Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: The Coach on March 23, 2008, 10:27:27 AM
-
Many of us who have visited Israel regard the visit to the "Garden Tomb" as one of the major highlights of the trip. It invariably ranks highest on our feedback surveys. The people in charge of the British trust that manages the site always present it as simply "representative," rather than insisting that it is the actual tomb. However, we feel they are understating the actual facts. Even though I harbor a skeptical cynicism toward most "traditional" sites, for a number of reasons I personally regard this tomb as the actual one referred to in the Gospel accounts.
Notes From Leviticus
In my study I was digging through my library on the Book of Leviticus and, in particular, was digesting the commentary by Andrew Bonar (a classic that I particularly treasure regarding this particular book of the Torah). I was reviewing the many detailed specifications of the various categories of offerings - every one of which profiles or foreshadows the various aspects of Christ's person and work. I was particularly intrigued with the following:
And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar. - Leviticus 1:11
Like so many of the textual details, this one was also expressly fulfilled by the fact that the ultimate sacrifice to which it points was, indeed, offered on the north side of the city, just outside of what is now called the "Damascus Gate." However, a footnote also caught my eye that included some unusual details about Joseph of Arimathea, which proved strikingly instructive.
Joseph of Arimathea
Andrew Bonar's footnote noted: "A rich man, one of the most honorable and esteemed in Jerusalem, a member of the Sanhedrin, and a disciple, unexpectedly appears at Calvary. This was Joseph of Arimathea, without exception the most singularly noble character introduced to us in the Gospels. This rich man had been driven into concealment by the plots formed against him by the Jews, on account of his defending Jesus in the Sanhedrin openly (Luke 23:51)." In the Gospel of John we find a subtle but significant mistranslation:
And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews... - John 19:38
"...being a disciple": "kekrummenoV de dia ton fobon twn ioudaiwn" not [the adverb] "secretly," for it is not kekrummenwV but [the adjective] "secreted," or forced to hide, by reason of their plots. This makes his appearance before Pilate even more unexpected.
An Unrecorded Conversation
I cannot resist including the unrecorded conversation that occurred between Joseph of Arimathea and Pontius Pilate, who was, of course, shocked by Joseph's request for the body in the passage above. Pilate responded: "Joseph, I don't understand. You're the richest man in the region; you have made this brand new tomb for your family; and, you're going to give it to this criminal?"
"Oi Veh! It's just for the weekend!" Joseph responded.
(I have this on good authority: from Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel.)
Where was His Tomb?
Andrew Bonar points out that in Isaiah 53 we find some very significant prophetic details:
He made his grave with the wicked [plural], and with the rich [singular] in his death; - Isaiah 53:9
I had always assumed that the "transgressors" in Isaiah 53:9 simply pointed to the two thieves who were crucified with Him. It was Bonar's insight that this refers to the burial itself, which included both the wicked and the rich. Another of the Levitical specifications deals with the offering being "...without the camp unto a clean place ..." (Leviticus 4:12; 6:11). It was this detail that actually gave rise to the Andrew Bonar's footnote: 1
Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. - John 19:41
The very spot that criminals were put to death was where Joseph's new tomb was hewn out of a rock! The stony sides of the tomb - the new tomb - "the clean place," where Jesus was laid - were part of the malefactor's hill. His dead body is "with the rich man and with the wicked" in the hour of His death! His grave is the property of a rich man; and yet the rocks which form the partition between His tomb and that of the other Calvary malefactors, are themselves part of Golgotha."
Anyone who has visited the Garden Tomb recognizes the validity of Bonar's perceptions: the site of Golgotha is topologically identifiable as at the peak of the ridge system between the Kidron Valley and the Tyropean Valley; midway between the Mount of Olives and Mount Zion. It is also a very short walk to the tomb, and the tomb itself seems to fit a number detailed specifications from the Gospel texts:
1. It is proximate to Golgotha (Jn 19:41).
2. It was a new tomb hewn in the rock (Mt 27:60; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:41).
3. It was a garden area (Jn 20:41, 42). The enclosed cistern of 250,000 gallons implying a single, very wealthy, owner.
4. It was adjacent to a wine press.
5. It had a rolling stone door (Mt 27:60; 28:2; Mk 16:3; Lk 24:2).
6. The tomb itself was just to right of a wailing chamber (Mk 16:5).
7. And, it is empty! (Lk 24:6, 12; Jn 20).
8. Gordon's Calvary
The present site of the "Garden Tomb" is often called, derisively, "Gordon's Calvary." It remains controversial despite the evidences that favor it. General Charles George Gordon was a British general who distinguished himself with assignments in the Crimean War and other exploits in the Far East. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1852, and eventually found himself assigned in Palestine. One day from his hotel he noticed the features of a "Skull Hill" and became convinced, despite church traditions to the contrary, that this was the true location of the crucifixion. His discovery was based on the physical features of the area, derisively called "Gordon's Calvary" by those who still favor the traditional site.
(The "Church of the Holy Sepulchre" is on the traditional site at another location that was selected by Queen Helena in the fourth century and was protected until 1009 A.D., when it was destroyed by Khalif Hakem. The Greek Orthodox Church and the Russians erected the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1810, where it stands today.)
General Gordon's discovery of what we now know as the "Garden Tomb" was in 1883. What struck me about Andrew Bonar's observations, from the text, was that his commentary was published in 1846, almost 40 years before the discovery of the present site that so vividly presents the drama that is the very cornerstone of the entire Christian faith!2 It is inspiring to realize that the clarity of the situation was perceived by Andrew Bonar strictly from the text itself, without the physical benefits which we can presently enjoy on our visits to Jerusalem!
What an encouragement to all of us to pay close attention to details and to take them seriously! "Not one jot or tittle," indeed!3
* * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH STUDY**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Easter Story - DVD - Chuck Missler
-
::)
-
whats with the giant threads lately? ???
Cliff notes would be nice
-
whats with the giant threads lately? ???
Cliff notes would be nice
didn't you learn to read in school?
-
didn't you learn to read in school?
Yes ofcourse I did....
Did you take special classes in taking it up the anus or did it come naturally to you?
LOL
-
So you're a conservative asshole AND a Christian? In America??!!!
Who would've thought........... ::)
-
What dose this shit got to do with bodybuilding.This topic should be moved to another board.
-
Hey "Doom" so I'm to assume your a liberal AND and atheist? Figures.
-
Hey "Doom" so I'm to assume your a liberal AND and atheist? Figures.
Are you saying liberalism and atheism go hand-in-hand?
I've wondered about this. You've said in the past something about it being harder for libs to get into heaven, or something like that?
it's a hard thing to defend, for either side. Republicans like marriage, are against abortion, etc... which makes them closer to doing what's right. On the other hand, Republicans also support the Bush Doctrine, which calls for pre-emptive strikes against any country we deem *might* be a threat. In essence, it's "I will kill you because you MIGHT one day kill me".
I don't know that Jesus would have endorsed such a policy. Where in the Bible does it say it's okay to kill a man because he *might* kill you someday? Where does it say you can kill a man because of words he says?
-
The Coach is a "christian" so he hopes people perceive him as a better person. The same can be said for the conservative political views, its all identity creation.
-
No, what I said was, liberals can't be true Christians, since a lot of they're beliefs go aginst scripture. Obama and his Pastor are great example of that.
-
::)
bahahahahaha that was too perfect, especially coming from a guy named heathen hahahaha
-
No, what I said was, liberals can't be true Christians, since a lot of they're beliefs go aginst scripture. Obama and his Pastor are great example of that.
But conservatives who support preemptive war - killing those who have not harmed you - they are true Christians?
I'm not flaming here - I'm being serious.
-
The Coach is a "christian" so he hopes people perceive him as a better person. The same can be said for the conservative political views, its all identity creation.
On balance Joe is a good guy, but the whole overdone "christian" thing doesn't make me think better of him. Just the opposite in fact.
-
No, what I said was, liberals can't be true Christians, since a lot of they're beliefs go aginst scripture. Obama and his Pastor are great example of that.
Specifically what did Obama and his pastor do which goes against scripture?
Please list their deeds separately.
-
"The Empty Brain"
-
Many of us who have visited Israel regard the visit to the "Garden Tomb" as one of the major highlights of the trip. It invariably ranks highest on our feedback surveys. The people in charge of the British trust that manages the site always present it as simply "representative," rather than insisting that it is the actual tomb. However, we feel they are understating the actual facts. Even though I harbor a skeptical cynicism toward most "traditional" sites, for a number of reasons I personally regard this tomb as the actual one referred to in the Gospel accounts.
Notes From Leviticus
In my study I was digging through my library on the Book of Leviticus and, in particular, was digesting the commentary by Andrew Bonar (a classic that I particularly treasure regarding this particular book of the Torah). I was reviewing the many detailed specifications of the various categories of offerings - every one of which profiles or foreshadows the various aspects of Christ's person and work. I was particularly intrigued with the following:
And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar. - Leviticus 1:11
Like so many of the textual details, this one was also expressly fulfilled by the fact that the ultimate sacrifice to which it points was, indeed, offered on the north side of the city, just outside of what is now called the "Damascus Gate." However, a footnote also caught my eye that included some unusual details about Joseph of Arimathea, which proved strikingly instructive.
Joseph of Arimathea
Andrew Bonar's footnote noted: "A rich man, one of the most honorable and esteemed in Jerusalem, a member of the Sanhedrin, and a disciple, unexpectedly appears at Calvary. This was Joseph of Arimathea, without exception the most singularly noble character introduced to us in the Gospels. This rich man had been driven into concealment by the plots formed against him by the Jews, on account of his defending Jesus in the Sanhedrin openly (Luke 23:51)." In the Gospel of John we find a subtle but significant mistranslation:
And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews... - John 19:38
"...being a disciple": "kekrummenoV de dia ton fobon twn ioudaiwn" not [the adverb] "secretly," for it is not kekrummenwV but [the adjective] "secreted," or forced to hide, by reason of their plots. This makes his appearance before Pilate even more unexpected.
An Unrecorded Conversation
I cannot resist including the unrecorded conversation that occurred between Joseph of Arimathea and Pontius Pilate, who was, of course, shocked by Joseph's request for the body in the passage above. Pilate responded: "Joseph, I don't understand. You're the richest man in the region; you have made this brand new tomb for your family; and, you're going to give it to this criminal?"
"Oi Veh! It's just for the weekend!" Joseph responded.
(I have this on good authority: from Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel.)
Where was His Tomb?
Andrew Bonar points out that in Isaiah 53 we find some very significant prophetic details:
He made his grave with the wicked [plural], and with the rich [singular] in his death; - Isaiah 53:9
I had always assumed that the "transgressors" in Isaiah 53:9 simply pointed to the two thieves who were crucified with Him. It was Bonar's insight that this refers to the burial itself, which included both the wicked and the rich. Another of the Levitical specifications deals with the offering being "...without the camp unto a clean place ..." (Leviticus 4:12; 6:11). It was this detail that actually gave rise to the Andrew Bonar's footnote: 1
Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. - John 19:41
The very spot that criminals were put to death was where Joseph's new tomb was hewn out of a rock! The stony sides of the tomb - the new tomb - "the clean place," where Jesus was laid - were part of the malefactor's hill. His dead body is "with the rich man and with the wicked" in the hour of His death! His grave is the property of a rich man; and yet the rocks which form the partition between His tomb and that of the other Calvary malefactors, are themselves part of Golgotha."
Anyone who has visited the Garden Tomb recognizes the validity of Bonar's perceptions: the site of Golgotha is topologically identifiable as at the peak of the ridge system between the Kidron Valley and the Tyropean Valley; midway between the Mount of Olives and Mount Zion. It is also a very short walk to the tomb, and the tomb itself seems to fit a number detailed specifications from the Gospel texts:
1. It is proximate to Golgotha (Jn 19:41).
2. It was a new tomb hewn in the rock (Mt 27:60; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:41).
3. It was a garden area (Jn 20:41, 42). The enclosed cistern of 250,000 gallons implying a single, very wealthy, owner.
4. It was adjacent to a wine press.
5. It had a rolling stone door (Mt 27:60; 28:2; Mk 16:3; Lk 24:2).
6. The tomb itself was just to right of a wailing chamber (Mk 16:5).
7. And, it is empty! (Lk 24:6, 12; Jn 20).
8. Gordon's Calvary
The present site of the "Garden Tomb" is often called, derisively, "Gordon's Calvary." It remains controversial despite the evidences that favor it. General Charles George Gordon was a British general who distinguished himself with assignments in the Crimean War and other exploits in the Far East. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1852, and eventually found himself assigned in Palestine. One day from his hotel he noticed the features of a "Skull Hill" and became convinced, despite church traditions to the contrary, that this was the true location of the crucifixion. His discovery was based on the physical features of the area, derisively called "Gordon's Calvary" by those who still favor the traditional site.
(The "Church of the Holy Sepulchre" is on the traditional site at another location that was selected by Queen Helena in the fourth century and was protected until 1009 A.D., when it was destroyed by Khalif Hakem. The Greek Orthodox Church and the Russians erected the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1810, where it stands today.)
General Gordon's discovery of what we now know as the "Garden Tomb" was in 1883. What struck me about Andrew Bonar's observations, from the text, was that his commentary was published in 1846, almost 40 years before the discovery of the present site that so vividly presents the drama that is the very cornerstone of the entire Christian faith!2 It is inspiring to realize that the clarity of the situation was perceived by Andrew Bonar strictly from the text itself, without the physical benefits which we can presently enjoy on our visits to Jerusalem!
What an encouragement to all of us to pay close attention to details and to take them seriously! "Not one jot or tittle," indeed!3
* * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH STUDY**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Easter Story - DVD - Chuck Missler
I don't believe in fairy tales.
-
I don't believe in fairy tales.
I think one can appreciate it as good literature, and enjoy visiting historical sites people believe are connected to it given how much it has affected human hustory over the past 2,000 years, but to base your whole life, worldview, and decisions on it is stupidity of the highest order.
-
I don't believe in fairy tales.
[/quo
sometimes you say some of the dumbest things. if you don't agree you don't have to bash others beliefs >:(
-
Are you saying liberalism and atheism go hand-in-hand?
I've wondered about this. You've said in the past something about it being harder for libs to get into heaven, or something like that?
it's a hard thing to defend, for either side. Republicans like marriage, are against abortion, etc... which makes them closer to doing what's right. On the other hand, Republicans also support the Bush Doctrine, which calls for pre-emptive strikes against any country we deem *might* be a threat. In essence, it's "I will kill you because you MIGHT one day kill me".
I don't know that Jesus would have endorsed such a policy. Where in the Bible does it say it's okay to kill a man because he *might* kill you someday? Where does it say you can kill a man because of words he says?
Hmmm. Might want to look at the part where Herod slew thousands, the 'massacre of the innocents,' in hopes of killing Jesus as he was warned by the magi of just such a threat. Kinda puts a dent on Jesus' sinless life. I mean, I'd have a hard time walking around knowing I was 'responsible' for all those deaths. :-\
-
No, what I said was, liberals can't be true Christians, since a lot of they're beliefs go aginst scripture. Obama and his Pastor are great example of that.
Sounds like the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html
I could just as easily say that most conservative christians are not true christians because they've forsaken jesus' message of love, forgiveness and tolerance. But I won't.
-
Hey "Doom" so I'm to assume your a liberal AND and atheist? Figures.
when people like you claim to be christian, then maybe atheism isn't that bad a choice.
-
I don't believe in fairy tales.
sometimes you say some of the dumbest things. if you don't agree you don't have to bash others beliefs >:(
While there's cetrainly something to be said for expressing things in a tactful way, I don't think that "beliefs" necessarily need to be "respected".
For example, if someone held the belief that the Earth was flat or that the Sun revolved around the Earth, should we be required to "respect" such stupidity simply because it is someone's closely-held belief?
-
Hey "Doom" so I'm to assume your a liberal AND and atheist? Figures.
All thinking men are atheists - Voltaire
But then, you've probably never hear of Voltaire...he wasn't an American
And I'm not a "liberal" but it does show the typical simplistic either/or two-dimensional thinking of the people you represent. Let me know when you reach the next level...you might be more interesting to talk to. :o
-
quit posting this non bodybuilding crap on the G&O, JOE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
E
-
I don't believe in fairy tales.
Thats ok keep telling yourself your not queer, all your dreams may come true
-
snip...
Anyone who has visited the Garden Tomb recognizes the validity of Bonar's perceptions: the site of Golgotha is topologically identifiable as at the peak of the ridge system between the Kidron Valley and the Tyropean Valley; midway between the Mount of Olives and Mount Zion. It is also a very short walk to the tomb, and the tomb itself seems to fit a number detailed specifications from the Gospel texts:
1. It is proximate to Golgotha (Jn 19:41).
2. It was a new tomb hewn in the rock (Mt 27:60; Lk 23:53; Jn 19:41).
3. It was a garden area (Jn 20:41, 42). The enclosed cistern of 250,000 gallons implying a single, very wealthy, owner.
4. It was adjacent to a wine press.
5. It had a rolling stone door (Mt 27:60; 28:2; Mk 16:3; Lk 24:2).
6. The tomb itself was just to right of a wailing chamber (Mk 16:5).
7. And, it is empty! (Lk 24:6, 12; Jn 20).
8. Gordon's Calvary
Dogmatic religion is a mind-boggling exercise in confirmation bias. Try to read about this from a purely historical perspective. Jesus is a myth that may have some basis in one or more real persons, but "Jesus" is not a verifiable historical factual character.
CD
-
I think we need to make some specific distinctions here:
There are at least three different versions of Jesus...
1-Jesus the historical character, for whom there is NO direct historical evidence. But for whom a good circumstantial case could be made.
2-Jesus the Messiah/Christ, the supposed son of God and founder of the Christian faith
3-Holy Jeebus, the version of Jesus believed in by illiterate and ignorant evangelical Christians (and to a lesser extend representative of the god of modern Christians)
Coach should be a little more specific with regard to which Jesus/Jeebus he is referring to...
The Luke
-
So The Luke, are you absolutely sure about #1? Because if you are sure, you just bebunked every archiolgical find relating to the historical evidence of Jesus' existance as found by Christian and NON-Christian arciologists, might want to rethink your answer!
-
(http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r89/statuesk/Christianity.jpg)
-
So The Luke, are you absolutely sure about #1? Because if you are sure, you just bebunked every archiolgical find relating to the historical evidence of Jesus' existance as found by Christian and NON-Christian arciologists, might want to rethink your answer!
Coach, there is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed.
There are no contemporary references, that is... when you disregard all the FORGED references that the Church itself faked.
If you can provide any Coach you could easily claim the $800,000 Templeton Prize.
The Luke
-
Having a hard time typing on this thing....but The Templeton Prize already acknowledges a God (with a capitol G) and a Creator.
-
There is more hard evidence that shows extra terrestrial life exists then A Creator.
-
happy Ground Hogs day joloco
-
Coach, there is NO historical evidence that Jesus ever existed.
There are no contemporary references, that is... when you disregard all the FORGED references that the Church itself faked.
If you can provide any Coach you could easily claim the $800,000 Templeton Prize.
The Luke
Thats not true, there are records kept by the Romans which mention Him.
-
Thats not true, there are records kept by the Romans which mention Him.
...No.
We have references to Roman records from non-contemporary sources. The church has been amassing these for centuries, they're all bullshit.
Jesus may well have existed, but the historical Jesus would not have been anything like the Jesus of the gospels. The story of the gospels is completely plagiarized and significantly older than the Jesus movement.
The basic facts of Jesus' life as reported in the gospels:
-born in a cave or stable (like all sun gods)
-born on 25th December (like all sun gods)
-born of a virgin (opposite the Virgo constellation; like all sun gods)
-his birth is attended by three wise magi (magicians; like all sun gods)
-an evil king attempts to have him murdered in infancy and kills many innocents (this is Jewish)
-he is fully cogniscent of all knowledge by age twelve
-he gathers to him 12 disciples (and a concubine fallen woman; the Magdalene... symbolic of the twelve zodiac signs and the hidden thirteenth zodiac sign)
-he renames his disciples
-he travels around preaching to crowds
-he heals the sick
-he feeds the masses (usually with fish and bread)
-he heals the lame
-he heals the blind
-he raises the dead
-he arrives triumphantly at the capital atop a donkey (a donkey represents the mastered base self)
-he is betrayed and delivered to a tyrant king
-the king has him crucified (on a cross, tree or T shaped cross)
-he is buried in a cave or tomb (like all sun gods)
-he rises from the day three days later at Easter time (like all sun gods)
-he appears to his disciples then ascends into heaven
However, all twenty of these facts are exactly the same in the stories of several other pagan mystery religions and equally well apply to:
-Tammuz (the Samaritan messiah)
-Attis (Persian)
-Osiris
-Horus
-Mithras
-Hercules and Heracles
-Apollo
-Diana
-Pythagoras (yes, the mathematician)
-Plato (yes the philosopher... he also became a god)
...most of these messiahs predate the Jesus movement by millenia.
Early church fathers countered the claims of plagiarism from pagan cults by invoking the doctrine of "Diabolical Mimicry": seems the Devil knew Jesus was coming and he sent all these satanic false messiahs to spread peace, love and understanding before Jesus so that he could undermine the completely original Jesus mission.
I didn't even touch on the homosexual twist to the Jesus movement.
The world needs atheism...
The Luke
-
Probably the most famous non-Christian source used as evidence for a historic Jesus, is the Roman senator, consul, speaker, and historian Cornelius Tacitus ( 20 - 117 AD). In a passage in his "Annales, book 15, verse 44" from the year 115 AD concerning the Christians, he mentions the name "Christ" as the subject for the Christian's cult and worship:
"Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of... Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious [or wicked] superstition [Christianity] was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."
Then we have Tranquillus Gaius Suetonius ( 69 - 140 AD), a Roman historian and the personal secretary of emperor Hadrian. Suetonius also mentions the name Chrestus as the subject of the Christians worship.
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Claudius) expelled them from Rome".
Those are two Roman historians who lived in the first century, AD
-
Having a hard time typing on this thing....but The Templeton Prize already acknowledges a God (with a capitol G) and a Creator.
Joe,
If you believe in a creator, please, don't make you evidence be something that is man-made.
Man-made things are flawed, they are politically and financially motivated, among other reasons.
Man is imperfect, and so are the things we come up with. Any group can create any evidence for anything they like, to suit their purposes. In centuries past, churches have been corrupt businesses at times.
