went to the tomb.


Mark 16:1-3

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first [day] of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

In other words, (as the other Gospels verify and notwithstanding that Mags wasn't Jesus' wife) at least THREE women went to the tomb to finish the preparation of Jesus' body.

3) Nothing "hints" that the Cana wedding is that of Jesus, as no one would need to call Him to his own wedding. Furthermore, the governor of the feasts calls an unnamed groom and credits him, not Jesus, for providing the best-tasting wine.

4) See John, regarding the charge to care for Jesus' mother.

Other hints that the Magdalene is Mrs Jesus (from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene):
-Jesus keeps kissing her
-Jesus explains secret doctrines of faith to her he doesn't share with the other disciples
-she handles the groups money
-immediately after the crucifixion she heads the disciples till the misogynistic Peter ousts her (that's when Mattias joins up)
-she escapes to France after the crucifixion taking the Virgin Mary with her
-she carries on Jesus ministry in France  
-she is carried into heaven each day by angels to have sex with Jesus

The canonical Gospels, as well as extra-Biblical writings carve these old claims to pieces:

- Judas carries the money for the group. John 12:4-6
- Peter was named BY JESUS HIMSELF as the leader of the disiciples, post-Resurrection and ascension;
- Mary isn't a virgin at that point (Jesus has four brothers: James, Juda, Simon, Joses, and at least two unamed sisters; see Mark 6:3).

The rest is fodder for the Da Vinci code, long dissected and dismissed by traditional Biblical scholars.

The rest of your arguments are patently ludicrous... you're just splitting hairs again and again. There is a definite pattern of coincidence among all the dying/resurrecting godmen... once you understand that the stories are merely astrological allegories (explained by code keys in a revelatory manner) then the coincidences become obvious congruences.

You ask for one major difference. I've named several. But, since your Geke and Fandy book can't provide you with the goods, you resort to making lame excuses for your inability to produce the goods.

You argue that these congruences might well have been grafted FROM the "original" Jesus story... that's Dubya dumb! Early Church Fathers (living at the time) openly admitted these coincidences in their writings and openly admitted these stories predated the Jesus myth (research the Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry). The first celebration of Easter occurred in 2,400 BC... except Mithras was Da Jesus then.

The accounts from the various religions were MERGED, which means that pieces from all of them (including Christianity) were grafted together. That DOES NOT indicate that the account of Jesus Christ was based on figures from other religions.

I don't think you are dumb enough to really believe the silly illogical arguments you are making here... I think rather that you WANT to believe what you believe SO BADLY that you view all the evidence with a preconceived conclusion: you believe the canonical Gospels to be literally true and so any evidence to the contrary must therefore be wrong. A preconceived conclusion

Nope. I've examined your claims and bounced them against the data found by traditional Biblical scholars and what Scripture itself says on the matter. Then, I examined the figures from which the Jesus account was allegedly forged. And, as clearly shown, that match just ain't there, whatsoever.

No impartial observer would support such weak arguments... or so selectively choose which points to dismiss and which points to attack.

The Luke

Look who's talking!!!
You have made ridiculous claims that the Bible supports your claims. Yet, you can't demonstrate such, when asked.

You said that the Bible shows Jesus' birthday to be Dec. 25? WHERE is that done? (Hint: Only two books of the Bible have Jesus' birth: Matthew and Luke) What's the chapter and verse?

Where's the part about the "kings" (Hint: they're actually "wise men" or "magi), or that there are exactly three of them? You said the Bible mentioned that; provide the chapter and verse.

Not to mention, you said these guys attended Jesus' birth......DEAD WRONG, once again. They don't find Him, until He's about 2 years old. (Matt. 2)

Unlike you, I provide the specifics, line by line or book and chapter, often with the particular verses. When referring to other sources, I provide the books, authors, and the specific passages that make the case.

Let's see you provide some specifics.....FOR ONCE. You can start by defending your earlier claims about the birth of Jesus Christ and that the Bible supports your assertions (with regards to date of birth, the "kings", and when Jesus was found).

[garebear]

It's true that dinosaurs co-existed with man. Not many people know this, but...Jesus had a younger brother named Larry. One day, after visiting Adam and Eve, Jesus and Larry went to a fishin' hole, poles in hand. Then they got to talking. Turns out Larry cursed Jesus, and they got into bit of a ruckus. Larry ran off, top speed, tears in his eyes. Next thing you know, Larry was stomped to death by a rabid Tyranosaurus Rex!Jesus was never the same. Which is why you don't hear too much about it. It was in the Bible Part 2, but this text was loss when a herd of Brachiosaurus stampeded Jesus' library.
Jesus was furious.

[wavelength]

That's not a good analogy; in fact it is idiotic. Progression in matters of bodybuilding and matters of thought have little to do with each other.

say it aint so

[Necrosis]

I agree with you but you have to understand the Spectre; he believes that mental masturbation of the philosophical sort has some inherent value in and of itself and although leading to no answers o any sort, it should be done simply for the sake of it being done.

theology has offered nothing to humanity, absolutely nothing. I challenge wavelength to post something of value from a theologian. Dawkins rapes aquinas on logic,thought,reason etc.. he pwns descartes and his dualist approach.

hegel is quite complex and hard to read.

[Deicide]

say it aint so

 

Hardcore deppert.

[wavelength]

Hardcore deppert.

Compared to your contributions?

[Deicide]

Compared to your contributions?

Nein, so insgesamt.