I believe in God for my own reasons. I know he's there from my own experiences. I believe we're a part of him, and have been, and will be forever, because that's what I believe. I don't point at anything man-made as proof of a higher power. IMHO, using man-made evidence to back up your beliefs means it can be debunked by other man-made evidence with its own earthly motives. This creates doubt, the enemy of faith.
Believe in God on your own, without trying to prove it to anyone. If someone doesn't believe in God, well, that's between the two of them. None of us can know or prove anything about the afterlife, and we'll all get there eventually.
-
The American Indians consider the falcon as the greatest of birds. They represent and embody the power of, Thunder Bird, The Great Spirit. They believe its feathers carry the prayers of people to the father Sun.
-
Joe,
If you believe in a creator, please, don't make you evidence be something that is man-made.
Man-made things are flawed, they are politically and financially motivated, among other reasons.
Man is imperfect, and so are the things we come up with. Any group can create any evidence for anything they like, to suit their purposes. In centuries past, churches have been corrupt businesses at times.
I believe in God for my own reasons. I know he's there from my own experiences. I believe we're a part of him, and have been, and will be forever, because that's what I believe. I don't point at anything man-made as proof of a higher power. IMHO, using man-made evidence to back up your beliefs means it can be debunked by other man-made evidence with its own earthly motives. This creates doubt, the enemy of faith.
Believe in God on your own, without trying to prove it to anyone. If someone doesn't believe in God, well, that's between the two of them. None of us can know or prove anything about the afterlife, and we'll all get there eventually.
Good post. I find general belief in a creator of higher power to be far less objectionable than belief in a scripture-based religion. Not only does it do less harm, but it's more compatible with possible reality. I personally don't have a belief in a higher power, but I can tell you if all the worlds christians and muslims suddenly became deists (general belief in a creator without belief in a particular religious dogma), the world would be a far better place.
-
Both of whom wrote those references circa the year 100. That's seventy years after the fact, or two lifetimes later in those times... that's hardly contemporary.
There is growing evidence that the historical Jesus was little more than a claimant to the Jewish throne who tried to raise an army; was crucified for it and then posthumously made the centrepiece of a Hebrew-ified version of the common Mediterranean mystery religion.
This "new" religion had no inner mysteries and anyone could join for a small fee... which went to the Essenes, who in turn used it to raise money for the 70 AD revolt against the Romans. The Romans butchered them all, as was their wont when dealing with zealots... leaving Pauline Christianity a leaderless cash-cow.
The same thing happened with Scientology when the immortal L Ron Hubbard ascended to a higher plane of existence after a lengthy illness. The scam outlived the con-man.
Seeing as the entire Jesus story is a fiction plagiarized from other religions, is it really such a jump to posit the possibility that Jesus himself is also a fiction? After all, what kind of Essene Jew has a Helenized name (which also happens to be a Gammatrical numerical code pun), espouses Egyptian rituals (the Lord's Prayer is word for word lifted from the Pyramid texts), parrots back Buddha's sermons (the beatitudes) and performs miracles in accordance with the exact manner in which Pythagoras performed them?
Before anyone points to the Josephus reference to Jesus: it's a forgery.
Early Church Fathers announced the reference to Jesus around 300 AD and insisted that any copy of Josephus' Histories not containing it be burned as the obvious handiwork of the devil. Historians wishing to keep their Josephus texts simply amended them in accordance with Church dogma... the older versions do allude to the miracle birth of a divine child occasioned by a stellar alignment, but this is a pandering reference to the birth of Octavian (later to be the first emperor: the divine Augustus).
The Luke
-
Good post. I find general belief in a creator of higher power to be far less objectionable than belief in a scripture-based religion. Not only does it do less harm, but it's more compatible with possible reality. I personally don't have a belief in a higher power, but I can tell you if all the worlds christians and muslims suddenly became deists (general belief in a creator without belief in a particular religious dogma), the world would be a far better place.
I believe there's a higher energy which we are all part of. Little pieces of God with amnesia playing hide and seek, if you will. Or, some common creating source of all this energy that we start and remain a part of. I think the big bang was just matter bouncing off a wall, and it's always been here and always be there. I don't buy "there was nothing, then one day everything just appeared".
it's dangerous when any human believes he has all the answers, or has the audacity to believe he possesses the rubric for OTHERS getting into heaven. That irritates me. When I hear "so-and-so believes this, so he's not going to heaven", that annoys me. None of us knows anything to a certainty, and we certainly cannot prove it. To say you KNOW what will happen to others, when you cannot prove what happens to yourself, it's annoying.
-
Probably the most famous non-Christian source used as evidence for a historic Jesus, is the Roman senator, consul, speaker, and historian Cornelius Tacitus ( 20 - 117 AD). In a passage in his "Annales, book 15, verse 44" from the year 115 AD concerning the Christians, he mentions the name "Christ" as the subject for the Christian's cult and worship:
"Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of... Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious [or wicked] superstition [Christianity] was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."
Then we have Tranquillus Gaius Suetonius ( 69 - 140 AD), a Roman historian and the personal secretary of emperor Hadrian. Suetonius also mentions the name Chrestus as the subject of the Christians worship.
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Claudius) expelled them from Rome".
Those are two Roman historians who lived in the first century, AD
The absolute most these could prove is that there were "christians" floating around in the late first century CE, not the existance of a historical Jesus.
-
The same thing happened with Scientology when the immortal L Ron Hubbard ascended to a higher plane of existence after a lengthy illness. The scam outlived the con-man.
2000 years from now they'll be arguing about the same shit re: scientology, even though everyone who is living in this age knows its origins and the fact it's a scam. (assuming we don't all wipe ourselves out before then).
-
The absolute most these could prove is that there were "christians" floating around in the late first century CE, not the existance of a historical Jeses.
...and "Christ" only means "Leader" or "Lord".
Bar Kochbah (leader of a later revolt against the Romans) was referred to as "Christ" and was even officially sanctioned as the "messiah" promised in Isiah by the Temple authorities.
I believe the Tacitus reference to the "vile disease" of Christianity is actually discussing the Roman belief that Christians were secretly cannibals. Although it could be a reference to Cappocratian Christianity which involved ritualized sodomy.
The Luke
-
There were several "Illusionist" characters that were around during the time of Jesus that could perform all types of stuff - floating in the air, walking on water etc. Several of these stunts were later transfered to jesus. who was given credit for them even though he never actually did any of them.
Christians,Muslims etc are so fanatical about these "magic" books that were written by MAN. These books didnt fall out of the sky. They were compiled by men who saw a great scheme to prey on the gullibilty of the uneducated masses who were ready to believe anything. Its strange that all these so called religious figures started when men were relatively primitive in their way of thinking. How many of these religious figures have made an appearance recently? Zero. Isn't it about time for Jesus or muhammed to make another appearance? Oh wait i forgot...they're expected anyday now ::). Keep waiting retards.
There is no evidence to prove the existence of god becausei ts just a state of mind of delusional/opportunistic men. Surely an all powerful being such as god would have the means to end this pointless debate by providing concrete evidence and not vague mumblings in the minds of opportunists.
Religion is a nice bedtime story for those who like to be led around like to be told what to do.
-
You know, it's interesting how many atheists and agnostics there are on internet boards (not just this one... most boards) where people can anonymously express their true opinions, yet to look at the polls, America is like 90% Christian.
The disconnect is interesting. ;)
-
Why is Jesus Christ so special? Why do billions of people celebrate his birth? Why do we believe that Jesus was the Messiah? What if he was just a man? Does it really make a difference? If you have ever asked yourself these same questions, be assured that the Bible does have the answers.
For the greater part of the last 2,000 years the historical existence of Jesus has not been questioned. However, in the last two centuries an increasing number of skeptics have claimed that Jesus never existed, even though a cursory review of ancient Roman and Rabbinical writings reveals that Jesus was indeed a historical figure. The Babylonian Talmud, an ancient rabbinical commentary, makes a number of references to Jesus of Nazareth. The first century Jewish historian Josephus also made references to Jesus: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. If it be lawful to call Him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works. He was the Christ. And the tribe of Christians so named from Him are not extinct to this day... (The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3.)"
Throughout its text the Bible clearly teaches that there is but one God. However, the mystery of the Godhead is that this one God manifests Himself in three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. This fact has led to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the attributes of God, the works of God and the names of God are applied to all three persons of the trinity. Throughout the Old Testament we are given a glimpse of the deity and majesty of the Messiah (also called the Anointed One). Furthermore, the fact that God is a plural being, eternally existent in more than one person, is also found throughout the Old Testament. Elohim, the plural form of El, one of the names of God, is seen throughout the Old Testament (see Genesis 1:1) and in Genesis 1:26 God states, "Let us make man in our image..."
In the New Testament the disciples clearly spoke of the preeminence and deity of Jesus Christ. He is identified as the creator of the universe (Jn 1:1-14, Col 1:16), God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16), and our Lord and Savior (Titus 1:1-4). This is only a small sample of their claims about the nature and identity of Christ. By healing the sick, resurrecting the dead, creating food out of nothing and by defying the laws of gravity, Jesus demonstrated His authority over the laws of physics and thereby revealed His divine nature. Jesus’ resume is impeccable. All the necessary attributes of the Creator are applied to Him within the Biblical text – he is independent of space and time, transcendent, distinct from his creation, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and has authority over the laws of nature. Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God and the only way to eternal life (John 4:25; 9:35-37; 10:30-3; 14:6-9).
Jesus Christ made the ultimate sacrifice for us. It will take an eternity for us to understand what it cost Him that we might live. He "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:7-11)."
-
You know, it's interesting how many atheists and agnostics there are on internet boards (not just this one... most boards) where people can anonymously express their true opinions, yet to look at the polls, America is like 90% Christian.
The disconnect is interesting. ;)
Athiests are usually the loudest. Just like extreme religious types are also the loudest.
The middle 90%, they either believe or they don't but they don't scream in the face of those who disagree. The interweb is great for people who like to scream at those who are different.
-
You know, it's interesting how many atheists and agnostics there are on internet boards (not just this one... most boards) where people can anonymously express their true opinions, yet to look at the polls, America is like 90% Christian.
The disconnect is interesting. ;)
Depends on how you poll- If you poll mainly christians you'd get that figure.
There are lies-damned lies and statistics + polls ;D
-
Athiests are usually the loudest. Just like extreme religious types are also the loudest.
The middle 90%, they either believe or they don't but they don't scream in the face of those who disagree. The interweb is great for people who like to scream at those who are different.
You may have a point, but I don't go out of my way to scream about my beliefs or lack thereof. In my day-to-day life it's not an issue. On the boards threads like these seem to come up all the time, usually started by some Christard (no offense, Joe ;)).
-
You know, it's interesting how many atheists and agnostics there are on internet boards (not just this one... most boards) where people can anonymously express their true opinions, yet to look at the polls, America is like 90% Christian.
The disconnect is interesting. ;)
Alot of that 90% think just because they go to church, they are a Christian or because they do somehting good, they are Christian and going to heaven, etc, etc, truth is most of that 90% really don't know the true meaning of being a Christian let alone Christianity.
-
Depends on how you poll- If you poll mainly christians you'd get that figure.
There are lies-damned lies and statistics + polls ;D
Depends on how you define "Christian"? If you randomly ask a person if they believe in God, chances are they will say yes, alot of people think just because they believe in God, that automatically make them a "Christian".
-
Why is Jesus Christ so special? Why do billions of people celebrate his birth? Why do we believe that Jesus was the Messiah? What if he was just a man? Does it really make a difference? If you have ever asked yourself these same questions, be assured that the Bible does have the answers.
For the greater part of the last 2,000 years the historical existence of Jesus has not been questioned. However, in the last two centuries an increasing number of skeptics have claimed that Jesus never existed, even though a cursory review of ancient Roman and Rabbinical writings reveals that Jesus was indeed a historical figure. The Babylonian Talmud, an ancient rabbinical commentary, makes a number of references to Jesus of Nazareth. The first century Jewish historian Josephus also made references to Jesus: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. If it be lawful to call Him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works. He was the Christ. And the tribe of Christians so named from Him are not extinct to this day... (The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3.)"
Throughout its text the Bible clearly teaches that there is but one God. However, the mystery of the Godhead is that this one God manifests Himself in three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. This fact has led to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the attributes of God, the works of God and the names of God are applied to all three persons of the trinity. Throughout the Old Testament we are given a glimpse of the deity and majesty of the Messiah (also called the Anointed One). Furthermore, the fact that God is a plural being, eternally existent in more than one person, is also found throughout the Old Testament. Elohim, the plural form of El, one of the names of God, is seen throughout the Old Testament (see Genesis 1:1) and in Genesis 1:26 God states, "Let us make man in our image..."
In the New Testament the disciples clearly spoke of the preeminence and deity of Jesus Christ. He is identified as the creator of the universe (Jn 1:1-14, Col 1:16), God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16), and our Lord and Savior (Titus 1:1-4). This is only a small sample of their claims about the nature and identity of Christ. By healing the sick, resurrecting the dead, creating food out of nothing and by defying the laws of gravity, Jesus demonstrated His authority over the laws of physics and thereby revealed His divine nature. Jesus’ resume is impeccable. All the necessary attributes of the Creator are applied to Him within the Biblical text – he is independent of space and time, transcendent, distinct from his creation, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and has authority over the laws of nature. Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God and the only way to eternal life (John 4:25; 9:35-37; 10:30-3; 14:6-9).
Jesus Christ made the ultimate sacrifice for us. It will take an eternity for us to understand what it cost Him that we might live. He "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:7-11)."
ha ha ha - quoting some bullshit written thousands of years ago for primitives doesnt hold much water today. I'm sure the muslims have their own bullshit passages like the ones in the bible to justify themselves.
Then again even in this day and age some people/mental slaves still need a security blanket to tell them that everything is going to be allright.
Jesus died for our sins ??? - if so his sacrifice was in vain.
-
Depends on how you define "Christian"? If you randomly ask a person if they believe in God, chances are they will say yes, alot of people think just because they believe in God, that automatically make them a "Christian".
So if a muslim/hindu etc claim they believe in god that makes them Christian? ???
Maybe in FOX news polls ;)
Classic George Carlin Quote:
"What can we do to silence these christian athletes who thank jesus everytime they win but never mention him when they lose. You never hear things like Jesus made me drop the ball. The good lord tripped me up".
-
Well duh. If something good happens, it was God's will. If something bad happens, well...the Lord works in mysterious ways.... ::)
-
So I typed this...
Before anyone points to the Josephus reference to Jesus: it's a forgery.
Early Church Fathers announced the reference to Jesus around 300 AD and insisted that any copy of Josephus' Histories not containing it be burned as the obvious handiwork of the devil. Historians wishing to keep their Josephus texts simply amended them in accordance with Church dogma... the older versions do allude to the miracle birth of a divine child occasioned by a stellar alignment, but this is a pandering reference to the birth of Octavian (later to be the first emperor: the divine Augustus).
The Luke
...and Joe responded with this:
The first century Jewish historian Josephus also made references to Jesus: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. If it be lawful to call Him a man, for He was a doer of wonderful works. He was the Christ. And the tribe of Christians so named from Him are not extinct to this day... (The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3.)"
...didn't I explain that this reference has been PROVEN to be a forgery?
The Luke
-
...No.
We have references to Roman records from non-contemporary sources. The church has been amassing these for centuries, they're all bullshit.
Jesus may well have existed, but the historical Jesus would not have been anything like the Jesus of the gospels. The story of the gospels is completely plagiarized and significantly older than the Jesus movement.
I don’t know where you got this. But, it’s just as inaccurate now as it was the last time other skeptics, here and elsewhere, brought this up.
The basic facts of Jesus' life as reported in the gospels:
-born in a cave or stable (like all sun gods)
The Gospels do not have Jesus, being born in a cave (you and/or whoever wrote this are stretching things). He was born in a manger. Where are the reports that those other figures were born in a manger?
-born on 25th December (like all sun gods)
I hope you have a chapter and verse for that. And, exactly why would a “sun god” be born in the dead of winter?
-born of a virgin (opposite the Virgo constellation; like all sun gods)
Jesus was. As for the others you mentioned: Horus? Nope!! Osiris? So sorry!! Attis? Try again!!! Hercules and Hercales??? PLEASE!!!! Mithras?? Hardly!!
Pythagoras and Plato?? Both mortals, with regular parents, who produced them the old-fashioned way.
Diana?? A female!!! Enough said!!!
-his birth is attended by three wise magi (magicians; like all sun gods)
There are at least a couple of problems with this blurb:
1) The NT never claims that there were exactly three wise men.
2) The wise men didn’t attend Jesus’ birth; when they found Him, He was about TWO years old (See Matt. 2:7, 16).
-an evil king attempts to have him murdered in infancy and kills many innocents (this is Jewish)
Again, see above.
-he is fully cogniscent of all knowledge by age twelve.
And??? If He’s following the Levitical law, Jesus would not have recognized as a grown man, until age 20. And His ministry didn’t start, until He was around 30.
-he gathers to him 12 disciples (and a concubine fallen woman; the Magdalene... symbolic of the twelve zodiac signs and the hidden thirteenth zodiac sign)
Mary Magdalene was NOT Jesus’ concubine. While on the cross, He tells John to take care of His mother. That is normal procedure in Jewish culture. He was firstborn and unmarried; therefore He took care of His mother and unmarried sisters. Had he been hitched to Mary Mags, He would have commissioned John to take care of her, not His mama. In fact, there is no special provision from Jesus to care for Mary Mags.
-he renames his disciples
Where did this happen again (chapter and verse, please)? The only one that got “renamed” was Peter (Cephas), everyone else had their original first names or were also referenced by their surnames (i.e. identified by their fathers).
-he travels around preaching to crowds
-he heals the sick
-he feeds the masses (usually with fish and bread)
The food was standard fare in that region
-he heals the lame
-he heals the blind
-he raises the dead
-he arrives triumphantly at the capital atop a donkey (a donkey represents the mastered base self)[/quote]
No, a donkey represents……A DONKEY!!!!! Jesus was recorded doing these deeds. Exactly where are Horus, Osiris, Attis, et. al. doing all of that stuff??
-he is betrayed and delivered to a tyrant king
-the king has him crucified (on a cross, tree or T shaped cross)
True of Jesus Christ, not of the other figures, as will be shown below.
-he is buried in a cave or tomb (like all sun gods)
The tomb of Jospeh of Arimithea, who asks for custody of Jesus’ body.
-he rises from the day three days later at Easter time (like all sun gods)
-he appears to his disciples then ascends into heaven. [/quote]
He also appeared to about 500 other folks, according to the apostle Paul, stating on Earth for forty days after His resurrection. And, He resurrects as a grown man, unlike Attis, Horus, and Osiris (who doesn’t resurrect at all but remained in the underworld).
However, all twenty of these facts are exactly the same in the stories of several other pagan mystery religions and equally well apply to:
-Tammuz (the Samaritan messiah)
-Attis (Persian)
-Osiris
-Horus
-Mithras
-Hercules and Heracles
-Apollo
-Diana
-Pythagoras (yes, the mathematician)
-Plato (yes the philosopher... he also became a god)
...most of these messiahs predate the Jesus movement by millenia.
“Exactly the same?” Did you/whoever wrote this actually check the references to these guys/gals, before posting this? Let’s look at some of them:
Attis – He’s the product of Zeus, getting his freak on with the side of a mountain, producing Attis’ father. He ended up getting dismembered, with his penis turning to a tree. That tree produced some fruit, which a virgin put into her lap, resulting in her impregnation with Attis. For some reason, that doesn’t quite match up with the Nativity story.
To top it all off, Attis’ death wasn’t one to provide salvation or redeem mankind. Basically, out of feverish lust over a woman (who may have been his own mama), he chopped off his nuts and bled to death. Exactly like Jesus? I don’t think so.
Horus – The product of a bestiality-necrophilic sex act; specifically, his mama turned herself into a bird and had sex with her dead husband.
Osiris – father of Horus, dismember by Set, who scattered his body into at least a dozen spots. Isis, his wife, found all the pieces, except his Johnson; so, she has to make a new one for him (still dead and in the underworld, BTW), before turning Tweety to do the wild thing.
Herucles/Heracles Both were more bastard sons of the whoremongering Zeus with mortal females.
And that’s just the short list. In summation (and I’ll have to remember where I got this):
- None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity.
-Only Jesus died for sin. It is never claimed that any of the pagan deities died for sin. As Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods, "has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.)."
- Jesus died once and for all (Hebrews 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated death and resuscitation depict the annual cycle of nature.
- Jesus' death was an actual event in history. The death of the god described in the pagan cults is a mythical drama with no historical ties.
- Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like the voluntary death of Jesus can be found in the mystery cults.
- And finally, Jesus' death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus' death is a message of triumph.
Early church fathers countered the claims of plagiarism from pagan cults by invoking the doctrine of "Diabolical Mimicry": seems the Devil knew Jesus was coming and he sent all these satanic false messiahs to spread peace, love and understanding before Jesus so that he could undermine the completely original Jesus mission.
I didn't even touch on the homosexual twist to the Jesus movement.
The world needs atheism...
Because………….
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a supernatural deity. But many who hold the title would be better described as “anti-theists”. They don’t simply have a lack of belief but a distinct disdain for faith (and, often, for people of faith). To paraphrase the word of one pastor, ”Atheists are some of the strangest people. They spend all their lives fighting someone they don’t believe exists”
-
MCWAY,
If I take on each of your points one by one and disprove them would you at least have the decency to concede them? Or are you determined to read the News Testament as an infallible document?
I can counter everything you asserted... but I don't see the point if you're determined to remain ignorant of the facts.
The Luke
-
MCWAY,
If I take on each of your points one by one and disprove them would you at least have the decency to concede them? Or are you determined to read the News Testament as an infallible document?
I can counter everything you asserted... but I don't see the point if you're determined to remain ignorant of the facts.
The Luke
Go for it!! You can start by showing the chapters and verses, in the New Testament, which state that:
a) There were exactly three wise men.
b) The wise men/magi found Jesus shortly after His birth.
c) Jesus was born on December 25th.
And before you start talking about my being "determined to remain ignorant of the facts", again, get yours straight about the figures from whom Jesus was allegedly copied. For example, there's Horus. You claimed he was also born of a virgin. The story on him has his being born as a result of Isis and Osiris HAVING SEX, specifically Isis (in the form of a bird) is getting her freak on with a DEAD Osiris (using a substitute penis, as the original was still missing, thanks to Set).
And that resembles the Nativity story HOW!!!???
-
Go for it. You can start by showing the chapters and verses, in the New Testament, which state that
a) There were exactly three wise men
b) The wise men/magi found Jesus shortly after His birth.
c) Jesus was born on December 25th.
...firstly I never claimed ANY of these things appear in the New Testament, I simply meant to assert that they are basic parts of the Jesus story accepted either through scriptural reference or longstanding tradition (the same tradition that rewrote the New Testament several times).
I'll ignore the faulty logic you've employed that somehow asserts a Gospel reference establishes a fact, and go straight to the things you asserted:
a) There were exactly three wise men
This is usually assumed via tradition: the Zoroastrian priests who studied the heavens for astrological alignments relating to kingship and the birth of kings/miracle-children always traveled in threes (a solar cycle expert; a lunar cycle expert and a stellar alignment expert). Similarly, to this day the Buddhist monks who travel around seeking out the reincarnations of Buddhist Llamas/Teachers travel in threes; as did the Levite priests who traveled around in threes seeking out the next king of Israel... then there are the conspicuous gifts: gold, frankincense and mir. One from each wise man (presumably) and the trio of gifts being the traditional trio given by three ambassadors to newly born heir kings.
But more important than any of this is the fact that there was a two millennia old tradition (going back to 4,000 BC) in which a mystery tradition was centered on a known figure from mythology and the astrological mystery/revelatory story was a fixed around the mythology of that character. This is what has happened to Jesus.
b) The wise men/magi found Jesus shortly after his birth
The gifts bestowed were the traditional gifts given upon the BIRTH of a male heir to a royal dynasty.
The original version of the gospels (what we have is a redacted and altered version) probably emphasized Jesus standing as a lost Hasmonean prince (usurped by the Arab puppet ruler Herod the Great). This standing would be greatly enhanced by the recognition of Jesus claim by highly learned oriental priests (who all traveled in threes).
c) Jesus was born on December 25th
ALL, repeat ALL solar deities are born on the 25th of December... Jesus is a solar deity; he conforms to all the norms for the many previously established solar deities.
The significance of the 25th of December is that it is the first day after the mid winter solstice (21st December) when a SOLAR measurement demonstrates a lengthening of the of the day... to all the pagan solar mystery religions the 25th of December signaled the BIRTH of the new sun.
The 25th December birth date is common to all solar deities, as is the death of the sun god and rebirth after three days in the underworld.
Evangelicals are generally unaware of these facts.
The Mediterranean mystery religion prefigures every aspect of Jesus' life thousands of years before Jesus. Christianity is simply an unenlightened Hebrew version of this longstanding mystery tradition which has become popular by pandering to the needs of the unenlightened. The inner mysteries have been removed and a doctrine of blind faith added to this persistent meme complex.
I'll wait to see if this goes over your head MCWAY before I answer any other questions... although I suspect the answer will be "Show me in the New Testament where it says..."
The Luke
-
...firstly I never claimed ANY of these things appear in the New Testament, I simply meant to assert that they are basic parts of the Jesus story accepted either through scriptural reference or longstanding tradition (the same tradition that rewrote the New Testament several times).
Yes, you did!!!
The basic facts of Jesus' life as reported in the gospels:
-born in a cave or stable (like all sun gods)
-born on 25th December (like all sun gods)
-born of a virgin (opposite the Virgo constellation; like all sun gods)
-his birth is attended by three wise magi (magicians; like all sun gods)
-an evil king attempts to have him murdered in infancy and kills many innocents (this is Jewish)
-he is fully cogniscent of all knowledge by age twelve
-he gathers to him 12 disciples (and a concubine fallen woman; the Magdalene... symbolic of the twelve zodiac signs and the hidden thirteenth zodiac sign)
-he renames his disciples
-he travels around preaching to crowds
-he heals the sick
-he feeds the masses (usually with fish and bread)
-he heals the lame
-he heals the blind
-he raises the dead
-he arrives triumphantly at the capital atop a donkey (a donkey represents the mastered base self)
-he is betrayed and delivered to a tyrant king
-the king has him crucified (on a cross, tree or T shaped cross)
-he is buried in a cave or tomb (like all sun gods)
-he rises from the day three days later at Easter time (like all sun gods)
-he appears to his disciples then ascends into heaven
The Gospels are in the New Testament and, you claimed that this was in the Gospels, per this laundry list.
I'll ignore the faulty logic you've employed that somehow asserts a Gospel reference establishes a fact, and go straight to the things you asserted:
a) There were exactly three wise men
This is usually assumed via tradition: the Zoroastrian priests who studied the heavens for astrological alignments relating to kingship and the birth of kings/miracle-children always traveled in threes (a solar cycle expert; a lunar cycle expert and a stellar alignment expert). Similarly, to this day the Buddhist monks who travel around seeking out the reincarnations of Buddhist Llamas/Teachers travel in threes; as did the Levite priests who traveled around in threes seeking out the next king of Israel... then there are the conspicuous gifts: gold, frankincense and mir. One from each wise man (presumably) and the trio of gifts being the traditional trio given by three ambassadors to newly born heir kings.
But more important than any of this is the fact that there was a two millennia old tradition (going back to 4,000 BC) in which a mystery tradition was centered on a known figure from mythology and the astrological mystery/revelatory story was a fixed around the mythology of that character. This is what has happened to Jesus.
Once again, the Gospels NEVER STATE that there were exactly three wise men. So, all of this stuff you just mentioned is pretty much moot. You just said it yourself: It's via tradition, NOT the Gospels (or anywhere else in the New Testament).
b) The wise men/magi found Jesus shortly after his birth
The gifts bestowed were the traditional gifts given upon the BIRTH of a male heir to a royal dynasty.
But, the magi find Jesus when he's about 2 years old.....NEXT!!!!
The original version of the gospels (what we have is a redacted and altered version) probably emphasized Jesus standing as a lost Hasmonean prince (usurped by the Arab puppet ruler Herod the Great). This standing would be greatly enhanced by the recognition of Jesus claim by highly learned oriental priests (who all traveled in threes).
You're grasping again. You have no rhyme nor reason as to why the "original version" would have Jesus as a prince; while, the "redacted" version has Him as the earthly son of a carpenter.
Again, you repeat pointless rhetoric. No chapter and verse states that exactly THREE wise men found Jesus.
c) Jesus was born on December 25th
ALL, repeat ALL solar deities are born on the 25th of December... Jesus is a solar deity; he conforms to all the norms for the many previously established solar deities.
Says who? I asked you for CHAPTER AND VERSE in the Gospels that has him born December 25th. You have NOT produced that. On top of that, nowhere is he proclaimed or established as a "solar deity". You're grasping, yet again.
The significance of the 25th of December is that it is the first day after the mid winter solstice (21st December) when a SOLAR measurement demonstrates a lengthening of the of the day... to all the pagan solar mystery religions the 25th of December signaled the BIRTH of the new sun.
The 25th December birth date is common to all solar deities, as is the death of the sun god and rebirth after three days in the underworld.
And that has what to do with the price of tea in China? No one worshipped Jesus as the "sun god". Plus, as I mentioned in that summation. Jesus' death occured ONCE, as did His resurrection. There is no repeated dying and rebirth, as these solar deities have it.
Evangelicals are generally unaware of these facts.
The Mediterranean mystery religion prefigures every aspect of Jesus' life thousands of years before Jesus. Christianity is simply an unenlightened Hebrew version of this longstanding mystery tradition which has become popular by pandering to the needs of the unenlightened. The inner mysteries have been removed and a doctrine of blind faith added to this persistent meme complex.
Skeptics have been spouting this foolishness for nearly 200 years. And, it's just as wrong NOW as it was then. Going through the specifics of these gods from whom Jesus was allegedly derived shows that they are NOWHERE NEAR similar to Jesus Christ.
Did Attis chop off his nuts to redeem man from his sins?
Exactly how is Horus' mother a "virgin", when she HAD SEX (even in birdie form) to conceive Horus?
Jesus came back to life, saying, "A spirit does not have FLESH AND BONES as you see that I have"; Osiris remained in the underworld after his dismemberment. That's where Isis had to go to get busy with him.
I'll wait to see if this goes over your head MCWAY before I answer any other questions... although I suspect the answer will be "Show me in the New Testament where it says..."
The Luke
First, you claim that the Gospels (located in the New Testament) say that mess. Yet, when asked to show chapter and verse to back your claim, you come up with this wild speculation and generalities, while dancing around the specific like Hammer in his "U Can't Touch This" video.
You made the claims. Now, let's see you back them..
-
Eh... MCWAY, you are aware that there are at least twenty different extant gospels right?
You know that at one stage in the fourth century there were at least 60 different gospels, right?
You've read all these right?
I see what's happening here, you are right that not all the things I mentioned appear in the canonical gospels, but you need to do some better research before you disagree on points of fact. Read the Nag Hamadi texts; read the gnostic gospels; the Dead Sea Scrolls. While you're at it read up on the experts opinions on where these stories originate.
You are sure that Attis, Tammuz, Apollo etc do not represent earlier versions of the Jesus story... but only because you have checked up conventional references to the mythology surrounding these figures.
That's NOT what I alluded to... I was referring to the "Mystery Religion"; this is an astrological metaphor religion in which the same astrological story is applied to various already familiar mythological figures in order to express astrological/mathematical secrets or insights. And everything I referenced is applicable to these mystery religions.
You do understand that the Garden of Eden story is metaphorical containing secret geographical knowledge?
Do you know that the feeding of the 5,000 story is actually an unenlightened version of Pythagoras' rendering of the same miracle right?
Or are you a literalist?
The Luke
-
...and "Christ" only means "Leader" or "Lord".
Bar Kochbah (leader of a later revolt against the Romans) was referred to as "Christ" and was even officially sanctioned as the "messiah" promised in Isiah by the Temple authorities.
I believe the Tacitus reference to the "vile disease" of Christianity is actually discussing the Roman belief that Christians were secretly cannibals. Although it could be a reference to Cappocratian Christianity which involved ritualized sodomy.
The Luke
The Tacitus passage is commonly regarded as a forgery; never mind the fact that NO ONE seems to have heard of it or seen it until the 15th century CE, almost 1500 years after he 'wrote' it. And even if it is not there were Christians living in the early 2nd century who believed the story and spread it; IF he wrote it he was simply repeating what he heard about the foundations of the cult.
-
Eh... MCWAY, you are aware that there are at least twenty different extant gospels right?
You know that at one stage in the fourth century there were at least 60 different gospels, right?
You've read all these right?
I see what's happening here, you are right that not all the things I mentioned appear in the canonical gospels, but you need to do some better research before you disagree on points of fact. Read the Nag Hamadi texts; read the gnostic gospels; the Dead Sea Scrolls. While you're at it read up on the experts opinions on where these stories originate.
You are sure that Attis, Tammuz, Apollo etc do not represent earlier versions of the Jesus story... but only because you have checked up conventional references to the mythology surrounding these figures.
That's NOT what I alluded to... I was referring to the "Mystery Religion"; this is an astrological metaphor religion in which the same astrological story is applied to various already familiar mythological figures in order to express astrological/mathematical secrets or insights. And everything I referenced is applicable to these mystery religions.
You do understand that the Garden of Eden story is metaphorical containing secret geographical knowledge?
Do you know that the feeding of the 5,000 story is actually an unenlightened version of Pythagoras' rendering of the same miracle right?
Or are you a literalist?
The Luke
The Luke...
MCWAY is a true fundy.
He concedes nothing. Recently he asserted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; why? Because it says so in the Bible.
He has been schooled over and over by people in the know about the Old and New Testaments and he never concedes anything, for to do so would destroy his entire life. You are wasting your time with him.
The Deicide (Why do you use the definite article with your name?)
-
MCWAY is a true fundy.
He concedes nothing. Recently he asserted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; why? Because it says so in the Bible.
...Jesus, I thought everyone was at least somewhat cogniscent of the recent research into the Exodus/Mount-Thera-eruption hypothesis. Especially since James Cameron jumped on the bandwagon with his documentaries.
Any bit of research would show that Moses was most likely a conflation of the priest Kamose and the Egyptian prince Tutmoses.
He has been schooled over and over by people in the know about the Old and New Testaments and he never concedes anything, for to do so would destroy his entire life. You are wasting your time with him.
The Deicide (Why do you use the definite article with your name?)
Good to know, I wont respond to him anymore.
I refer to myself via the definite article because whenever I've been in a social situation with anyone else who happens to be named Luke, for some reason I suddenly become THE Luke and they get relegated to being "the other Luke". Guess that's what happens when you're an charismatically erudite Renaissance man and also happen to be an amateur monster hunter.
The Luke
-
Eh... MCWAY, you are aware that there are at least twenty different extant gospels right?
You know that at one stage in the fourth century there were at least 60 different gospels, right?
You've read all these right?
I see what's happening here, you are right that not all the things I mentioned appear in the canonical gospels, but you need to do some better research before you disagree on points of fact. Read the Nag Hamadi texts; read the gnostic gospels; the Dead Sea Scrolls. While you're at it read up on the experts opinions on where these stories originate.
Again, you're ducking the issue, at hand. YOU claimed that the Gospels have Jesus born on December 25th and that exactly three wise men found Him shortly after His birth. Therefore, I asked that YOU produce chapter and verse to back that up.
If there are 60 of these alleged “gospels”, why are you having such a difficult time, providing chapter and verse to that which states that:
- Jesus was born December 25th?
- Exactly three wise men/magi found Him?
- The magi found him immediately after His birth?
- All of the disciples got renamed?
Instead, you make up these pitiful excuses.
You are sure that Attis, Tammuz, Apollo etc do not represent earlier versions of the Jesus story... but only because you have checked up conventional references to the mythology surrounding these figures.
So, where are these references that show that these figures are similar to Jesus Christ and the ones I mentioned are inaccurate? Once again, you make claims with little or nothing to back them.
The birth, life, purpose, death, and "resurrection" of those figures DO NOT MATCH those of Jesus Christ. In fact, they aren't even close.
Again, did Attis chop off his nuts to redeem man from sin?
Did Mary change into a bird and get her freak on with God (ala Isis and Osiris)?
Apollo was "immaculately" conceived (with Zeus as his daddy!!)?
That's NOT what I alluded to... I was referring to the "Mystery Religion"; this is an astrological metaphor religion in which the same astrological story is applied to various already familiar mythological figures in order to express astrological/mathematical secrets or insights. And everything I referenced is applicable to these mystery religions.
Whoopty-Doo!!! They don't apply to the account of Jesus Christ.
You do understand that the Garden of Eden story is metaphorical containing secret geographical knowledge?
Do you know that the feeding of the 5,000 story is actually an unenlightened version of Pythagoras' rendering of the same miracle right?
Or are you a literalist?
The Luke
I understand that you are making wild accusations and using vague generalities to prop up such a stance, while dodging the specifics that show your claims to be false.
-
The Luke...
MCWAY is a true fundy.
He concedes nothing. Recently he asserted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; why? Because it says so in the Bible.
He has been schooled over and over by people in the know about the Old and New Testaments and he never concedes anything, for to do so would destroy his entire life. You are wasting your time with him.
The Deicide (Why do you use the definite article with your name?)
People in the know? PLEASE!!!
This coming from someone,who couldn't stand on his own two feet here and back his statements up with facts and a scalded dog to an all-skeptic site (cutting and pasting my posts from here to there, in hope of getting your buddies to save his exposed backside).
And, as is often the case, this "schooling" consists of little more than tired old "Jesus never existed" arguments, feebly propped with condescending remarks and profanity, making it all the easier to cut through it and refute the specifics.
That, plus a lack of cowering to the certain skeptics' "curse and spew" tactics is what you woefully confuse with a lack of concession.
BTW, the whole Moses-Pentateuch thing. Apparently you forgot about a guy named Josephus:
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, as the Greeks have, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. - Against Apion, Book 1, part 8.
The Tacitus passage is commonly regarded as a forgery; never mind the fact that NO ONE seems to have heard of it or seen it until the 15th century CE, almost 1500 years after he 'wrote' it. And even if it is not there were Christians living in the early 2nd century who believed the story and spread it; IF he wrote it he was simply repeating what he heard about the foundations of the cult.
The only people who "commonly" regard Tacitus' reference as a forgery are "Jesus-Myth" folks like you.
Unless, you have affirmative confirmation that Tacitus simply heard about Jesus through the grapevine, as opposed to his doing some research on the matter, you are doing little more making a baseless accusation in an attempt to cover your feeble argument.
This silliness got picked apart the last time you brought it up. Of course, this was after the previous screwball statement of yours (namely that Josephus was the only non-Christian reference to Jesus Christ) got hacked up.
There was (and still is), of course, the minor question of why a forger would put a reference to Jesus Christ in the works of Tacitus, describing his fellow believers as haters of humanity and his faith as a "pernicious superstition" and part of all things "wicked" and "shameful".
And, there's the little matter of addressing the worth of Tacitus' reference to Christ when arguing for His divinity, if that reference simply mentioned that Christians were named after Him and He was put to death by Pontius Pilate (something the early Christians ALREADY KNEW).
If that weren't enough, Tacitus' assertion that Christianity was "suppressed for a time", after Jesus' death is hardly something a Christian writer would put in a document.
These are at least three issues that neither you (nor any of the folks you claim "schooled" me) have answered. It's the old "cluck and duck" routine from you and your skeptic brethren.
But, just for a refresher, of sorts:
But there are good reasons for concluding with the vast majority of scholars that this passage is fundamentally sound, despite difficulties which result in no small measure from Tacitus' own compressed style. The overall style and content of this chapter are typically Tacitean. The passage fits well in its context and is the necessary conclusion to the entire discussion of the burning of Rome. Sulpicius Severus's Chronicle 2.29 attests to much of it in the early fifth century, so most suggested interpolations would have to have come in the second through fourth centuries. As Norma Miller delightfully remarks, "The well-intentioned pagan glossers of ancient texts do not normally express themselves in Tacitean Latin," and the same could be said of Christian interpolators. Finally, no Christian forgers would have made such disparaging remarks about Christianity as we have in Annals 15.44, and they probably would not have been so merely descriptive in adding the material about Christ in 15.44.3. - Robert Van Voorst, "Jesus Outside The New Testament".
The testimony of Tacitus in the Annales, written between 115 and 117, is more explicit: "To destroy the rumour, which accused him as guilty of the burning of Rome, Nero invented some culprits, and inflicted on them the most excruciating punishments; they were those who, detested for their infamies, were called by the populace, Christians. The author of this name, Christ, had under the reign of Tiberius been condemned to death by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. This execrable superstition, held in check for a time, broke out anew, not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but also in the city in which all atrocities congregate and flourish."
There are two remarks in this passage whose authenticity is certain. The first concerns the burning of Rome and the persecution of the Christians; the second concerns the Christ. The first reflects the point of view of the contemporaries of Tacitus. It is a question of the hatred and contempt excited by the Christians and the infamies with which they were reproached, whilst it is precisely the accusation launched by Nero against them which seems to have unchained this hatred and contempt. The second must originate in some documentary source, since it contains no such word as "dicunt" or "ferunt," which would authorize us to suppose that Tacitus is only relating gossip. There is in this remark a characteristic idea—namely, that Christianity had been crushed out by the death of Christ, and had only reappeared about the year 64, simultaneously in Rome and in Judea. This resurrection of the execrable superstition in Judea can only be understood if we suppose that Tacitus does not make any distinction between the two manifestations of Messianism—Christianity and Judaism.
The words "not only in Judea" would imply, then, the sudden outbreak of nationalism which caused the revolt and the Jewish war. We can here form an idea of the character of the source: it was not Christian, since it presumed an eclipse of Christianity after the death of Jesus; neither was it Jewish, for no Jewish document would have called Jesus "Christ," nor would it have presented Judaism as solidary with Christianity. - Maurice Goguel, "Jesus The Nazarene"
Your claim that the Tacitean reference to Christ was forged/Tacitus was merely relaying gossip is as flimsy as an over-saturated strand of spaghetti. If you have the goods to show otherwise, produce them.
-
MCWAY,
Why don't you read the Gospel of Thomas in which Jesus has a twin brother (named Thomas; the Hebrew word for "twin"). Then read one of the so-called Judas Gospels, in which Jesus again has a twin brother (this time it's Judas).
While you're at it why not read the Mary Magdalene gospel, in which the Magdalene is the most important of the disciples.
Then go find yourself a few of the books that have been removed from the Old Testament; the Book of Jaffer; the Book of Enoch.
Reading is a good thing MCWAY, but for the love of god read a SECOND book.
The Luke
-
MCWAY,
Why don't you read the Gospel of Thomas in which Jesus has a twin brother (named Thomas; the Hebrew word for "twin"). Then read one of the so-called Judas Gospels, in which Jesus again has a twin brother (this time it's Judas).
While you're at it why not read the Mary Magdalene gospel, in which the Magdalene is the most important of the disciples.
Then go find yourself a few of the books that have been removed from the Old Testament; the Book of Jaffer; the Book of Enoch.
Reading is a good thing MCWAY, but for the love of god read a SECOND book.
The Luke
Why don't you cease with the “skeptic shuffle” and produce those references (chapter and verse, from either the Gospels or the so-called "gospels") to back those claims of yours (i.e. Christ was born 12/25; Exactly three wise men find Him, immediately after His birth; new names for all the disciples, etc.)?
Plus, you have squirmed from the fact that the birth, life, purpose, death, and alleged resurrection of ANY of those figures DO NOT match that of Jesus Christ in form or function. Why don't you produce references to the stories of these figures and show THE SPECIFICS that match the life of Jesus Christ?
Show that Attis hacked off his balls to save us from sin.
Show us that Apollo was truly "virgin-born", instead of another in the long list of bastard sons from the whoremongering Zeus.
Show us that Mary actually transformed herself into a bird and got freaky with a Bobbit-ized Jehovah.
Show us that Jesus was born out of the side of a cave (i.e. actually formed from ROCK).
For the love of God, BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS!!
-
Here you go MCWAY, an academic book detailing (with refernces and notes) all the many hundreds of similarities between the Jesus story and the pagan mystery gods.
"The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
You keep harping on about the discrepancies between the Jesus story and the mythological story of Attis (for example), but you seem blissfully unaware of the FACT that there was another version of the Attis story in which he was a solar/astrological deity; born December 25th; 12 disciples; betrayed; crucified; rises after three days etc etc. There is NOTHING original in the Jesus story; NOTHING.
Pagan writers went to great lengths to point this out as they couldn't understand why fellow mystery religion believers were persecuting them.