[leonp1981]

It's true that dinosaurs co-existed with man. Not many people know this, but...Jesus had a younger brother named Larry. One day, after visiting Adam and Eve, Jesus and Larry went to a fishin' hole, poles in hand. Then they got to talking. Turns out Larry cursed Jesus, and they got into bit of a ruckus. Larry ran off, top speed, tears in his eyes. Next thing you know, Larry was stomped to death by a rabid Tyranosaurus Rex!Jesus was never the same. Which is why you don't hear too much about it. It was in the Bible Part 2, but this text was loss when a herd of Brachiosaurus stampeded Jesus' library.
Jesus was furious.

Please provide evidence.   

[wavelength]

Nein, so insgesamt.

aha

[Deicide]

aha

Wie gesagt, hardcore.

[The Luke]

McWay,


Have you read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene?

How can you so easily dismiss something with better provenance than the canonical gospels themselves.

All your arguments are based on dismissal... dismiss the sources quoted; ignore the argument; nit-pick the inaccuracy of some tiny detail and rail against points not raised by deliberately misconstruing and misquoting the opponent. These are the same tactics used by Creationists when the know they can't win a rational argument.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

McWay,


Have you read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene?

How can you so easily dismiss something with better provenance than the canonical gospels themselves.

Who says that it has that, other than Jesus-myth proponents and other atheists?

All your arguments are based on dismissal... dismiss the sources quoted; ignore the argument; nit-pick the inaccuracy of some tiny detail and rail against points not raised by deliberately misconstruing and misquoting the opponent. These are the same tactics used by Creationists when the know they can't win a rational argument.


The Luke

My arguments are based on the fact that what you claim the Bible says about Jesus and what it ACTUALLY SAYS about Him are vastly different, as is the case with your assertions about these other figures vs. Jesus.

This was your "challenge":

Name or cite one single detail or incident in the Jesus story that is not:
-lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion
-an astrological allegory

Bet you can't."

Since I've done that, and you can't scurry through the Gandy and Feke book fast enough to come up with an answer, you resort to your usual whining.

The simple fact is you made a bunch of claims, which I (or anyone else) can EASILY show to be false.

Recap:

"-she washes Jesus' feet; something only a wife may do. An unmarried Jewish woman certainly wouldn't do this with an unmarried Jewish man." - WRONG, Simon refers to Mags as a sinful woman; obviously, she ain't Jesus' wife. (Luke 7:37-40)

"-she travels to the tomb to anoint/wash Jesus' body. Only a wife or mother is permitted to do this." - Nope. At least three women go to the tomb: Mary, Mags, and Salome (Mark 16:1-3)

"-she is the first witness to the risen Jesus and asks the Magdalene not to "embrace" him." - Again, at least three women are at the tomb (John 20:2, ....They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.).

"-the wedding at Canae is hinted as being Jesus' wedding." - So sorry!!! The governor of the feast addressed an unnamed bridegroom (John 2).

"-she never leaves Jesus side, but stays with the Virgin Mary and Christ till the bitter end" - I'm sorry, where is that written again?


"-born of a virgin on 25th or December" - OOPS!! Nowhere does the Bible claim that Jesus is born on any date, corresponding to 12/25

"-bright star marks his birthplace" - Not quite!!! The stars leads the wise men to where Jesus was located.

"-born in a cave/stable" - You're flip-flopping again, which is it: cave or stable? (And what alleged "mystery religion corresponds to it).

"-three kings attend his birth" - And you cry about people not reading stuff? 1) The Bible NEVER states that just "three kings" attend his birth; the shepherds do that (lay off the Nativity scenes, please); 2) The wise men, however many there were, found Jesus when He was about TWO YEARS OLD.


Plus, your claim of Mary's perpetual virginity is also shot, thanks to the Gospels that give the names of Jesus' brothers.

Then, there's your ridiculous attempt of a correlation, between Jesus getting his feet washed and someone else getting his foot cut off or shot.

And, that's just the short list of your repeated inaccuracies, regarding this so-called "challenge".

[garebear]

Please provide evidence.   

Jesus forgives.

[Necrosis]

I agree with your statement about Descartes actually, and of course everything can be discussed philosophically.
Just not on the feeble level of scientific positivism.

Still all of those people would be considered great thinkers, at least of their time.

i wouldnt consider them so based on humanity as a whole. They offered nothign in reality, didnt expand our concepts and knowledge, name one relevant theologian today?

[wavelength]

i wouldnt consider them so based on humanity as a whole. They offered nothign in reality, didnt expand our concepts and knowledge, name one relevant theologian today?

They're the only ones who are able to offer anything in reality, by definition. We had this discussion over and over again. If you think those people are not great thinkers, fine. Dawkins is doing the exact same thing, he uses philosophy and theology to make his points, not science. Simply because, it's not possible to make his points from within science.

[Deicide]

They're the only ones who are able to offer anything in reality, by definition. We had this discussion over and over again. If you think those people are not great thinkers, fine. Dawkins is doing the exact same thing, he uses philosophy and theology to make his points, not science. Simply because, it's not possible to make his points from within science.

Blah blah, your hardcoreness is slipping along with your zehnfach verriegelten Tuer...

[wavelength]

Blah blah, your hardcoreness is slipping along with your zehnfach verriegelten Tuer...

Would you prefer if I stopped posting on the religious board?
Honest answer appreciated.

[Deicide]

Would you prefer if I stopped posting on the religious board?
Honest answer appreciated.

Ich habe dir mittels PN geantwortet.

[Necrosis]

They're the only ones who are able to offer anything in reality, by definition. We had this discussion over and over again. If you think those people are not great thinkers, fine. Dawkins is doing the exact same thing, he uses philosophy and theology to make his points, not science. Simply because, it's not possible to make his points from within science.

sure but dawkins refutes aquinas quite easily, what is so great about someone who makes fallacious arguments?

i havent seen any atheistic philosophical arguments refuted.