That's how the Mystery Religion worked, they picked some mythological figure (a Persian god in Persia; a Roman god for Romans; a Jew named Jesus for the Hebrews) and overwrite the established historical/mythological story with a solar deity revelatory religion. That's why all these stories are replete with astronomical/zodiacal/precessional numbers (even the Jesus story).
Why are evangelical/fundamentalist Christians so unwilling to accept this fact... I would have thought they'd be more interested in the secret mysteries relating to the Jesus story.
I could enlighten you to a few of these hidden mysteries if you like?
The Luke
-
Here you go MCWAY, an academic book detailing (with refernces and notes) all the many hundreds of similarities between the Jesus story and the pagan mystery gods.
"The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
You keep harping on about the discrepancies between the Jesus story and the mythological story of Attis (for example), but you seem blissfully unaware of the FACT that there was another version of the Attis story in which he was a solar/astrological deity; born December 25th; 12 disciples; betrayed; crucified; rises after three days etc etc. There is NOTHING original in the Jesus story; NOTHING.
There's another version, alright. And it has Attis meeting his end, thanks to "Bacon Gone Wild" (he gets gored to death by a wild boar). That don't sound like crucifixion to me. And certainly, Attis' literally getting porked wasn't to redeem mankind from sin.
Two different accounts of the death of Attis were current. According to the one he was killed by a boar, like Adonis. According to the other he unmanned himself under a pine-tree, and bled to death on the spot. The latter is said to have been the local story told by the people of Pessinus, a great seat of the worship of Cybele, and the whole legend of which the story forms a part is stamped with a character of rudeness and savagery that speaks strongly for its antiquity. Both tales might claim the support of custom, or rather both were probably invented to explain certain customs observed by the worshippers. The story of the self-mutilation of Attis is clearly an attempt to account for the self-mutilation of his priests, who regularly castrated themselves on entering the service of the goddess. The story of his death by the boar may have been told to explain why his worshippers, especially the people of Pessinus, abstained from eating swine. In like manner the worshippers of Adonis abstained from pork, because a boar had killed their god. After his death Attis is said to have been changed into a pine-tree. - Sir. J.G. Frazer, "The Golden Bough, chapter 34: The Myth and Ritual of Attis"
Attis
Attis or Atys , in Phrygian religion, vegetation god. When Nana ate the fruit of the almond tree, which had been generated by the blood of either Agdistis or of Cybele , she conceived Attis. Later, Agdistis or Cybele fell in love with Attis, and so that none other would have him, she caused him to castrate himself. Like Adonis, Attis came to be worshiped as a god of vegetation, responsible for the death and rebirth of plant life. Each year at the beginning of spring his resurrection was celebrated in a festival. In Roman religion he became a powerful celestial deity. - Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition
Once again, the Gospels say nothing about Jesus being born on December 25. And, judging from your lack of reference to such, apparently, the so-called "gospels" don't have that, either.
Give up the chapter and verse that has the names of Attis' 12 disciples. As for his "crucifixion", Attis is tied to a tree and carried off, AFTER he'd already lopped off his stones and bled to death. To top it all off, Attis was described as the "son-lover" of the goddess, Cybele. In other words, we got some freaky-deaky incest going on here.
For some strange reason, the account of Jesus Christ doesn't have Him, getting it on with His mama.
Pagan writers went to great lengths to point this out as they couldn't understand why fellow mystery religion believers were persecuting them.
That's how the Mystery Religion worked, they picked some mythological figure (a Persian god in Persia; a Roman god for Romans; a Jew named Jesus for the Hebrews) and overwrite the established historical/mythological story with a solar deity revelatory religion. That's why all these stories are replete with astronomical/zodiacal/precessional numbers (even the Jesus story).
Why are evangelical/fundamentalist Christians so unwilling to accept this fact... I would have thought they'd be more interested in the secret mysteries relating to the Jesus story.
I could enlighten you to a few of these hidden mysteries if you like?
The Luke
The "secret mysteries" are little more than skeptic BS.
If someone were picking a mythological figure for the Jews to represent their Messiah, the LAST person they would pick is someone like Jesus Christ, for the following reasons:
- He was (allegedly) born out of wedlock.
- His earthly guardian was a CARPENTER:
- The first people to see him were shepherds, a relatively lowly profession.
- He was raised in Nazareth (one of Jesus' own disciples was quoted as saying, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?").
- He associated himself with the lowest and most degenerate members of society (Prime example: Jews LOATHED tax collectors, which anyone allegedly fabricating a Jesus account would know. Why on Earth would they make such a man a close associate of their Messiah, let alone an AUTHOR of the one of the Gospels?).
- He died the most shameful, humiliating, and wretched death of that era: crucifixion. As the Jewish saying went, "Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree!"
- The women initially saw the resurrected Christ, "Women in that day and age were not looked on very highly. All one has to do is read 1st-century Jewish literature to realize that. They couldn't give testimony in court; they couldn't report what they had seen. So, if someone's making up a story, they certainly aren't going to have the women be the one to show up first." - Dr. Sam Lamerson, Knox Theological Seminary (from "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen").
These reasons (and more) put to rest any argument that someone would make up a character like Jesus Christ, to represent the Jewish people, especially if they had all this "knowledge" about the Jewish culture.
-
So is your inability to differentiate between the MYTHOLOGICAL ATTIS and the MYSTERY RELIGION ATTIS a "yes" or a "no" to me explaining some of these secret mysteries to you?
Please read the book I recommended to you... or failing that, try reading a second book.
The Luke
-
So is your inability to differentiate between the MYTHOLOGICAL ATTIS and the MYSTERY RELIGION ATTIS a "yes" or a "no" to me explaining some of these secret mysteries to you?
Please read the book I recommended to you... or failing that, try reading a second book.
The Luke
I didn't ask you to "explain any 'secret' mysteries". What I've asked (multiple times) you have not provided. You can't even explain the plain-English, right-in-front-of-your-face claims that YOU made initially.
In particular, the chapter-and-verse references (either from the Gospels or the so-called Gospels) that back your claims of:
- Jesus was born December 25th
- Exactly three wise men/magi found Him
- The magi found him immediately after His birth
- All of the disciples got renamed
Not to mention that other stuff you included in that laundry list.
As for the Attis mess, the religion is based not just on Attis, but his lover/mama, Cybele. Nowhere in Christianity is there a doctrine of dudes bumping and grinding with Mother Dearest, later chopping their nuts in feverish lust (as the male followers of this religion did).
From Frazer's "The Golden Bough (ch. 34: The Myth and Ritual of Attis)":
We may conjecture, though we are not told, that the Mother of the Gods brought with her the worship of her youthful lover or son to her new home in the West. Certainly the Romans were familiar with the Galli, the emasculated priests of Attis, before the close of the Republic. These unsexed beings, in their Oriental costume, with little images suspended on their breasts, appear to have been a familiar sight in the streets of Rome, which they traversed in procession, carrying the image of the goddess and chanting their hymns to the music of cymbals and tambourines, flutes and horns, while the people, impressed by the fantastic show and moved by the wild strains, flung alms to them in abundance, and buried the image and its bearers under showers of roses. A further step was taken by the Emperor Claudius when he incorporated the Phrygian worship of the sacred tree, and with it probably the orgiastic rites of Attis, in the established religion of Rome. The great spring festival of Cybele and Attis is best known to us in the form in which it was celebrated at Rome; but as we are informed that the Roman ceremonies were also Phrygian, we may assume that they differed hardly, if at all, from their Asiatic original. The order of the festival seems to have been as follows.
On the twenty-second day of March, a pine-tree was cut in the woods and brought into the sanctuary of Cybele, where it was treated as a great divinity. The duty of carrying the sacred tree was entrusted to a guild of Tree-bearers. The trunk was swathed like a corpse with woollen bands and decked with wreaths of violets, for violets were said to have sprung from the blood of Attis, as roses and anemones from the blood of Adonis; and the effigy of a young man, doubtless Attis himself, was tied to the middle of the stem. On the second day of the festival, the twenty-third of March, the chief ceremony seems to have been a blowing of trumpets. The third day, the twenty-fourth of March, was known as the Day of Blood: the Archigallus or highpriest drew blood from his arms and presented it as an offering. Nor was he alone in making this bloody sacrifice. Stirred by the wild barbaric music of clashing cymbals, rumbling drums, droning horns, and screaming flutes, the inferior clergy whirled about in the dance with waggling heads and streaming hair, until, rapt into a frenzy of excitement and insensible to pain, they gashed their bodies with potsherds or slashed them with knives in order to bespatter the altar and the sacred tree with their flowing blood. The ghastly rite probably formed part of the mourning for Attis and may have been intended to strengthen him for the resurrection. The Australian aborigines cut themselves in like manner over the graves of their friends for the purpose, perhaps, of enabling them to be born again. Further, we may conjecture, though we are not expressly told, that it was on the same Day of Blood and for the same purpose that the novices sacrificed their virility. Wrought up to the highest pitch of religious excitement they dashed the severed portions of themselves against the image of the cruel goddess. These broken instruments of fertility were afterwards reverently wrapt up and buried in the earth or in subterranean chambers sacred to Cybele, where, like the offering of blood, they may have been deemed instrumental in recalling Attis to life and hastening the general resurrection of nature, which was then bursting into leaf and blossom in the vernal sunshine. Some confirmation of this conjecture is furnished by the savage story that the mother of Attis conceived by putting in her bosom a pomegranate sprung from the severed genitals of a man-monster named Agdestis, a sort of double of Attis
Ain't nothing mysterious about that. Nor is any mystery that this mess has NOTHING to do with the Gospels' account of Jesus Christ.
-
So is your inability to differentiate between the MYTHOLOGICAL ATTIS and the MYSTERY RELIGION ATTIS a "yes" or a "no" to me explaining some of these secret mysteries to you?
Please read the book I recommended to you... or failing that, try reading a second book.
The Luke
FWIW, you wouldn't be so universally despised on getbig if you didn't come across like such a dick in every post. The fact that you're gay of course doesn't help either.
-
In particular, the chapter-and-verse references (either from the Gospels or the so-called Gospels) that back your claims of:
- Jesus was born December 25th
- Exactly three wise men/magi found Him
- The magi found him immediately after His birth
- All of the disciples got renamed
Not to mention that other stuff you included in that laundry list.
MCWAY, I'm not able to quote chapter and verse from scripture... while you were rereading and memorizing the gospels, I read other books.
Why don't you try reading the book I recommended; that has every reference you could possibly want. I don't know why you're so insistent on placing the burden of proof on me, an atheist, when EVERY expert on ancient religions worldwide accepts the plagiarism obvious in the Jesus story.
-read the Gnostic Gospels (some of these mention the 25th December birthday)
-read the Nag Hammadi texts
-read the Qumran (Essene) texts (not one single mention of Jesus at all... and Jesus was supposedly an Essene)
-read the Judas gospel (in which Judas is the closest disciple)
-read the Magdalene gospel (I think it's this one specifies 3 wise men)
-read about the Capocratians
-read about the Cathars
-read the Book of Enoch (excluded from the Old Testament)
-read the Book of Jasher (excluded from the Old Testament for political reasons)
-read about the Mandean "Swamp Kurds"
-read about the Johannite heresy
-read about the Arian heresy
-read what smarter people than you think
...then consider, as I've pointed out continuously, that there is a second, alternative version of the Attis story in which his life mimics that of the later Jesus story.
This "other Christ" is pretty common in the ancient world... he normally goes by the name Dionysus (Graeco Roman world) or Mithras (Persia and the Middle East); in some parts of the ancient world this same precursor Christ went by the name Attis... completely separate and distinct from the mythological non-mystery version of Attis you keep referencing.
I've met any reasonable burden of proof for my argument; you're now demanding I give you exact quotes and lines... what's next? Do you want me to read them for you?
For god's sake, even the name is a forgery: "Jesus" or "Ieosus" is Greek, not Hebrew and a gemmatrial number pun at that.
The Luke
-
FWIW, you wouldn't be so universally despised on getbig if you didn't come across like such a dick in every post. The fact that you're gay of course doesn't help either.
the irony of this post is staggering.
-
the irony of this post is staggering.
...especially as "You're so gay that (insert explicit homosexual fantasy situation here)" comprises at least 80% of all Pandaemonium's posts.
The Luke
-
MCWAY, I'm not able to quote chapter and verse from scripture... while you were rereading and memorizing the gospels, I read other books.
Why don't you try reading the book I recommended; that has every reference you could possibly want. I don't know why you're so insistent on placing the burden of proof on me, an atheist, when EVERY expert on ancient religions worldwide accepts the plagiarism obvious in the Jesus story.
If you read other books, then you should be able to produce the references backing your claims (or at least, find them on the web and bring them here) rather than continually making pitiful excuses like this.
You made the claim that the Gospels have Jesus' born in December 25th, with exactly three wise men, who find Him immediately after His birth.
I asked you to support your claim, either referencing the Gospels or the so-called "gospels" to back your statement; yet, you continue to flake on this matter.
Your claim of "EVERY expert on ancient religions......" is dubious to say the least, as I've listed several religious experts (and can easily get more) that emphatically DO NOT "accept" the alleged plagiarism that you claim.
-read the Gnostic Gospels (some of these mention the 25th December birthday)
-read the Nag Hammadi texts
-read the Qumran (Essene) texts (not one single mention of Jesus at all... and Jesus was supposedly an Essene)
-read the Judas gospel (in which Judas is the closest disciple)
-read the Magdalene gospel (I think it's this one specifies 3 wise men)
-read about the Capocratians
-read about the Cathars
-read the Book of Enoch (excluded from the Old Testament)
-read the Book of Jasher (excluded from the Old Testament for political reasons)
-read about the Mandean "Swamp Kurds"
-read about the Johannite heresy
-read about the Arian heresy
-read what smarter people than you think
Perhaps, you should take your own advice. Or did you also forget that I've cited the direct passage from scholars, detailing the aspects of these figures you mentioned and shown that they DO NOT match Jesus Christ in form or function.
...then consider, as I've pointed out continuously, that there is a second, alternative version of the Attis story in which his life mimics that of the later Jesus story.
The two stories on Attis have him killed by a boar or (as is shown, when you look up Attis in encyclopedias), chopping off his nuts and bleeding to death. Neither of which matches the account of Jesus Christ.
And, as stated earlier (and referenced from Frazer's book), Attis' "crucifixion" consists of his being tied to a felled pine tree, AFTER he bleeds to death. Whether it's death by wild pork or by de-balling himself, neither form of Attis' demise was for man's redemption of sin.
This "other Christ" is pretty common in the ancient world... he normally goes by the name Dionysus (Graeco Roman world) or Mithras (Persia and the Middle East); in some parts of the ancient world this same precursor Christ went by the name Attis... completely separate and distinct from the mythological non-mystery version of Attis you keep referencing.
Dionysus.........This would be YET ANOTHER of Zeus' bastard sons, who gets sown into Zeus' leg while in the fetal stage, after his mama gets BBQed by jealous Hera.
Then, there's Rocky....er.....Mithras, who literally is born of rock from the side of a cave or born of incest (his father and paternal grandmother), depending on which version you prefer. His alleged saving the earth involved killing a bull.
Again, there's no death to save man from sin. Neither of those two die by crucifixion or is born of a virgin. And, no cattle were harmed in Christ's death on the cross for man's redemption.
I've met any reasonable burden of proof for my argument; you're now demanding I give you exact quotes and lines... what's next? Do you want me to read them for you?
You have met nothing of the sort. When I make a claim, I support it with references (i.e. the one to Frazer's book, giving the account of Attis; the reference to Matt. 2, showing Jesus' age when the wise men find Him; for purposes of refuting Deicide's blurb, the reference to the Jewish virtual library and the writing of Josephus, that show Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, etc.).
You, on the other hand, cower behind a generic grocery list of books, failing to address the specific points to support your statements.
For god's sake, even the name is a forgery: "Jesus" or "Ieosus" is Greek, not Hebrew and a gemmatrial number pun at that.
The Luke
The name isn't a forgery. Or, did you forget that the New Testament (the Gospels, in particular) was WRITTEN IN GREEK. The Hebrew name for Jesus is "Yeshua".
-
It's obvious that no one can have a meaningful conversation on this subject with an affirmed true believer such as yourself.
Do you actually want me to go to the trouble of "copy and pasting" each and every reference? As a fundamentalist are you actually forbidden from reading a second book by yourself without your pastors supervision?
You mis-reference one book which supposedly meets your burden of proof, yet my reference to several books doesn't meet that (presumably) same burden?
You keep insisting on the discrepancies between the MYTHOLOGICAL versions of Attis and Jesus (which I gladly concede)... but I have specifically insisted that I was referencing the MYSTERY RELIGION version of Attis (who does mimic Jesus).
Then last but most egregious of all you assert that the name Jesus is not itself plagiarized... when it most definitely is and can be shown to be so.
The Luke
-
It's obvious that no one can have a meaningful conversation on this subject with an affirmed true believer such as yourself.
From your initial post, your goal wasn't to have a "meaningful conversation". It was to put believers, like Coach, in their place with your alleged claims, regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ.
Do you actually want me to go to the trouble of "copy and pasting" each and every reference? As a fundamentalist are you actually forbidden from reading a second book by yourself without your pastors supervision?
You were all too eager to post that mess earlier to tell off Coach. But, when it's time to back up those words, all of a sudden, the strain of using a search engine and clicking a mouse has become far more than your tired fingers can bear.
You mis-reference one book which supposedly meets your burden of proof, yet my reference to several books doesn't meet that (presumably) same burden?
And this "mis-reference" would be.........
I said that the Attis story doesn't match the account of Jesus Christ and provided references to make my point.
You claimed that the "mystery religion" matches that of Jesus Christ. So, where are your references to such? And, just in case you missed it, no one is expecting you to plaster ENTIRE books here.
You keep insisting on the discrepancies between the MYTHOLOGICAL versions of Attis and Jesus (which I gladly concede)... but I have specifically insisted that I was referencing the MYSTERY RELIGION version of Attis (who does mimic Jesus).
....with absolutely NOTHING to support your claim presented.
Then last but most egregious of all you assert that the name Jesus is not itself plagiarized... when it most definitely is and can be shown to be so.
The Luke
Then, where are your specifics to support that?. As I said, the Hebrew word is "Yeshua"; translate that to Greek, you get Jesus.
-
MCWAY,
Is there any point in me doing again the research you are unwilling to do?
Is there any point in me quoting exact passages from books you won't read?
Is there any point in me continuing to explain the difference between the MYSTERY ATTIS and the MYTHOLOGICAL ATTIS?
If you honestly can't distinguish between these two separate namesakes I'd be interested to know if you do distinguish between the asexual Christian Jesus and the homosexual Cappocratian Christian Jesus?
I won't engage any further in your churlish facetiousness... but in case there are others reading this thread who are might be persuaded by your obstructionist arguments what I will do is school you so harshly on one of your points that your militant ignorance is exposed to all and sundry:
Regarding the name "Ieosus" (or "Iesous", supposedly Jeshua in Hebrew):
Jesus was fond of plagiarizing the sermons and miracles of other dying-resurrecting godmen, but sometimes he made symbolic statements that made little sense without the enlightening secret teaching to explain them. Modern Christianity is devoid of such teachings, but those in the know can readily explain them.
For example, Jesus gave one such symbolic sermon in which he explained that he was both the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last, and that no one comes to the heavenly father except through him "I am the way" blah blah blah... makes no real sense in anything except a symbolic sense.
Or does it?
Before the introduction of numerals/digits ancient peoples used letters to signify numbers (Roman numerals etc). Greeks and Hellenized Jews often utilized a secretive Greek number system called Gematria to encode hidden messages they wanted to keep hidden from the unenlightened (the illiterate; the ignorant; the Romans).
...using this code: Jesus = IhsouV (Iesous in modern lettering) = 10+8+200+70+400+200 = 888
Similarly, if you add all the numerical equivalents of the letters in the Greek alphabet, starting with "Alpha" adding all the way up to "Omega" the sum total is 3,999 arranged in three rows:
-a first row starting with 1 going up to 8
-a second row starting with 10 going up to 80
-a third row starting with 100 going up to 800
...8 + 80 + 800 ....888
"I am the Alpha and the Omega", well apparently he meant "literally".
When Pythagoras gave a similar sermon the Pythagoreans all took it at face value, only in the secret teachings of Pythagoras was the mathematical significance revealed (usually in the form of an extended gospel in which extra verses relate the secret discussions between Pythagoras and his favored disciple when the other disciples have gone to sleep).
This is very persuasive evidence that the mathematical/codified hidden teachings of Jesus were similarly sewn into the unenlightened Jesus story in order that they may be "enlightened" to higher initiates thereby revealing the mystery.
We know that such extended higher-initiates-only gospels existed as early church fathers alluded to them in their writings... unfortunately, modern day Christianity is devoid of these teachings... literally an unenlightened version of the mystery religion, intended for the unenlightened.
Anyone interested in further gematria study should check out:
http://jesus8880.com/chapters/index.htm
The Luke
-
MCWAY,
Is there any point in me doing again the research you are unwilling to do?
Is there any point in me quoting exact passages from books you won't read?
Is there any point in me continuing to explain the difference between the MYSTERY ATTIS and the MYTHOLOGICAL ATTIS?
If you honestly can't distinguish between these two separate namesakes I'd be interested to know if you do distinguish between the asexual Christian Jesus and the homosexual Cappocratian Christian Jesus?
I won't engage any further in your churlish facetiousness... but in case there are others reading this thread who are might be persuaded by your obstructionist arguments what I will do is school you so harshly on one of your points that your militant ignorance is exposed to all and sundry:
Regarding the name "Ieosus" (or "Iesous", supposedly Jeshua in Hebrew):
Jesus was fond of plagiarizing the sermons and miracles of other dying-resurrecting godmen, but sometimes he made symbolic statements that made little sense without the enlightening secret teaching to explain them. Modern Christianity is devoid of such teachings, but those in the know can readily explain them.
For example, Jesus gave one such symbolic sermon in which he explained that he was both the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last, and that no one comes to the heavenly father except through him "I am the way" blah blah blah... makes no real sense in anything except a symbolic sense.
Or does it?
Before the introduction of numerals/digits ancient peoples used letters to signify numbers (Roman numerals etc). Greeks and Hellenized Jews often utilized a secretive Greek number system called Gematria to encode hidden messages they wanted to keep hidden from the unenlightened (the illiterate; the ignorant; the Romans).
...using this code: Jesus = IhsouV (Iesous in modern lettering) = 10+8+200+70+400+200 = 888
Similarly, if you add all the numerical equivalents of the letters in the Greek alphabet, starting with "Alpha" adding all the way up to "Omega" the sum total is 3,999 arranged in three rows:
-a first row starting with 1 going up to 8
-a second row starting with 10 going up to 80
-a third row starting with 100 going up to 800
...8 + 80 + 800 ....888
"I am the Alpha and the Omega", well apparently he meant "literally".
When Pythagoras gave a similar sermon the Pythagoreans all took it at face value, only in the secret teachings of Pythagoras was the mathematical significance revealed (usually in the form of an extended gospel in which extra verses relate the secret discussions between Pythagoras and his favored disciple when the other disciples have gone to sleep).
This is very persuasive evidence that the mathematical/codified hidden teachings of Jesus were similarly sewn into the unenlightened Jesus story in order that they may be "enlightened" to higher initiates thereby revealing the mystery.
We know that such extended higher-initiates-only gospels existed as early church fathers alluded to them in their writings... unfortunately, modern day Christianity is devoid of these teachings... literally an unenlightened version of the mystery religion, intended for the unenlightened.
Anyone interested in further gematria study should check out:
http://jesus8880.com/chapters/index.htm
The Luke
There is no persuading MCWAY that he may even be remotely wrong on any of his points. If he were to concede error his life would disintegrate, hence his inability to admit any mistake whatsoever. He claims he has beaten all of my arguments; he claims he has beaten all of Minimalist's arguments; he claims to have beaten a Rabbi's arguments concerning the OT; he claims to have beaten Ishtar's arguments concerning mystery religions....and he claims to have beaten your arguments.
Fact is, when he comes upon an obstacle such as the Tacitus passage having NEVER been mentioned until the 15th century CE/AD, the height of movement to return to a higher standard of Latin resembling the Golden Age literature (though admittedly Tacitus is a Silver Age author) than the mediaeval sort practised for centuries, it makes a forgery/interpolation that much more likely. Why didn't Christian authors seize upon this passage for over a millenium? MCWAY's usual argument is: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but this is a bullshit argument; absence of evidence is most certainly absence of evidence, it is simply not PROOF of absence.
-
There is no persuading MCWAY that he may even be remotely wrong on any of his points. If he were to concede error his life would disintegrate, hence his inability to admit any mistake whatsoever. He claims he has beaten all of my arguments; he claims he has beaten all of Minimalist's arguments; he claims to have beaten a Rabbi's arguments concerning the OT; he claims to have beaten Ishtar's arguments concerning mystery religions....and he claims to have beaten your arguments.
I asked him to give specific references to his claims which, to date, he has not.
As for your arguments, the mere fact that you had to haul tail to Koko and drag your buddies into the equation speaks volumes.
Fact is, when he comes upon an obstacle such as the Tacitus passage having NEVER been mentioned until the 15th century CE/AD, the height of movement to return to a higher standard of Latin resembling the Golden Age literature (though admittedly Tacitus is a Silver Age author) than the mediaeval sort practised for centuries, it makes a forgery/interpolation that much more likely. Why didn't Christian authors seize upon this passage for over a millenium? MCWAY's usual argument is: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but this is a bullshit argument; absence of evidence is most certainly absence of evidence, it is simply not PROOF of absence.
Wrong!! My argument was that the early Christian fathers DID NOT DOUBT Jesus' existence. Their arugments with non-Christians centered on Christ's divinity, thus making Tacitus' reference WORTHLESS for making such a case. Tacitus never claims that Jesus was divine or the Messiah. All he says was that Christians were named after Jesus, Pilate had Him killed, and that Christianity resurfaced after supposedly being repressed.
There is nothing for them to "seize", when making the case for Jesus being the Messiah. So, this silly claim of your is merely more floundering from you, after your previous claim about Josephus being the sole non-Christian reference to Jesus got shot to pieces.
As did your claim that Tacitus' Annals is "commonly regarded as forgery", which I addressed some time ago. But, just to jog that short memory of yours.....
But there are good reasons for concluding with the vast majority of scholars that this passage is fundamentally sound, despite difficulties which result in no small measure from Tacitus' own compressed style. The overall style and content of this chapter are typically Tacitean. The passage fits well in its context and is the necessary conclusion to the entire discussion of the burning of Rome. Sulpicius Severus's Chronicle 2.29 attests to much of it in the early fifth century, so most suggested interpolations would have to have come in the second through fourth centuries. As Norma Miller delightfully remarks, "The well-intentioned pagan glossers of ancient texts do not normally express themselves in Tacitean Latin," and the same could be said of Christian interpolators. Finally, no Christian forgers would have made such disparaging remarks about Christianity as we have in Annals 15.44, and they probably would not have been so merely descriptive in adding the material about Christ in 15.44.3. Robert Van Voorst, "Jesus Outside the New Testament".
There are two remarks in this passage whose authenticity is certain.The first concerns the burning of Rome and the persecution of the Christians; the second concerns the Christ. The first reflects the point of view of the contemporaries of Tacitus. It is a question of the hatred and contempt excited by the Christians and the infamies with which they were reproached, whilst it is precisely the accusation launched by Nero against them which seems to have unchained this hatred and contempt. The second must originate in some documentary source, since it contains no such word as "dicunt" or "ferunt," which would authorize us to suppose that Tacitus is only relating gossip. There is in this remark a characteristic idea—namely, that Christianity had been crushed out by the death of Christ, and had only reappeared about the year 64, simultaneously in Rome and in Judea. This resurrection of the execrable superstition in Judea can only be understood if we suppose that Tacitus does not make any distinction between the two manifestations of Messianism—Christianity and Judaism.
The words "not only in Judea" would imply, then, the sudden outbreak of nationalism which caused the revolt and the Jewish war. We can here form an idea of the character of the source: it was not Christian, since it presumed an eclipse of Christianity after the death of Jesus; neither was it Jewish, for no Jewish document would have called Jesus "Christ," nor would it have presented Judaism as solidary with Christianity. - Maurice Gougel, "Jesus The Nazarene"
And, while you're talking about obstacles, you have YET to address who supposedly added this reference in Tacitus' works, or (more importantly) why a Christian author would put language in text, DEGRADING his fellow Christians and his faith.
Furthermore, contrary to your screwy statements, Tactius' work was mentioned well before the 15th century.
All of the late Italian manuscripts - some 31 at the last count - are copies of a single mediaeval manuscript, also in the Laurentian library, where it is number 68.2. It is referred to as M. II or 'second Medicean', to distinguish it from the unique codex of Annals 1-6. Bound with it are the major works of Apuleius, written slightly later than the Tacitus but at the same place.
The copies are discussed by Mendell.
This MS is written in the difficult Beneventan hand. It was written at Monte Cassino, perhaps during the abbacy of Richer (1038-55AD). It derives from an ancestor in written in Rustic Capitals, as it contains errors of transcription natural to that bookhand. There is some evidence that it was copied only once in about ten centuries, and that this copy was made from an original in rustic capitals of the 5th century or earlier, but other scholars believe that it was copied via at least one intermediate copy written in a minuscule hand.
How the MS came to leave Monte Cassino is a matter of mystery. It was still at Monte Cassino, and was used by Paulus Venetus, Bishop of Puzzuoli, sometime between 1331 and 1344. However Boccaccio had certainly seen the text by 1371, and the MS is listed among the books given by him at his death to the monastery of S. Spirito in Florence. Whether he had 'liberated' it, or acquired it from another collector who had done so has been extensively debated, without final result. - Roger Pearse, Tacitus and His Manuscripts (from http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm#8 (http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm#8) )
To top it all off, neither you nor your buddies from Koko addressed the issue of why someone (Gnostic or otherwise) would invent a story about Jesus, painting Him as Messiah, using characteristics that WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED by the Jews, by and large.
So, before you keep running off at the mouth about obstacles, you might want to clear a few of your own. Good luck!!!
-
MCWAY,
Is there any point in me doing again the research you are unwilling to do?
Is there any point in me quoting exact passages from books you won't read?
Is there any point in me continuing to explain the difference between the MYSTERY ATTIS and the MYTHOLOGICAL ATTIS?
If you honestly can't distinguish between these two separate namesakes I'd be interested to know if you do distinguish between the asexual Christian Jesus and the homosexual Cappocratian Christian Jesus?
I won't engage any further in your churlish facetiousness... but in case there are others reading this thread who are might be persuaded by your obstructionist arguments what I will do is school you so harshly on one of your points that your militant ignorance is exposed to all and sundry:
You'll excuse me if my teeth aren't chattering in dread from your feeble threat of schooling me.
Spare me the blubbering and excuse-making!!!! You got asked simple questions or ask to support your statements with specific references and you hide behind a barrage of excuses.
Regarding the name "Ieosus" (or "Iesous", supposedly Jeshua in Hebrew):
Jesus was fond of plagiarizing the sermons and miracles of other dying-resurrecting godmen, but sometimes he made symbolic statements that made little sense without the enlightening secret teaching to explain them. Modern Christianity is devoid of such teachings, but those in the know can readily explain them.
For example, Jesus gave one such symbolic sermon in which he explained that he was both the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last, and that no one comes to the heavenly father except through him "I am the way" blah blah blah... makes no real sense in anything except a symbolic sense.
As the saying goes, "Put up or shut up"!!!
Or does it?
Before the introduction of numerals/digits ancient peoples used letters to signify numbers (Roman numerals etc). Greeks and Hellenized Jews often utilized a secretive Greek number system called Gematria to encode hidden messages they wanted to keep hidden from the unenlightened (the illiterate; the ignorant; the Romans).
...using this code: Jesus = IhsouV (Iesous in modern lettering) = 10+8+200+70+400+200 = 888
Similarly, if you add all the numerical equivalents of the letters in the Greek alphabet, starting with "Alpha" adding all the way up to "Omega" the sum total is 3,999 arranged in three rows:
-a first row starting with 1 going up to 8
-a second row starting with 10 going up to 80
-a third row starting with 100 going up to 800
...8 + 80 + 800 ....888
"I am the Alpha and the Omega", well apparently he meant "literally".
When Pythagoras gave a similar sermon the Pythagoreans all took it at face value, only in the secret teachings of Pythagoras was the mathematical significance revealed (usually in the form of an extended gospel in which extra verses relate the secret discussions between Pythagoras and his favored disciple when the other disciples have gone to sleep).
This is very persuasive evidence that the mathematical/codified hidden teachings of Jesus were similarly sewn into the unenlightened Jesus story in order that they may be "enlightened" to higher initiates thereby revealing the mystery.
We know that such extended higher-initiates-only gospels existed as early church fathers alluded to them in their writings... unfortunately, modern day Christianity is devoid of these teachings... literally an unenlightened version of the mystery religion, intended for the unenlightened.
Anyone interested in further gematria study should check out:
http://jesus8880.com/chapters/index.htm
The Luke
Whereas, anyone interested in your actually backing your earlier claims with some specifics would have better luck beating Tiger Woods at golf.
Of course, lost in all this gibberish is what this alleged mystery was and what relevance it had toward the salvation of mankind, the very reason Jesus came to Earth in the first place.
Jesus gave His disciples specific instructions to spread His word to ANYONE and EVERYONE, who would receive it. And, one of the reasons He spoke in parables is so that ALL could understand his messages.
-
All I can say is that it is amazing that you can speak rationally about supplements and nutrition but seem to regard ancient near eastern mythology as fact.
:o
-
Deicide,
What's wrong with this guy?
He hones in on one tiny aspect of something I posted and asks for references... I post the title and authors of a scholarly book (The Jesus Mysteries by Gandy and Freke) which notes; references; sources and cross checks everything I asserted.
He won't read it... he insists I copy and paste the relevant quotes.
But at the same time he DISMISSES everything I directly quote/reference!
This type of arguing could disprove gravity if the naysayer demanded the Gravitational constant to some arbitrary number of decimal places!
MCWAY,
... I understand you are a person of faith, but no one is attacking the teachings of Jesus here. It's just a commonly verifiable fact that everything (EVERYTHING!) in the Jesus story was plagiarized from older religions and that such plagiarism undermines the slim possibility of an actual historical Jesus.
That doesn't nullify the message... all it should do is dent your fanatical belief that you alone are right.
Perhaps it would be best if you googled the Christian doctrine of "Diabolical Mimicry".
The doctrine explains that the reason for Jesus story being prefigured by some 30-odd other godmen by as much as 3,000 years in some cases is actually because the Devil, mindful of prophecy, created these god-men figures in order to undermine the originality of Jesus when he did eventually arrive.
If the early Church Father Justin Martyr went to the trouble of devising this ridiculous doctrine, there must be something to the claims of plagiarism leveled by pagans. The doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry (which openly concedes the fact that other gods prefigured the Jesus story) remains the official Vatican policy on the matter...
...if the Vatican experts conceded this point some fifteen centuries ago, why can't you? Why can't you concede a FACT that even the apostles themselves conceded (Peter recognized and witnessed the miracles of Simon Magus in the Gnostic "Acts of the Apostles").
The Luke
-
Deicide,
What's wrong with this guy?
He hones in on one tiny aspect of something I posted and asks for references... I post the title and authors of a scholarly book (The Jesus Mysteries by Gandy and Freke) which notes; references; sources and cross checks everything I asserted.
No, I honed in on SEVERAL aspects of the thing you posted and ask for the specifics, chapter and verse.
He won't read it... he insists I copy and paste the relevant quotes.
How thoughtless of me to ask that you strain them fingers of yours to click a mouse.
Did you read Van Voorst's "Jesus Outside The New Testament"?
Did you read Goguel's "Jesus The Nazarene"?
Did you read Matthew 2, which shows that Jesus about two years old (not a newborn) when the Magi find them?
Did you watch "Who Is This Jesus" Is He Risen?" (I have a thread with the video, just for your convenience)?
But at the same time he DISMISSES everything I directly quote/reference!
This type of arguing could disprove gravity if the naysayer demanded the Gravitational constant to some arbitrary number of decimal places!
MCWAY,
... I understand you are a person of faith, but no one is attacking the teachings of Jesus here. It's just a commonly verifiable fact that everything (EVERYTHING!) in the Jesus story was plagiarized from older religions and that such plagiarism undermines the slim possibility of an actual historical Jesus.
Yet, for some strange reason, you are having the darndest time backing that up, especially when shown that every figure you mentioned that supposedly was used to form Jesus Christ DOES NOT MATCH whatsoever. With those figures not matching, that undermines the slim possibility of Jesus plagiarizing from them.
And, lost in all this, is the reason why whoever supposedly made up the character of Jesus Christ (with all this "secret" knowledge) would be so culturally inaccurate as to make:
- His birth appear to be illegitimate
- His earthly guardian a carpenter
- His hometown one of the WORST spots in Israel
- One of His closest associate a TAX COLLECTOR (for all this "secret" knowledge, apparently these folks forgot how much the Jews loathe taxmen)
- His death the most cursed and humiliating form of execution in existence ("Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree").
- Women be the first to see Him resurrected (see Dr. Lamerson's paragraph, posted earlier, on that one).
That's merely the short list. As for your previous claim that "EVERY expert on ancient religions worldwide accepts the plagiarism obvious in the Jesus story", that falls short of being accurate as well.
That doesn't nullify the message... all it should do is dent your fanatical belief that you alone are right.
Perhaps it would be best if you googled the Christian doctrine of "Diabolical Mimicry".
The doctrine explains that the reason for Jesus story being prefigured by some 30-odd other godmen by as much as 3,000 years in some cases is actually because the Devil, mindful of prophecy, created these god-men figures in order to undermine the originality of Jesus when he did eventually arrive.
Been there; done that. Doesn't help your case one bit.
Also from "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?":
Well, I think the so-called myth of the dying/rising God in antiquity, to compare that meaningfully with the New Testament, you would have to look at each particular myth. And I dare say, what you would find is that no particular myth of a dying/rising God fits in very well at all with either the specifics of the Christian account of the Jesus resurrection, if you will, the structure of credibility that the Christian resurrection accounts has. (MCWAY: Already done that; still trying to see how Attis' relieving himself of his nuts, Mithras killing cattle, or Osiris getting ripped to pieces by Set saves me from sin)
When you look at the New Testament, many times you will see expressions like Son of God. Or, there will be phenomenas like healings. And people will try to say, “Well, we can document these things outside the New Testament; there's nothing unique about the New Testament.” And, oh, maybe thirty/forty years ago, there was a Rabbi who taught at the University of Chicago named Samuel [Sam] Mill. He wrote a very interesting article called, Parallel-a-mania. And in this article, he took biblical scholars to task, basically because they so delighted in finding similarities or parallels to the Bible, outside the Bible, but they tended not to also look at the differences. And, if you combine the similarities with the differences, generally speaking, these extra biblical parallels become much less significant than what one might think when one reads some breathless academic account that we've discovered a parallel to Jesus in the story of Hercules - Dr. Robert Yarborough, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, ""Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen".
Often, people have said in this last century of scholarship that the reason the Christians believed in Jesus' resurrection was because out there in the wider world, there were all these dying and rising gods or goddesses and that the Christians borrowed from that to interpret. In fact, I think hardly any scholars these days believe that. There are one or two who still do, and are pushing that line, but the key thing is that all those early Christians were Jews, and the idea of the dying and rising god was a strictly pagan notion. You can study Judaism from one end to another and you don't find any of that. And the whole idea of early Christianity remained a thoroughly Jewish thing. Even when you get Christianity going out into the wider world, from time to time, two or three centuries down the track, people will say, “Well this is a bit like Osiris”, or whoever, but they're usually pretty careful to distance themselves from that. And even Paul, some people have said, when he talks about dying and rising with Christ, that's actually a very different thing. The scholars who have studied Romans 6—where that theme comes in Colossians 2 and 3 and so on—have concluded that there is actually no borrowing there from the mystery religions, as they are called, or from those dying and rising cults. It seems, rather, that the best explanation is that built into God's creation is this sense that you sow the seed in the ground and then something new comes up, and so on and so on. So when people were thinking in the ancient world about fertility, they naturally wanted to kind of embody that and talk about it, so they had their gods being buried and rising like the corn sleeping in the earth and coming out again in the spring. But the extraordinary thing is there is no evidence whatever for that in Judaism. And there's no evidence whatever for that in Jesus' either teaching or thinking, or in the early stories about Him. It just doesn't happen. It is as though that, which is latent in the rest of creation, suddenly comes through dramatically in the human being, Jesus, and the Christian explanation for that, of course, is that Jesus is the embodiment of the creator God. - Dr. N.T. Wright, Canon Theologian, Westminster Abbey
If the early Church Father Justin Martyr went to the trouble of devising this ridiculous doctrine, there must be something to the claims of plagiarism leveled by pagans. The doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry (which openly concedes the fact that other gods prefigured the Jesus story) remains the official Vatican policy on the matter...
Other gods prefiguring the "Jesus story" and Jesus supposedly being crafted from thoe gods are two different issues entirely.
Perhaps you have forgotten that Christianity competed with other religions (i.e. Mithraism) within the Roman empire.
I listed the major and most significant differences between Christianity (particularly, Jesus Christ) and these figures, from whom Jesus was allegedly crafted in specific detail, in terms of birth, life, purpose, death, and resurrection. Add to that the unlikelihood that someone fabricating the life of Jesus would do so by using the aforementioned attributes, and that further nullifies the notion of Christ coming from such "god-men", as you call them.
...if the Vatican experts conceded this point some fifteen centuries ago, why can't you? Why can't you concede a FACT that even the apostles themselves conceded (Peter recognized and witnessed the miracles of Simon Magus in the Gnostic "Acts of the Apostles").
The Luke
Since you're bringing up apostles, there's the little matter of John's testimony, regarding Christ.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have handled, concerning the Word of Life, the life was manifested, and we have seen and bare witness and declared to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us--that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you may also have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. - 1 John 1:1-3.
It appears you didn't take that into consideration. Throw into the mix the non-Christian references to Christ (which depict Him as the founder of the movement and who put him to death) and the odds of Jesus being forged from Attis, Dionysus, Mithras et. al. are slim and none (and I don't like Slim's chances ;D ).
-
These replies are becoming too lengthy...
I notice that you evade/skirt my points with deflections rather than rebuttals.... so in order to keep this thread readable for the other people following it I'll instead do just the opposite.
I'll poke holes in the specifics of your deflections, point by point:
Did you read Van Voorst's "Jesus Outside The New Testament"?
...just from the title I can discern the bias of Christian apologists.
FACT:
There is no Jesus outside the New Testament. He is a fictional re-imagining of the dying-resurrecting Mystery Religion godman. The ONLY contemporary literature in which Jesus appears is the New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels (but with varying stories and different disciples)... but closer inspection will show that none of these can be any earlier than 70 AD. (Mark's gospel is the earliest with Luke, Matthew, and John all being variations on Mark's gospel, and we know from the writings of Church fathers that there was an extended version of Mark's gospel with the astrological/gematrial mysteries of the SYMBOLIC storyline explained... just the same way the revelatory process of the Mystery Religion worked).
Every (EVERY!) other historical reference to Jesus is either centuries later or a proven forgery... every one of them. That's why all the impartial historians agree that there is NO direct historical evidence for Jesus... no Roman records, no Jewish records, no Egyptian records... nothing.
We do have a huge library of texts written during Jesus' time by the Qumran Essenes. Their leader, James the Just, was supposedly Jesus brother... yet not one single reference to or mention of Jesus can be found in any of these texts, which were in production all the way up to 70 AD.
Did you read Goguel's "Jesus The Nazarene"?
...just from the title I can tell it as written by a Christian apologist. Jesus didn't come from Nazareth.
FACT:
Nazareth was founded in the third century as Christianity swept across the Roman empire. There is not one single mention of Jesus being from Nazareth in the gospels (canonical or gnostic). Nazareth did not exist in Jesus time (archaeologists have proven this) and appears on no Roman town lists or census records.
The misunderstanding arises from a mistranslation of the phrase: "Jesus the Nazorite" ...not a person from Nazareth (which didn't exist) but a member of a sect of Jewish mystics called Nazorites who were ritually trepanned (grooves drilled in the skull).
Did you read Matthew 2, which shows that Jesus about two years old (not a newborn) when the Magi find them?
...don't know the reference as I'm not a Bible-basher. Doesn't matter anyhow as lots of Gnostic texts written a century before Matthew mention the magi being witness to the birth (I'll dig up the reference). It's not so much a matter of timing the important part is that the solar-deity (Jesus in this case) is recognized as a miracle child by those in the know.
Arguing minutiae is pointless anyway as the gospels are full of glaring inconsistencies:
FACT:
Including the Gnostic gospels (which have better proven provenance than any of the canonical gospels), Jesus has 16 different disciples altogether. None of the gospels can agree on a similar list of twelve. This is to be expected as the individual disciples of a Mystery Religion godman aren't important... only that he have one for each of the zodiac signs and is betrayed by one of them to the evil tyrant, and another (secret/latent) female disciple to represent the hidden lunar zodiac sign (usually this role is filed by Isis, or the godmans fallen-woman/former-prostitute mother/wife in less literalist cultures: Jesus has Mary Magdalene).
Did you watch "Who Is This Jesus" Is He Risen?" (I have a thread with the video, just for your convenience)?
...the "Is he Risen?" gives it away as Christian propaganda, but if you provide the link I'll watch it.
Yet, for some strange reason, you are having the darndest time backing that up, especially when shown that every figure you mentioned that supposedly was used to form Jesus Christ DOES NOT MATCH whatsoever. With those figures not matching, that undermines the slim possibility of Jesus plagiarizing from them.
...No, YOU keep referencing the MYTHOLOGICAL versions of these gods. The MYTHOLOGICAL version is a story filled with dramatic allegories (which lose something in the translation).
The MYSTERY RELIGION versions of these gods are always the same basic "Jesus" story as the basic story is an encoded ASTROLOGICAL solar-deity mystery religion.
This type of argument is analogous to discussing the historical evidence for Vlad "Dracula" Tepes, Prince of Wallachia with someone who insists he was an immortal vampire because he's read Bram Stoker's novel.
Read what the experts think.
And, lost in all this, is the reason why whoever supposedly made up the character of Jesus Christ (with all this "secret" knowledge) would be so culturally inaccurate as to make:
- His birth appear to be illegitimate
...the godman is always a virgin birth, always semi-illegitimate, always endowed with royal pedigree by proxy through an adopted father.
That's why the New Testament keeps harping on about Jesus being of the line of David.
- His earthly guardian a carpenter
...the godman is often the adopted son of a "tekton", and often a tekton himself. Usually translated from the Greek as carpenter but more accurately rendered as "smith": a stonesmith (mason); woodsmith (carpenter); or wordsmith (literate scribe)... these are the trades that understood measure and numbers yet still being the common man... the godman is a populist deity who offers heavenly salvation to those oppressed on earth.
These gods (such as Simon Magis) often associate with REDEEMED sinners; tax collectors, prostitutes etc.
- His hometown one of the WORST spots in Israel
...as I mentioned, it is an archaeological fact that Nazareth was founded in the third/fourth century. The Nazorites (mystic sect) were actually well respected for their Kabbalist learning and piety.
- One of His closest associate a TAX COLLECTOR (for all this "secret" knowledge, apparently these folks forgot how much the Jews loathe taxmen)
...former or REDEEMED sinners always form the retinue of the godman.
- His death the most cursed and humiliating form of execution in existence ("Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree").
...dude, it's always crucifixion. It's astrologically symbolic (the constellation of Orion transfixed on the Tree of Life {axis of the earth}: born; dying and renewed with the solar cycle and the precessional Great Year)
-(mystery version) Dionysus
-(mystery version) Horus
-(mystery version) Bacchus
-(mystery version) Attis
-(mystery version) Mithras
...all die on the cross in their MYSTERY RELIGION guise.
...the humiliation is to prove the possibility of redemption for even the lowest of common people. Jesus isn't the first to die for the redemption of sin... Christians push that as an original twist, but ALL the Mystery Religion godmen die unjustly for others sins, only to rise after three days.
- Women be the first to see Him resurrected (see Dr. Lamerson's paragraph, posted earlier, on that one).
...No, the latent/hidden disciple who is often both the godman's mother and wife (it's astrological not literal) is always the first to see the risen godman. In the Jesus story it's Mary Magdalene and then the the Virgin Mary... the Christians separated the aspects of the hidden lunar disciple/mother but kept the names the same. Originally they were the same person as they represent the same star, but in its ascending and descending intervals. (Remember this is all astrological)
And that's merely the short list.
Been there; done that. Doesn't help your case one bit.
...THAT is your response to the FACT that Church Fathers explained the prefiguring of Jesus by pagan gods via the actions of a time-traveling Devil? (The Doctrine of Diabolial Mimicry)
That's weak MCWAY... really WEAK. That's tantamount to denying gravity while holding on to the ledge for dear life.
DENIAL DON'T MAKE IT SO! If it did, I'd be thin.
Other gods prefiguring the "Jesus story" and Jesus supposedly being crafted from thoe gods are two different issues entirely
...by that logic George Orwell's "Animal Farm" is a treatise on animal husbandry.
Perhaps you have forgotten that Christianity competed with other religions (i.e. Mithraism) within the Roman empire.
...the technical term is "plagiarism", followed by a concerted campaign of book-burning and re-writing of history.
I listed the major and most significant differences between Christianity (particularly, Jesus Christ) and these figures, from whom Jesus was allegedly crafted in specific detail, in terms of birth, life, purpose, death, and resurrection. Add to that the unlikelihood that someone fabricating the life of Jesus would do so by using the aforementioned attributes, and that further nullifies the notion of Christ coming from such "god-men", as you call them.
...again, you can't seem to get your head around the fact the MYTHOLOGICAL versions of these deities differ from the MYSTERY RELIGION versions.
One is ALLEGORICAL, one is ASTROLOGICAL... you wouldn't only read "Mein Kampf" for an accurate, balanced assessment of Hitler's character would you?
Since you're bringing up apostles, there's the little matter of John's testimony, regarding Christ.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have handled, concerning the Word of Life, the life was manifested, and we have seen and bare witness and declared to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us--that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you may also have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. - 1 John 1:1-3.
It appears you didn't take that into consideration. Throw into the mix the non-Christian references to Christ (which depict Him as the founder of the movement and who put him to death) and the odds of Jesus being forged from Attis, Dionysus, Mithras et. al. are slim and none (and I don't like Slim's chances ;D ).
...the problem with all this is the timing.
We now know that the gospel switches the Pharisees for the Sadducees, which is incorrect but it doesn't stop there:
FACT:
-the "slaughter of the innocents" never happened (it was a title applied to a massacre that took place about a 150 years earlier)
FACT:
-John the Baptist (an apparently real historical figure), didn't leave his ministry to Jesus as the gospels assert... he left it to Simon Magis, a wizard and Tantric-Sex proponent (who also had 12 disciples and a former prostitute consort; healed the lame; healed the sick; healed the blind; walked on water; raised the dead; was crucified and resurrected after 3 days)
FACT:
-despite writing reams of copy on the subject, Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus), the founder of modern (Pauline) Christianity didn't know anything about the virgin birth; the miracles; the raising the dead etc
...eyewitness testimony, supposedly written down by the witness two hundred years after the event doesn't ADD to the credibility of these deeply flawed documents... and it certainly doesn't win any arguments with those who know better.
MCWAY,
Just accept the fact: THE ENTIRE JESUS STORY IS PLAGIARIZED!
They just removed the intricate inner mysteries; the equivalence with other gods (just as Muslims do with the "one and only Allah"); the anti-Roman references (Pilate, an actual historical bastard of the highest order, is "forced" into killing Jesus... but left in the codified anti-Roman "Book of Revelations"), and made blind faith a virtue in lieu of a deeper understanding of the symbolism.
Blind faith is for children MCWAY, open your eyes... there's nothing to be afraid of.
I'll dig up those quotes from the Gnostic texts when I get a chance, and I'll get a few youtube links for the non-readers.
The Luke
-
These replies are becoming too lengthy...
I notice that you evade/skirt my points with deflections rather than rebuttals.... so in order to keep this thread readable for the other people following it I'll instead do just the opposite.
I'll poke holes in the specifics of your deflections, point by point:
...just from the title I can discern the bias of Christian apologists.
FACT:
There is no Jesus outside the New Testament. He is a fictional re-imagining of the dying-resurrecting Mystery Religion godman. The ONLY contemporary literature in which Jesus appears is the New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels (but with varying stories and different disciples)... but closer inspection will show that none of these can be any earlier than 70 AD. (Mark's gospel is the earliest with Luke, Matthew, and John all being variations on Mark's gospel, and we know from the writings of Church fathers that there was an extended version of Mark's gospel with the astrological/gematrial mysteries of the SYMBOLIC storyline explained... just the same way the revelatory process of the Mystery Religion worked).
Every (EVERY!) other historical reference to Jesus is either centuries later or a proven forgery... every one of them. That's why all the impartial historians agree that there is NO direct historical evidence for Jesus... no Roman records, no Jewish records, no Egyptian records... nothing.
We do have a huge library of texts written during Jesus' time by the Qumran Essenes. Their leader, James the Just, was supposedly Jesus brother... yet not one single reference to or mention of Jesus can be found in any of these texts, which were in production all the way up to 70 AD.
...just from the title I can tell it as written by a Christian apologist. Jesus didn't come from Nazareth.
FACT:
Nazareth was founded in the third century as Christianity swept across the Roman empire. There is not one single mention of Jesus being from Nazareth in the gospels (canonical or gnostic). Nazareth did not exist in Jesus time (archaeologists have proven this) and appears on no Roman town lists or census records.
The misunderstanding arises from a mistranslation of the phrase: "Jesus the Nazorite" ...not a person from Nazareth (which didn't exist) but a member of a sect of Jewish mystics called Nazorites who were ritually trepanned (grooves drilled in the skull).
...don't know the reference as I'm not a Bible-basher. Doesn't matter anyhow as lots of Gnostic texts written a century before Matthew mention the magi being witness to the birth (I'll dig up the reference). It's not so much a matter of timing the important part is that the solar-deity (Jesus in this case) is recognized as a miracle child by those in the know.
Arguing minutiae is pointless anyway as the gospels are full of glaring inconsistencies:
FACT:
Including the Gnostic gospels (which have better proven provenance than any of the canonical gospels), Jesus has 16 different disciples altogether. None of the gospels can agree on a similar list of twelve. This is to be expected as the individual disciples of a Mystery Religion godman aren't important... only that he have one for each of the zodiac signs and is betrayed by one of them to the evil tyrant, and another (secret/latent) female disciple to represent the hidden lunar zodiac sign (usually this role is filed by Isis, or the godmans fallen-woman/former-prostitute mother/wife in less literalist cultures: Jesus has Mary Magdalene).
...the "Is he Risen?" gives it away as Christian propaganda, but if you provide the link I'll watch it.
...No, YOU keep referencing the MYTHOLOGICAL versions of these gods. The MYTHOLOGICAL version is a story filled with dramatic allegories (which lose something in the translation).
The MYSTERY RELIGION versions of these gods are always the same basic "Jesus" story as the basic story is an encoded ASTROLOGICAL solar-deity mystery religion.
This type of argument is analogous to discussing the historical evidence for Vlad "Dracula" Tepes, Prince of Wallachia with someone who insists he was an immortal vampire because he's read Bram Stoker's novel.
Read what the experts think.
...the godman is always a virgin birth, always semi-illegitimate, always endowed with royal pedigree by proxy through an adopted father.
That's why the New Testament keeps harping on about Jesus being of the line of David.
...the godman is often the adopted son of a "tekton", and often a tekton himself. Usually translated from the Greek as carpenter but more accurately rendered as "smith": a stonesmith (mason); woodsmith (carpenter); or wordsmith (literate scribe)... these are the trades that understood measure and numbers yet still being the common man... the godman is a populist deity who offers heavenly salvation to those oppressed on earth.
These gods (such as Simon Magis) often associate with REDEEMED sinners; tax collectors, prostitutes etc.
...as I mentioned, it is an archaeological fact that Nazareth was founded in the third/fourth century. The Nazorites (mystic sect) were actually well respected for their Kabbalist learning and piety.
...former or REDEEMED sinners always form the retinue of the godman.
...dude, it's always crucifixion. It's astrologically symbolic (the constellation of Orion transfixed on the Tree of Life {axis of the earth}: born; dying and renewed with the solar cycle and the precessional Great Year)
-(mystery version) Dionysus
-(mystery version) Horus
-(mystery version) Bacchus
-(mystery version) Attis
-(mystery version) Mithras
...all die on the cross in their MYSTERY RELIGION guise.
...the humiliation is to prove the possibility of redemption for even the lowest of common people. Jesus isn't the first to die for the redemption of sin... Christians push that as an original twist, but ALL the Mystery Religion godmen die unjustly for others sins, only to rise after three days.
...No, the latent/hidden disciple who is often both the godman's mother and wife (it's astrological not literal) is always the first to see the risen godman. In the Jesus story it's Mary Magdalene and then the the Virgin Mary... the Christians separated the aspects of the hidden lunar disciple/mother but kept the names the same. Originally they were the same person as they represent the same star, but in its ascending and descending intervals. (Remember this is all astrological)
...THAT is your response to the FACT that Church Fathers explained the prefiguring of Jesus by pagan gods via the actions of a time-traveling Devil? (The Doctrine of Diabolial Mimicry)
That's weak MCWAY... really WEAK. That's tantamount to denying gravity while holding on to the ledge for dear life.
DENIAL DON'T MAKE IT SO! If it did, I'd be thin.
...by that logic George Orwell's "Animal Farm" is a treatise on animal husbandry.
...the technical term is "plagiarism", followed by a concerted campaign of book-burning and re-writing of history.
...again, you can't seem to get your head around the fact the MYTHOLOGICAL versions of these deities differ from the MYSTERY RELIGION versions.
One is ALLEGORICAL, one is ASTROLOGICAL... you wouldn't only read "Mein Kampf" for an accurate, balanced assessment of Hitler's character would you?
...the problem with all this is the timing.
We now know that the gospel switches the Pharisees for the Sadducees, which is incorrect but it doesn't stop there:
FACT:
-the "slaughter of the innocents" never happened (it was a title applied to a massacre that took place about a 150 years earlier)
FACT:
-John the Baptist (an apparently real historical figure), didn't leave his ministry to Jesus as the gospels assert... he left it to Simon Magis, a wizard and Tantric-Sex proponent (who also had 12 disciples and a former prostitute consort; healed the lame; healed the sick; healed the blind; walked on water; raised the dead; was crucified and resurrected after 3 days)
FACT:
-despite writing reams of copy on the subject, Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus), the founder of modern (Pauline) Christianity didn't know anything about the virgin birth; the miracles; the raising the dead etc
...eyewitness testimony, supposedly written down by the witness two hundred years after the event doesn't ADD to the credibility of these deeply flawed documents... and it certainly doesn't win any arguments with those who know better.
MCWAY,
Just accept the fact: THE ENTIRE JESUS STORY IS PLAGIARIZED!
They just removed the intricate inner mysteries; the equivalence with other gods (just as Muslims do with the "one and only Allah"); the anti-Roman references (Pilate, an actual historical bastard of the highest order, is "forced" into killing Jesus... but left in the codified anti-Roman "Book of Revelations"), and made blind faith a virtue in lieu of a deeper understanding of the symbolism.
Blind faith is for children MCWAY, open your eyes... there's nothing to be afraid of.
I'll dig up those quotes from the Gnostic texts when I get a chance, and I'll get a few youtube links for the non-readers.
The Luke
Luke you are wasting your time; MCWAY is a master of evasion or deflection and usually does so; he has done with with half a dozen others including myself. Eventually you will see that MCWAY is a fundy for life.
-
Hey Luke! Jesus is no myth. Jesus Christ is very real. ;D
Scholarly response to the Jesus Myth Hypothesis:
"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."
Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34.
The classical historian Michael Grant writes:
"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."
Michael Grant does not see the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions to be significant. Grant states that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."
Grant, Michael (1995). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 199. ISBN 978-0684818672 .
R.T. France points out that Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure. He argues that there is evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.
In response to Jesus-myth proponents who argue the lack of early non-Christian sources, or question their authenticity, R. T. France counters that "even the great histories of Tacitus have survived in only two manuscripts, which together contain scarcely half of what he is believed to have written, the rest is lost" and that the life of Jesus, from a Roman point of view, was not a major
event.
R.T France disagrees with the notion that the Apostle Paul did not speak of Jesus as a physical being. He argues that arguments from silence are unreliable and that there are several references to historical facts about Jesus's life in Paul's letters, such as that Jesus "who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David" (Romans 1:3, TNIV).
France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing, 19-20. ISBN 0340381728.
Supporting a historical Jesus
Bovon, François (2006). The Last Days of Jesus, trans. Kristin Hennessy; Louisville: Westminster, John Knox. ISBN 0664230075.
Burridge, Richard A. (2006). Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading, 2nd edn., Grand Rapids:Eerdmans. ISBN 0802829805 .
Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. ISBN 080284880X.
Grant, Michael [1977] (1999). Jesus. London: Phoenix. ISBN 0-75380-899-4.
Komoszewski, J. Ed ; et al (2006). Reinventing Jesus. Kregel Publications. ISBN 082542982X.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols., New York: Doubleday.
(1991) The Roots of the Problem and the Person. ISBN 0-385-26425-9 .
(1994) Mentor, Message, and Miracles. ISBN 0-385-46992-6 .
(2001) Companions and Competitors. ISBN 0-385-46993-4 .
Sanders, E. P. (1993). The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9059-7.
Theissen, Gerd; and Annette Merz (1998). The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide , trans. John Bowden, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ISBN 0-8006-3123-4.
Wright, NT (1996). The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 0800626818.
-
Josephus Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)
(later interpolations in brackets)
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)
"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacitus Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.)
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu4 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
1. Antiquities xviii. 33 (early second century) from F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 37.
2. Pliny, Epistles x.96, from Bruce, p.26.
3. Tacitus, Annals xv, 44, from Bruce, p. 22.
Talmudic designation of Jesus.
4. "Sanhedrin," vol 3 of Nezikin, Babylonian Talmud, edited by Isidore Epstein, reprint (London: Soncino, 1938), 281.
-
Josephus on Jesus - Testimonium Flavianum - Arabic Version
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.).
The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism.
-
Concerning Albinus Under Whose Procuratorship James Was Slain; As
Also What Edifices Were Built By Agrippa.
1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus
into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the
high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on
the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the
report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man;
for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high
priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long
time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high
priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you
already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper,
and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23)
who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of
the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus
was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper
opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and
Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of
judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was
called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some
of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against
them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but
as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and
such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they
disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa],
desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for
that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some
of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey
from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for
Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24)
Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in
anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to
punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the
high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and
made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus - Book 20, Chapter 9
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=648
-
Josephus on Jesus - Current state of the debate
Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.
Alice Whealey writes:
Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.
Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416
-
I'll keep this short...
loco,
Those references WERE good evidence of the historicity of Jesus... that is, until advances in infra-red wavelength laser imaging allowed the pigments of the texts to be analyzed and dated based on the degradation rates of the constituents.
All the explicit historical references (Josephus for example) have been PROVEN to be forgeries by this method.
All we have left are vague SECOND century references, and even some of those are forgeries. The only historians still stubbornly sticking to the historicity of Jesus are themselves true believer Christians.
You have to remember that the early church engaged in a centuries long campaign of deliberate rewriting history and burned most of the conflicting documents. The official version of church history is a self-serving lie; the conversion of the Emperor Constantine (he was NEVER a Christian), hundreds of visions and miracles, the lives of the apostles... all lies.
The many hundreds of Qumran texts (contemporary and written by the Essene Jews in Jerusalem) make NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION OF JESUS WHATSOEVER! (even though there are some references to James the Just)
But what none of this refutes is the FACT that EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the Jesus story is plagiarized.
Every miracle... every prayer... every symbol... every detail.
How could Jesus be an original deity when he seemingly only ever fulfilled pagan prophecy?
The Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry (google it) is the only defense Christians have ever offered to these facts... and it is blatantly, and indefensibly wrong.
Some other dude has referenced all the similarities...
&feature=related
Any evangelicals reading this should take the ten minutes to watch the vid...
Keep in mind NONE of the details are in question, and all of the similarities listed were openly conceded by early Church Fathers (Justin Martyr etc)
The Luke
-
I'll keep this short...
loco,
Those references WERE good evidence of the historicity of Jesus... that is, until advances in infra-red wavelength laser imaging allowed the pigments of the texts to be analyzed and dated based on the degradation rates of the constituents.
All the explicit historical references (Josephus for example) have been PROVEN to be forgeries by this method.
All we have left are vague SECOND century references, and even some of those are forgeries. The only historians still stubbornly sticking to the historicity of Jesus are themselves true believer Christians.
You have to remember that the early church engaged in a centuries long campaign of deliberate rewriting history and burned most of the conflicting documents. The official version of church history is a self-serving lie; the conversion of the Emperor Constantine (he was NEVER a Christian), hundreds of visions and miracles, the lives of the apostles... all lies.
The many hundreds of Qumran texts (contemporary and written by the Essene Jews in Jerusalem) make NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION OF JESUS WHATSOEVER! (even though there are some references to James the Just)
But what none of this refutes is the FACT that EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the Jesus story is plagiarized.
Every miracle... every prayer... every symbol... every detail.
How could Jesus be an original deity when he seemingly only ever fulfilled pagan prophecy?
The Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry (google it) is the only defense Christians have ever offered to these facts... and it is blatantly, and indefensibly wrong.
Some other dude has referenced all the similarities...
&feature=related
Any evangelicals reading this should take the ten minutes to watch the vid...
Keep in mind NONE of the details are in question, and all of the similarities listed were openly conceded by early Church Fathers (Justin Martyr etc)
The Luke
Please expand on this. It sounds fascinating. :)
Do you have any links? I would greatly appreciate them.
-
If I remember correctly Deicide, they scanned the oldest surviving copy of Mark's gospel (the original gospel, from which the others are copied), which (working from memory here) has been dated to approximately 155 AD.
They found only one forged addition... the last line: "And ascended into Heaven".
This ties in well with the original Gnostic gospels (now recovered)... many of them, such as the Gospel of Thomas, made no magical claims about an ascension. In fact, Thomas goes to a wedding in the far east circa 60 AD and an elderly Jesus shows up as a guest at the wedding.
Lots of lost gospels have been recovered by infra-red scanning age-blackened papyrus books recovered from Roman-era city dumps.
These newly discovered "lost" gospels give us deep insight into the early Jesus cult.
And the original Jesus cult was Gnostic, not Pauline... symbolic, not literal... Cathar, not Catholic.
One researcher found an older copy of the Book of Revelations, wherein the recovered text asserted the number of the Beast to be 661 not 666... makes sense, 661 is the gematria code sum for the name Caesar Caligula (the Christian oppressing emperor when that text was produced), not 666 the gematria code sum for the name Caesar Nero (who burned Christians for starting the Great Fire of Rome).
Presumably the Christians had no problem with the religion-tolerant Emperor Claudius who reigned uneventfully betwixt these monsters. When presented with Christian blasphemers, Claudius asked only that they recite the prayer to the divinity of the emperor (learned by rote across the Roman world, and analogous to the Pledge of Allegiance in America today)... Claudius wasn't particularly fussed if they substituted the name of their own deity for the word "imperator", he dismissed any such nit-picking with the assurance that his own title was synonymous with the name of any non-Roman god... and decreed such a recital a valid legal defense to charges of blasphemy against the emperors divinity, (when accompanied by a pledge to forgo rabble rousing and keep the peace).
Buoyed by such tolerance, Christians felt no need to encode tacit propaganda against Claudius "for he who has wisdom"-hint-hint. to understand.
This was all covered in the press media... search for "infra-red" "papyrus" etc, you'll find something.
www.dailygrail.com is good for gathering links to such stories.
The Luke
-
If I remember correctly Deicide, they scanned the oldest surviving copy of Mark's gospel (the original gospel, from which the others are copied), which (working from memory here) has been dated to approximately 155 AD.
They found only one forged addition... the last line: "And ascended into Heaven".
This ties in well with the original Gnostic gospels (now recovered)... many of them, such as the Gospel of Thomas, made no magical claims about an ascension. In fact, Thomas goes to a wedding in the far east circa 60 AD and an elderly Jesus shows up as a guest at the wedding.
Lots of lost gospels have been recovered by infra-red scanning age-blackened papyrus books recovered from Roman-era city dumps.
These newly discovered "lost" gospels give us deep insight into the early Jesus cult.
And the original Jesus cult was Gnostic, not Pauline... symbolic, not literal... Cathar, not Catholic.
One researcher found an older copy of the Book of Revelations, wherein the recovered text asserted the number of the Beast to be 661 not 666... makes sense, 661 is the gematria code sum for the name Caesar Caligula (the Christian oppressing emperor when that text was produced), not 666 the gematria code sum for the name Caesar Nero (who burned Christians for starting the Great Fire of Rome).
Presumably the Christians had no problem with the religion-tolerant Emperor Claudius who reigned uneventfully betwixt these monsters. When presented with Christian blasphemers, Claudius asked only that they recite the prayer to the divinity of the emperor (learned by rote across the Roman world, and analogous to the Pledge of Allegiance in America today)... Claudius wasn't particularly fussed if they substituted the name of their own deity for the word "imperator", he dismissed any such nit-picking with the assurance that his own title was synonymous with the name of any non-Roman god... and decreed such a recital a valid legal defense to charges of blasphemy against the emperors divinity, (when accompanied by a pledge to forgo rabble rousing and keep the peace).
Buoyed by such tolerance, Christians felt no need to encode tacit propaganda against Claudius "for he who has wisdom"-hint-hint. to understand.
This was all covered in the press media... search for "infra-red" "papyrus" etc, you'll find something.
www.dailygrail.com is good for gathering links to such stories.
The Luke
I will check it out. However, I thought that the Josephan passages had been proven to be forgeries via this method; I am more interested in the extrabibical evidence since the Gospels are obviously bunk.
-
Deicide,
I wouldn't contend that the gospels are "bunk"... they are just aren't what evangelicals represent them as.
They aren't history, they aren't "divinely inspired"... they're just one example of a popular tradition of revelatory religious texts.
The problem seems to have started with the Pauline sect. Paul was promulgating a bare-bones version of the Jesus to Hellenized Jews (and gentiles); no mysteries, no hidden codes, no astrology... just miracles and parables.
After the Jewish revolt in 70 AD left the Essenes dead and Jerusalem in ruins, Paul was left with a structured "fundraiser" religion and no one to pass the money on to... the very same thing happened with Scientology. L Ron Hubbard died leaving the money raising infrastructure in place... hence the con outlasted the conman.
Similarly, Scientology is now rewriting history and expunging any evidence that Hubbard was anything other than perfect and infallible: they're lining up prophecies to fulfill the newly minted "facts" of Hubbard's life.
L Ron Hubbard, science fiction writer, self-help guru, charlatan and all-round fraudster is only a book-burning and an Inquisition away from being a god himself.
The Luke
-
I'll keep this short...
loco,
Those references WERE good evidence of the historicity of Jesus... that is, until advances in infra-red wavelength laser imaging allowed the pigments of the texts to be analyzed and dated based on the degradation rates of the constituents.
Infra-red wavelength laser imaging to prove Josephus' mention of Jesus a forgery? Luke, when you make a claim such as this one, please kindly post some references to back your claim along with links or book title, author and page number so that your reference can be verified. Otherwise, there is nothing keeping the reader from simply concluding that you are making this up as you go or that you are simply regurgitating conspiracy theories that you heard or read elsewhere. Thank you!
All the explicit historical references (Josephus for example) have been PROVEN to be forgeries by this method.
All we have left are vague SECOND century references, and even some of those are forgeries. The only historians still stubbornly sticking to the historicity of Jesus are themselves true believer Christians.
Again, making claims with nothing to back it up. Your claim is false Luke. I just showed you in my post above on "Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography" that this is an ongoing debate among scholars, both secular and otherwise, and the debate is far from settled. And according to Alice Whealey "the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus."
You have to remember that the early church engaged in a centuries long campaign of deliberate rewriting history and burned most of the conflicting documents. The official version of church history is a self-serving lie; the conversion of the Emperor Constantine (he was NEVER a Christian), hundreds of visions and miracles, the lives of the apostles... all lies.
False. The early church did not engage in any such campaign. They were too busy running and hiding from those who wanted to kill them, while doing the best they could to spread the Gospel. They could not have possibly tampered with the historian Josephus' works. Though Josephus was a Jewish priest, he worked for the Romans and wrote for the Romans in Greek and not for the Jews in Hebrew. You can't tell me that the same Christians who were running for their life from the Romans and the Jewish leaders secretly slipped into the Roman Imperial Library and secretly added Jesus Christ references to Josephus' works. That's silly.
Is it possible that there were some copyists working for the Romans who were secretly Christians in those days, yes it is possible. But if they were true Christians then they were not engaged in such lies, fraud and forgeries. Not only does that go against Jesus' teachings, but according to "Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)" early Christians did not engage in such deception.
Could a copyist who was not really a Christian have added those Jesus references to Josephus' works in those days of Christian persecution? No. Who would risk so much for something they believe to be a lie? And what would be their motivation when by being linked to Jesus or to Christianity meant they had nothing to gain, but everything to lose in those days?
The Roman Catholic church did many centuries later engage in such campaign, but not to the extent that you claim. For example, one of Josephus references to Jesus Christ contradicts a major Catholic doctrine. The Catholic church claims that Mary remained a virgin for life after Jesus was born. They deny that James was the brother of Jesus or that Jesus had any brothers or sisters at all. Josephus mentions James, brother of Jesus who was called Christ. The Roman Catholic church certainly did not add that and if it were true that they tampered with Jesephus' works, they would have definitely removed that, but they did not.
That's for extra biblical references to Jesus. As for the Bible, most of the New Testament contradicts Roman Catholic doctrine and traditions. If your claim that the Bible was tampered with and re-written by the Roman Catholic church were even true, why does it contradict the Catholic church so much? That is why they had it translated into Latin and made it a crime to own a Bible in any other language, a crime to translate it from Latin into any other language, a crime to read or interpret it by the common folk, etc. No, it was not modified or re-written as you claim.
The many hundreds of Qumran texts (contemporary and written by the Essene Jews in Jerusalem) make NOT ONE SINGLE MENTION OF JESUS WHATSOEVER! (even though there are some references to James the Just)
But what none of this refutes is the FACT that EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of the Jesus story is plagiarized.
Every miracle... every prayer... every symbol... every detail.
How could Jesus be an original deity when he seemingly only ever fulfilled pagan prophecy?
The Doctrine of Diabolical Mimicry (google it) is the only defense Christians have ever offered to these facts... and it is blatantly, and indefensibly wrong.
Some other dude has referenced all the similarities...
&feature=related
Any evangelicals reading this should take the ten minutes to watch the vid...
Keep in mind NONE of the details are in question, and all of the similarities listed were openly conceded by early Church Fathers (Justin Martyr etc)
Existing extra biblical references to Jesus is one debate. The Jesus Myth hypothesis, or conspiracy theory is a different thing which I take even less seriously. Read my post above about Scholarly response to the Jesus Myth Hypothesis.
-
loco,
Like MCWAY, you demand that I give exact references and precise... then you simply dismiss them. You obviously need to go read it in context for yourself. Why don't you? Why are you afraid to research this yourself? Are you afraid to read the opinions of anyone except a Christian apologist?
There are reams and reams of research on these subjects... atheists don't quote learned off lines to win arguments, they rely on a weight of evidence... not one infallible book.
I'm not a crank... I have a degree in experimental physics and have followed the growing exposure of these forgeries over the years as the dating/authenticating imaging technologies have improved.
As it stands now:
-Mark's gospel (the original gospel) has been dated to 155 AD at the earliest (the extant text could of course be a copy of an older text, but it does explicitly mention the destruction of the temple in 70 AD: that's 40 years after Jesus)
-by contrast, most of the Gnostic gospels and texts have better proven provenance than the canonical gospels. These gospels include stories of Jesus killing children with his magic powers, should they be considered infallible?
-early church fathers admitted in correspondence with fellow Christian conspirators that there was indeed a hidden version of Mark's gospel containing extra chapters and verses (redacted from the canonical gospels) explaining the inner mysteries of the miracles. Now we've found dozens of other revelatory traditions (predating Jesus) that use the exact same format.
A good example is the Gospel of Pythagoras (yes that Pythagoras, the mathematician)... Pythagoras, as the son of god, travels around with his twelve disciples healing the sick; healing the lame; feeding multitudes miraculously; raising the dead etc etc, until he is crucified by an evil tyrant, only to rise again three days later. Except, Pythagoras explains the astrological/mathematical meaning of his SYMBOLIC miracles to his favorite apostle. this is a hallmark of the Mystery Religion.
-(impartial) linguists agree that Luke's, John's and Matthew's gospels are only variations of Mark with the few discrepancies implying that all four are actually sourced from a fifth lost text (nicknamed "Q" by the linguists), if Mark's gospel is a redaction of a more complete revelatory text (as church fathers assert) then the entire Christian canon is predicated on the format of the Mystery Religion, whence the Jesus story itself is obviously plagiarized.
-the Josephus reference is almost certainly a forgery, only Christian experts dispute this
-the Donation of Constantine (by which the Emperor Constantine supposedly established the Catholic Church) has been proven to be a forgery
-the "ascended into heaven" line ending Mark's gospel has been proven to be a considerably later addition to the 155 AD source document
...I remain open minded on the possibility of an actual historical Jesus, but he would no more resemble the Jesus of the gospels than the mathematician Pythagoras would resemble the godman Pythagoras.
Would it help persuade you guys if I explained/"enlightened" a couple of the gospel miracles?
The Luke
-
loco,
Like MCWAY, you demand that I give exact references and precise... then you simply dismiss them. You obviously need to go read it in context for yourself. Why don't you? Why are you afraid to research this yourself? Are you afraid to read the opinions of anyone except a Christian apologist?
There are reams and reams of research on these subjects... atheists don't quote learned off lines to win arguments, they rely on a weight of evidence... not one infallible book.
I'm not a crank... I have a degree in experimental physics and have followed the growing exposure of these forgeries over the years as the dating/authenticating imaging technologies have improved.
As it stands now:
-Mark's gospel (the original gospel) has been dated to 155 AD at the earliest (the extant text could of course be a copy of an older text, but it does explicitly mention the destruction of the temple in 70 AD: that's 40 years after Jesus)
-by contrast, most of the Gnostic gospels and texts have better proven provenance than the canonical gospels. These gospels include stories of Jesus killing children with his magic powers, should they be considered infallible?
-early church fathers admitted in correspondence with fellow Christian conspirators that there was indeed a hidden version of Mark's gospel containing extra chapters and verses (redacted from the canonical gospels) explaining the inner mysteries of the miracles. Now we've found dozens of other revelatory traditions (predating Jesus) that use the exact same format.
A good example is the Gospel of Pythagoras (yes that Pythagoras, the mathematician)... Pythagoras, as the son of god, travels around with his twelve disciples healing the sick; healing the lame; feeding multitudes miraculously; raising the dead etc etc, until he is crucified by an evil tyrant, only to rise again three days later. Except, Pythagoras explains the astrological/mathematical meaning of his SYMBOLIC miracles to his favorite apostle. this is a hallmark of the Mystery Religion.
-(impartial) linguists agree that Luke's, John's and Matthew's gospels are only variations of Mark with the few discrepancies implying that all four are actually sourced from a fifth lost text (nicknamed "Q" by the linguists), if Mark's gospel is a redaction of a more complete revelatory text (as church fathers assert) then the entire Christian canon is predicated on the format of the Mystery Religion, whence the Jesus story itself is obviously plagiarized.
-the Josephus reference is almost certainly a forgery, only Christian experts dispute this
-the Donation of Constantine (by which the Emperor Constantine supposedly established the Catholic Church) has been proven to be a forgery
-the "ascended into heaven" line ending Mark's gospel has been proven to be a considerably later addition to the 155 AD source document
...I remain open minded on the possibility of an actual historical Jesus, but he would no more resemble the Jesus of the gospels than the mathematician Pythagoras would resemble the godman Pythagoras.
Would it help persuade you guys if I explained/"enlightened" a couple of the gospel miracles?
The Luke
Luke,
Afraid to research myself? Research what? You have not given me anything to research. I have a degree from a secular university and my references here are not from Christian apologists. So I have been exposed to plenty of material coming from secular scholars.
I had the courtesy of posting along with my claims scholarly references along with links, book title, author and page numbers. I took the time to look this up at some point or another to back up my claims and to make it easier for you and other readers to verify my references.
I asked you to kindly do the same and you respond, not with references, but with more unsupported claims. I did not ask you to go read entire books or "reams and reams of research on these subjects."
You post one long thread after another full of claims and conspiracy theories, most of which I have heard or read about before, with nothing to back them up and you ask that I spend the time doing the research for you to back up your claim for you? You expect me to take the time to do this to back up my own claims and yours too? If you at least gave me a book title and author with a page number I could go look it up. But you are unreasonable by asking me to go read entire books just to verify your claims.
I already have 4 books, not from Christians apologists, that I am trying to read at the moment. Asking me to go find evidence to back up your claims is unrealistic and unreasonable.
-
These replies are becoming too lengthy...
I notice that you evade/skirt my points with deflections rather than rebuttals.... so in order to keep this thread readable for the other people following it I'll instead do just the opposite.
Look who's talking!!!!
I'll poke holes in the specifics of your deflections, point by point:
...just from the title I can discern the bias of Christian apologists.
In other words, despite all your blubbering about refusal to read thing, YOU don't practice what you preach.
FACT:
There is no Jesus outside the New Testament. He is a fictional re-imagining of the dying-resurrecting Mystery Religion godman. The ONLY contemporary literature in which Jesus appears is the New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels (but with varying stories and different disciples)... but closer inspection will show that none of these can be any earlier than 70 AD. (Mark's gospel is the earliest with Luke, Matthew, and John all being variations on Mark's gospel, and we know from the writings of Church fathers that there was an extended version of Mark's gospel with the astrological/gematrial mysteries of the SYMBOLIC storyline explained... just the same way the revelatory process of the Mystery Religion worked).
Every (EVERY!) other historical reference to Jesus is either centuries later or a proven forgery... every one of them. That's why all the impartial historians agree that there is NO direct historical evidence for Jesus... no Roman records, no Jewish records, no Egyptian records... nothing.
Proven by whom? You claimed that "EVERY expert on ancient religions worldwide accepts the plagiarism obvious in the Jesus story", which has easily been shown to be false.
As is your claim of there being no Jesus outside the New Testament; per the words of another religious expert:
Actually, the life of Jesus is recorded in whole or in part, different segments, in about 20 different non-Christians source--historically or archaeologically--outside the New Testament. And most of these are little snippets--a sentence here, a paragraph there--but you put them all together, and you get approximately 60 to 65 facts, concerning the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the earliest church. You can get an outline of His life and NEVER touch the New Testament - Dr. Gary Habermas, also from "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?" and author of "The Historical Jesus"
Your claims of forgery, with regards to Tacitus (a Roman), have little weight, as shown earlier. As for Josephus (who was Jewish), I covered that long ago. But, as Loco has repeatedly mentioned, whenever someone pulls that tactic with Josephus, the scholarly view is that Josephus' works DO INDEED document the life of Jesus Christ. The interpolations in question merely emphasize His divinity. And that's just the Testimonium in Book 18. Book 20, which merely identifies James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" has been verified by experts (i.e. Dr. Louis Feldman) as being authentic.
Of course, there's the little matter of skeptics explaining why forgers would add a mere two references to Jesus, with only one of them emphasizing His divinity. But, that's another matter.
The whole issue with the date of the Gospels......
We do have a huge library of texts written during Jesus' time by the Qumran Essenes. Their leader, James the Just, was supposedly Jesus brother... yet not one single reference to or mention of Jesus can be found in any of these texts, which were in production all the way up to 70 AD.
...just from the title I can tell it as written by a Christian apologist. Jesus didn't come from Nazareth.
FACT:
Nazareth was founded in the third century as Christianity swept across the Roman empire. There is not one single mention of Jesus being from Nazareth in the gospels (canonical or gnostic). Nazareth did not exist in Jesus time (archaeologists have proven this) and appears on no Roman town lists or census records.
The misunderstanding arises from a mistranslation of the phrase: "Jesus the Nazorite" ...not a person from Nazareth (which didn't exist) but a member of a sect of Jewish mystics called Nazorites who were ritually trepanned (grooves drilled in the skull).
As usual, you produce more excuses, along with another tired diatribe, which Deicide pitifully tried to prop up here. For starters, even skeptics don't buy that mess anymore. Archaeological evidence that dates as early as 70 AD (and this was provided by the very skeptic site that Deicide linked here a while back) that shows the existence of Nazareth. That's less than 40 years after Jesus' death and resurrection.
Of course, this is merely the latest in a long line of backtracking, after skeptics claimed that Nazareth didn't exist AT ALL. And, it's yet another example of foot-in-mouth syndrome, when they claim that something that, at one point was only documented in the Bible, was merely fabricated.
...don't know the reference as I'm not a Bible-basher. Doesn't matter anyhow as lots of Gnostic texts written a century before Matthew mention the magi being witness to the birth (I'll dig up the reference). It's not so much a matter of timing the important part is that the solar-deity (Jesus in this case) is recognized as a miracle child by those in the know.
And, you have the nerve to cry about deflection. I GAVE YOU the reference (do the words "Matthew 2:7,16" ring a bell?) to the verses that depict Jesus' age when the wise men find Him. But, to eliminate this feeble exucse you keep using (since you obviously "refuse to read it"):
Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them the time that the star appeared....Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceicved, was exceedingly angry. And he sent forth and put to death all the male children, who were in Bethlehem and all its districts, from two years and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.
FACT:
Including the Gnostic gospels (which have better proven provenance than any of the canonical gospels), Jesus has 16 different disciples altogether. None of the gospels can agree on a similar list of twelve. This is to be expected as the individual disciples of a Mystery Religion godman aren't important... only that he have one for each of the zodiac signs and is betrayed by one of them to the evil tyrant, and another (secret/latent) female disciple to represent the hidden lunar zodiac sign (usually this role is filed by Isis, or the godmans fallen-woman/former-prostitute mother/wife in less literalist cultures: Jesus has Mary Magdalene).
Unlike Attis (and other), Jesus doesn’t get His freak on with His mother. Nor is Mary Magdelene his wife, as evidenced in the gospel of John. Jesus gives custody of His mother to John, something a first-born UNMARRIED son would do. Had Jesus been married, his wife would have had first priority.
To top it all off, the Gospels do not identify Mary Magdelene as a former prostitute. Once again, that is a tradition that assumes that Mary Magdelene and the woman caught in adultery are one and the same (which may or may not be the case).
...the "Is he Risen?" gives it away as Christian propaganda, but if you provide the link I'll watch it.
Again, you have the nerve to complain about my not reading stuff. Refresher: I MADE A THREAD with the link to the video; it ain't that hard to find!!!
...No, YOU keep referencing the MYTHOLOGICAL versions of these gods. The MYTHOLOGICAL version is a story filled with dramatic allegories (which lose something in the translation).
There ain’t that much loss of translation in the world which turns self-castration into crucifixion.
The MYSTERY RELIGION versions of these gods are always the same basic "Jesus" story as the basic story is an encoded ASTROLOGICAL solar-deity mystery religion.
Read what the experts think.
...the godman is always a virgin birth, always semi-illegitimate, always endowed with royal pedigree by proxy through an adopted father.
What royal pedigree? Jesus’ birth was allegedly illegitimate (i.e. Joseph, Mary’s husband WAS NOT the father). And, Joseph, Jesus’ earthly guardian was a carpenter.
That's why the New Testament keeps harping on about Jesus being of the line of David.
...the godman is often the adopted son of a "tekton", and often a tekton himself. Usually translated from the Greek as carpenter but more accurately rendered as "smith": a stonesmith (mason); woodsmith (carpenter); or wordsmith (literate scribe)... these are the trades that understood measure and numbers yet still being the common man... the godman is a populist deity who offers heavenly salvation to those oppressed on earth.
I have read what experts think, which is why refuting this stuff you keep posting is rather easy to do. ;D
And, the Old Testament had long established that the Messiah would come from David’s lineage. That’s why the NT harps on that.
These gods (such as Simon Magis) often associate with REDEEMED sinners; tax collectors, prostitutes etc.
...as I mentioned, it is an archaeological fact that Nazareth was founded in the third/fourth century.
The heck it is!!! Evidence for Nazareth, as early as late 1st/early 2nd century A.D. has been found. If you don’t believe me, ask Deicide or find his thread on this forum. Now, the popular skeptic excuse is that Nazareth didn’t exist during Jesus’ lifetime.
And, to make matters worse, there still remains the issue of the Gnostics (or whoever), supposedly inventing the Jesus character, using aspects they KNEW would be despised by the Jewish people (i.e. the appearance of an illegitimate birth, a carpenter for a guardian, raised in Nazareth, association with whores and publicans, and DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION).
...former or REDEEMED sinners always form the retinue of the godman.
...dude, it's always crucifixion. It's astrologically symbolic (the constellation of Orion transfixed on the Tree of Life {axis of the earth}: born; dying and renewed with the solar cycle and the precessional Great Year).
None of these cats got crucified, as I’ve stated multiple times on this thread and will state again later. The closest one you can even use it Attis. But, he’s tied to a felled tree AFTER his death, courtesy of hacking off his balls (or, if you use the other story, he literally got porked to death).
The religious ceremonies used by these don’t measure up (i.e. the priests who celebrated the festival of Attis/Cybele relieved themselves of their testicles to mimic the object of their worship. There’s no “mystery” to that; it’s documented in black-and-white)
Once again, the accounts on these dudes indicate that:
- Attis chopped off his nuts, out of feverish lust over his own mama, Cybele
- Mithras’ alleged salvation involved the death of a BULL, not himself.
- Osiris got dismembered by Set and NEVER returned from the underworld; remember that this is where Isis (in bird form) has to go to have sex with him, in order to produce Horus.
- Dionysus got beat down by the Titan and “reborn” as an infant, NOT resurrected as Jesus was.
What’s lost in translation, here? This is merely your feeble excuse and your deflection of the fact that NONE of those guys you mentioned match Jesus Christ.
...again, you can't seem to get your head around the fact the MYTHOLOGICAL versions of these deities differ from the MYSTERY RELIGION versions.
One is ALLEGORICAL, one is ASTROLOGICAL... you wouldn't only read "Mein Kampf" for an accurate, balanced assessment of Hitler's character would you?
What you can’t get your head around is that the worshippers of these other figures paid their homage in methods similar (if not IDENTICAL) to the accounts of their deities. I refer you to the priests of Attis/Cybele. If anything, one would think that worshippers of Attis would rather adopt aspects of Christianity than vice versa, especially the MALE ONES (for obvious reasons!!!).
...No, the latent/hidden disciple who is often both the godman's mother and wife (it's astrological not literal) is always the first to see the risen godman. In the Jesus story it's Mary Magdalene and then the the Virgin Mary... the Christians separated the aspects of the hidden lunar disciple/mother but kept the names the same. Originally they were the same person as they represent the same star, but in its ascending and descending intervals. (Remember this is all astrological)
Please!! The name “Mary” was as common during that time as “Jennifer” is today.
...THAT is your response to the FACT that Church Fathers explained the prefiguring of Jesus by pagan gods via the actions of a time-traveling Devil? (The Doctrine of Diabolial Mimicry)
That's weak MCWAY... really WEAK. That's tantamount to denying gravity while holding on to the ledge for dear life.[/quote]
What’s weak is your trying to claim that Jesus Christ was forged from these other figures, while ignoring the specifics that clearly show that their births, missions, deaths, and alleged resurrections DO NOT MATCH the account of Jesus Christ.
What you apparently forget is that the same guy about whom you keep harping, with regards to Diabolical Mimicry, also has “Dialogue” with a Jew who denies Jesus as the Messiah for some of the very reasons I’ve listed before.
No one with any knowledge of Jewish culture (supposedly “secret” or otherwise) is going to fabricate someone like Jesus Christ.
DENIAL DON'T MAKE IT SO! If it did, I'd be thin.
Agreed!! Yet you continue to deny the fact that these gods don’t fit the mold of Jesus Christ in those aforementioned areas.
One is ALLEGORICAL, one is ASTROLOGICAL... you wouldn't only read "Mein Kampf" for an accurate, balanced assessment of Hitler's character would you?
...the problem with all this is the timing.
We now know that the gospel switches the Pharisees for the Sadducees, which is incorrect but it doesn't stop there:
And this is based on........
FACT:
-the "slaughter of the innocents" never happened (it was a title applied to a massacre that took place about a 150 years earlier)
The Gospels do not refer to Herod’s actions as “slaughter of the innocents”. So this blurb of yours is rather pointless. Plus, this is little more than the old skeptic argument from silence, one that historically has burned skeptics time and time again, once the archaeological evidence surfaces that validates the Bible’s account.
FACT:
-John the Baptist (an apparently real historical figure), didn't leave his ministry to Jesus as the gospels assert... he left it to Simon Magis, a wizard and Tantric-Sex proponent (who also had 12 disciples and a former prostitute consort; healed the lame; healed the sick; healed the blind; walked on water; raised the dead; was crucified and resurrected after 3 days)
FACT: The Gospels never claimed that John the Baptist (also referenced in Josephus’ work, and Jesus’ earthly cousin) left “his” ministry to Jesus Christ. To top it all off (and this is something I was discussing with someone last week), the Gospels mention nothing about Jesus having a “prostitute consort”. That’s based on the traditional view that Mary Magdelene was also the woman caught in adultery.
Furthermore, Josephus does not record anyone taking John’s ministry from him (after his imprisonment and subsequent beheading). What’s more, John the Baptist (a devout follower of God, as referenced by both the Gospels and the works of Josephus) would NOT have handed his ministry to a “wizard”, as such were ordered to be PUT TO DEATH. As harsh as he was on Herod and Herodias for their adultery, there’s NO indication that he would give a “Tantric-Sex proponent” charge of a ministry.
FACT:
-despite writing reams of copy on the subject, Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus), the founder of modern (Pauline) Christianity didn't know anything about the virgin birth; the miracles; the raising the dead etc.
And this is based on what? Paul associated with both Luke and John, who BOTH recorded such. Plus, Luke records many of Paul’s messages in Acts.
Per Paul’s words in Romans 1:1-3 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.
He knew of the virgin birth of Jesus, as he constantly made references to what the prophets of old said, which INCLUDED a virgin birth. (In addition, he likely gleaned more information from Luke and John, with whom he traveled). However, His death and resurrection are of far more importance to Paul than His mere birth; so, Paul’s preaching focused on that.
...eyewitness testimony, supposedly written down by the witness two hundred years after the event doesn't ADD to the credibility of these deeply flawed documents... and it certainly doesn't win any arguments with those who know better.
Problem is that the Gospels weren’t originally penned two hundred years after the events. Many of the extant copies of the Gospels are dated in that time period. But, that doesn’t hold that they were initially written then.[/quote]
MCWAY,
Just accept the fact: THE ENTIRE JESUS STORY IS PLAGIARIZED!
They just removed the intricate inner mysteries; the equivalence with other gods (just as Muslims do with the "one and only Allah"); the anti-Roman references (Pilate, an actual historical bastard of the highest order, is "forced" into killing Jesus... but left in the codified anti-Roman "Book of Revelations"), and made blind faith a virtue in lieu of a deeper understanding of the symbolism.
Blind faith is for children MCWAY, open your eyes... there's nothing to be afraid of.
Indeed!!! Why would I be afraid of a bunch of foolishness, claiming that Jesus was crafted from Attis, Horus, Osiris, etc., when looking up those characters and examining the details clearly, easily, and definitively shows that such ain’t the case?
No crucifixion, no “virgin birth”, no death to save man from sins, and in at least one case (Osiris), no resurrection.
And, as it’s often the case, when a skeptic can’t back his claims with fact or brow-beat a believer into buying such foolishness, they pull the old “Blind faith” routine.
If there’s any fear, it’s from your end. Exactly what is it about the mere existence of Jesus that frightens you and other skeptics, to the point where you have to concoct such goofiness to claim He was crafted from such characters?
I accept the facts, which is why I can refute your claims quite handily. Unlike you, I can give the specifics. I don’t gripe about someone not reading vague references, while avoiding specific references given in plain, simple, easily-readable form.
I'll dig up those quotes from the Gnostic texts when I get a chance, and I'll get a few youtube links for the non-readers.
The Luke
You’ve have plenty of chances. Yet, for some reason, you haven’t produced. Ain’t it funny how you don’t have time to back your claims, but somehow you have time to continually post this foolishness?
-
Reasonable points there loco...
I'm beginning to realize that many others simply aren't capable of shrugging off Christian indoctrination the way I did... I suppose if you are a true believer deeply afflicted by such indoctrination (I never was) it must be very difficult to come to terms with the truth of the matter.
Beginning to realize no one will trust my judgment on any of this.
The problem with references for my arguments would be that people such as MCWAY want chapter and verse on every point I make... when I give such detailed explanations they are dismissed. I'm working from memory here... I have dozens of sources, not one book that I've memorized.
What should I do?
Copy and paste the entire story of each and every resurrecting godman? (complete with references; links; notes; and verifications)? I believe there are about 34 of them altogether? Then I have to reference and cross check every one of my assertions... wouldn't it be faster and less cumbersome for me to simply copy and paste the entire text of the book I recommended?
Faced with such evidence MCWAY will then turn to the next trick of those defending the indefensible: he'll call into question my sources... that's why I'd prefer to simply make my case based on facts and allow those open to persuasion (no one can persuade a fundamentalist) to check my facts for themselves.
Notice the telling turn of this discussion... no one has shown my argument to be falsifiable. They simply set impossible standards for any evidence supporting my case, which is actually an effort to deflect attention from the fact that it is actually the Christian apologists whose case is completely unsupported.
MCWAY thinks he's being clever, but I know his tactics...
loco,
I recommend you read Gandy and Freke's book "The Jesus Mysteries: Was Jesus a Pagan God"... if you're reading other books on Christianity at the moment then drop them. After reading "The Jesus Mysteries" you'll never bother with this apologist bunkum ever again.
The Luke
PS-for the record, the ten minute youtube video I posted is fully referenced, anyone interested can check it out... I won't post the references here myself as I'm more interested in stimulating those reading the thread to do their own research rather than engage MCWAY in his obstructionist dismissals... he's obviously been trained on how to obstruct (without actually counteracting) the atheist argument.
-
loco,
Those references WERE good evidence of the historicity of Jesus... that is, until advances in infra-red wavelength laser imaging allowed the pigments of the texts to be analyzed and dated based on the degradation rates of the constituents.
All the explicit historical references (Josephus for example) have been PROVEN to be forgeries by this method.
Please expand on this. It sounds fascinating. :)
Do you have any links? I would greatly appreciate them.
Don't hold your breath.
-
Reasonable points there loco...
I'm beginning to realize that many others simply aren't capable of shrugging off Christian indoctrination the way I did... I suppose if you are a true believer deeply afflicted by such indoctrination (I never was) it must be very difficult to come to terms with the truth of the matter.
Beginning to realize no one will trust my judgment on any of this.
The problem with references for my arguments would be that people such as MCWAY want chapter and verse on every point I make... when I give such detailed explanations they are dismissed. I'm working from memory here... I have dozens of sources, not one book that I've memorized.
What should I do?
Copy and paste the entire story of each and every resurrecting godman? (complete with references; links; notes; and verifications)? I believe there are about 34 of them altogether? Then I have to reference and cross check every one of my assertions... wouldn't it be faster and less cumbersome for me to simply copy and paste the entire text of the book I recommended?
So far, you're 0 for 5. I doubt the other 29 will help your case.
As Loco and I have both stated, nobody is expecting you to memorize whole books, as neither of us have done so. Yet, somehow, whenever he or I make a claim about a certain aspect or topic.....WE SUPPORT IT with specific references (author, book, chapter and verse). If I don't know it from memory, I either find the link or transcribe it, should I have such a reference at home.
Making these flimsy excuses merely shows that your arguments are weak and have little substance. If you have the time and energy to post all these allegations, you have the time and energy to post the specifics to back your case.
Faced with such evidence MCWAY will then turn to the next trick of those defending the indefensible: he'll call into question my sources... that's why I'd prefer to simply make my case based on facts and allow those open to persuasion (no one can persuade a fundamentalist) to check my facts for themselves.
If I wanted to do that, I could have easily done so a long time ago. That’s a tactic skeptics often use (including you, assuming that all of my sources and those of Loco were "apologetic") when their points get chopped.
I don’t have to do so, because the information is off the mark, and showing such hardly requires attacking the source.
Notice the telling turn of this discussion... no one has shown my argument to be falsifiable. They simply set impossible standards for any evidence supporting my case, which is actually an effort to deflect attention from the fact that it is actually the Christian apologists whose case is completely unsupported.
Boy, are you stretching the truth. There's nothing impossible about I've asked. You claimed that there were two stories on Attis. I've looked up Attis multiple times found two stories on him: One has him dying by cutting off his balls and bleeding to death; the other has him gored to death by boar. NEITHER resembles crucifixion (even the strapping an already-dead Attis to a felled pine tree is a stretch).
Figure by figure, I have shown the specifics and those specifics DO NOT MATCH the death, birth, purpose, life, or resurrection of Jesus Christ. Virgin mother don't change into birds to have sex with their dead husbands (with substitute penises), stuck in the underworld. Death by crucifixion to save man from sin is quite different than hacking off your nuts in lust after your own mama, or killing a bull.
MCWAY thinks he's being clever, but I know his tactics...
My tactics are simple: Look up each figure; compare them to Jesus Christ; point out the GLARING differences; give references to support them. Go to work on your wacky claim...REPEAT!!!!
loco,
I recommend you read Gandy and Freke's book "The Jesus Mysteries: Was Jesus a Pagan God"... if you're reading other books on Christianity at the moment then drop them. After reading "The Jesus Mysteries" you'll never bother with this apologist bunkum ever again.
The Luke
PS-for the record, the ten minute youtube video I posted is fully referenced, anyone interested can check it out... I won't post the references here myself as I'm more interested in stimulating those reading the thread to do their own research rather than engage MCWAY in his obstructionist dismissals... he's obviously been trained on how to obstruct (without actually counteracting) the atheist argument.
Loco has already done his own research. Your screwball condescending remarks concerning his or my being "afflicted with such indoctrination" is the typical skeptical spiel of frustration, when their Jesus-myth blubberings get picked apart.
Your whole intent was to ridicule The Coach (and other believers) with this drivel. Instead, when you get ask to bring the goods to support your statement, little but woeful and lame excuses fly from your fingers.
And contrary to what you and other like-minded skeptics would like to tell yourselves and each other, I don't fear any of this gibberish you've brought here thus far or any you may bring in the future. In fact, I've been BEGGING you to bring whatever you've got to make your case.
-
I think it's best if we do one specific point at a time... posts are getting too long.
I appreciate that you're having trouble finding a reference to the Mystery Version of any of these gods, but there are a bundle of such references at the end of this vid.
MCWAY, would you concede that there is some validity to the plagiarism claims in light of the fact that the early church father Justin Martyr conceded such obvious similarities?
The Luke
-
Bob Price, a very respected scholar of the NT:
I remember a particular Superboy comic book in which the Boy of Steel somehow discovers that in the future, he is thought to be as mythical as Peter Pan and Santa Claus. Indignant at this turn of events, he flies at faster than light speed and enters the future to set the record straight. He does a few super-deeds and vindicates himself, then comes home. So Superboy winds up having the last laugh -- or does he?
Of course, it is only fiction! The people in the future were quite right! Superboy is just as mythical as Santa Claus and Peter Pan.
This seems to me a close parallel to the efforts of Christian apologists to vindicate as sober history the story of a supernatural savior who was born of a virgin, healed the sick, raised the dead, changed water into wine, walked on water, rose from the grave and ascended bodily into the sky.
I used to think, when I myself was a Christian apologist, a defender of the evangelical faith, that I had done a pretty respectable job of vindicating that story as history. I brought to bear a variety of arguments I now recognize to be fallacious, such as the supposed closeness of the gospels to the events they record, their ostensible use of eyewitness testimony, etc. Now, in retrospect, I judge that my efforts were about as effective in the end as Superboy's! When all is said and done, he remains a fiction.
One caveat: I intend to set forth, briefly, some reasons for the views I now hold. I do not expect that the mere fact that I was once an evangelical apologist and now see things differently should itself count as evidence that I must be right. That would be the genetic fallacy. It would be just as erroneous to think that John Rankin must be right in having embraced evangelical Christianity since he had once been an agnostic Unitarian and repudiated it for the Christian faith. In both cases, what matters is the reasons for the change of mind, not merely the fact of it.
Having got that straight, let me say that I think there are four senses in which Jesus Christ may be said to be a "fiction."
First (and, I warn you, this one takes by far the most explaining): It is quite likely, though certainly by no means definitively provable, that the central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual. Put simply, not only is the theological "Christ of faith" a synthetic construct of theologians, a symbolic "Uncle Sam" figure. But if you could travel through time, like Superboy, and you went back to First-Century Nazareth, you would not find a Jesus living there. Why conclude this? There are three reasons, which I must oversimplify for time's sake.
1) In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.
These features are found world wide in heroic myths and epics. The more closely a supposed biography, say that of Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava, of Gautama Buddha, corresponds to this plot formula, the more likely the historian is to conclude that a historical figure has been transfigured by myth.
And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities.
There may have been an original King Arthur, but there is no particular reason to think so. There may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, too, but, unlike most of my colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we can simply assume there was.
2) Specifically, the passion stories of the gospels strike me as altogether too close to contemporary myths of dying and rising savior gods including Osiris, Tammuz, Baal, Attis, Adonis, Hercules, and Asclepius. Like Jesus, these figures were believed to have once lived a life upon the earth, been killed, and risen shortly thereafter. Their deaths and resurrections were in most cases ritually celebrated each spring to herald the return of the life to vegetation. In many myths, the savior's body is anointed for burial, searched out by holy women and then reappears alive a few days later.
3) Similarly, the details of the crucifixion, burial and resurrection accounts are astonishingly similar to the events of several surviving popular novels from the same period in which two lovers are separated when one seems to have died and is unwittingly entombed alive. Grave robbers discover her reviving and kidnap her. Her lover finds the tomb empty, graveclothes still in place, and first concludes she has been raised up from death and taken to heaven. Then, realizing what must have happened, he goes in search of her. During his adventures, he is sooner or later condemned to the cross or actually crucified, but manages to escape. When at length the couple is reunited, neither, having long imagined the other dead, can quite believe the lover is alive and not a ghost come to say farewell.
There have been two responses to such evidence by apologists. First, they have contended that all these myths are plagiarized from the gospels by pagan imitators, pointing out that some of the evidence is post-Christian. But much is in fact preChristian. And it is significant that the early Christian apologists argued that these parallels to the gospels were counterfeits in advance, by Satan, who knew the real thing would be coming along later and wanted to throw people off the track. This is like the desperate Nineteenth-Century attempts of fundamentalists to claim that Satan had created fake dinosaur bones to tempt the faithful not to believe in Genesis! At any rate, and this is my point, no one would have argued this way had the pagan myths of dead and resurrected gods been more recent than the Christian.
Second, in a variation on the theme, C.S. Lewis suggested that in Jesus' case "myth became fact." He admitted the whole business about the Mythic Hero archetype and the similarity to the pagan saviors, only he made them a kind of prophetic charade, creations of the yearning human heart, dim adumbrations of the incarnation of Christ before it actually happened. The others were myths, but this one actually happened.
In answer to this, I think of an anecdote told by my colleague Bruce Chilton, how, staying the weekend at the home of a friend, he was surprised to see that the guest bathroom was festooned with a variety of towels filched from the Hilton, the Ramada Inn, the Holiday Inn, etc. Which was more likely, he asked: that representatives from all these hotels had sneaked into his friend's bathroom and each copied one of the towel designs? Or that his friend had swiped them from their hotels?
Lewis's is an argument of desperation which no one would think of making unless he was hell-bent on believing that, though all the other superheroes (Batman, Captain Marvel, the Flash) were fictions, Superboy was in fact genuine.
3) The New Testament epistles can be read quite naturally as presupposing a period in which Christians did not yet believe their savior god had been a figure living on earth in the recent historical past. Paul, for instance, never even mentions Jesus performing healings and even as a teacher. Twice he cites what he calls "words of the Lord," but even conservative New Testament scholars admit he may as easily mean prophetic revelations from the heavenly Christ. Paul attributes the death of Jesus not to Roman or Jewish governments, but rather to the designs of evil "archon," angels who rule this fallen world. Romans and 1 Peter both warn Christians to watch their step, reminding them that the Roman authorities never punish the righteous, but only the wicked. How they have said this if they knew of the Pontius Pilate story?
The two exceptions, 1 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy, epistles that do blame Pilate or Jews for the death of Jesus, only serve to prove the rule. Both can easily be shown on other grounds to be non-Pauline and later than the gospels.
Jesus was eventually "historicized," redrawn as a human being of the past (much as Samson, Enoch, Jabal, Gad, Joshua the son of Nun, and various other ancient Israelite gods had already been). As a part of this process, there were various independent attempts to locate Jesus in recent history by laying the blame for his death on this or that likely candidate, well known tyrants including Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, and even Alexander Jannaeus in the first century BC! Now, if the death of Jesus were an actual historical event well known to eyewitnesses of it, there is simply no way such a variety of versions, differing on so fundamental a point, could ever have arisen!
And if early Christians had actually remembered the passion as a series of recent events, why does the earliest gospel crucifixion account spin out the whole terse narrative from quotes cribbed without acknowledgement from Psalm 22? Why does 1 Peter have nothing more detailed than Isaiah 53 to flesh out his account of the sufferings of Jesus? Why does Matthew supplement Mark's version, not with historical tradition or eyewitness memory, but with more quotes, this time from Zechariah and the Wisdom of Solomon?
Thus I find myself more and more attracted to the theory, once vigorously debated by scholars, now smothered by tacit consent, that there was no historical Jesus lying behind the stained glass of the gospel mythology. Instead, he is a fiction.
Rejoinders:
1) We deem them myths not because of a prior bias that there can be no miracles, but because of the Principle of Analogy, the only alternative to which is believing everything in The National Inquirer. If we do not use the standard of current-day experience to evaluate claims from the past, what other standard is there? And why should we believe that God or Nature used to be in the business of doing things that do not happen now? Isn't God supposed to be the same yesterday, today, and forever?
2) The apologists' claim that there was "too little time between the death of Jesus and the writing of the gospels for legends to develop" is circular, presupposing a historical Jesus living at a particular time. 40 years is easily enough time for legendary expansion anyway, but the Christ-Myth Theory does not require that the Christ figure was created in Pontius Pilate's time, only that later, Pilate's time was retrospectively chosen as a location for Jesus.
a) See Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition as History on the tendency in oral tradition to keep updating mythic foundational events, keeping them always at a short distance, a couple of generations before one's own time.
b) And even if there were a historical Jesus and we knew we had eyewitness reports, the apologists fail to take into account recent studies which show that eyewitness testimony, especially of unusual events, is the most unreliable of all, that people tend to rewrite what they saw in light of their accustomed categories and expectations. Thus Strauss was right on target suggesting that the early Christians simply imagined Jesus fulfilling the expected deeds of messiahs and prophets.
3) It is special pleading to dismiss all similar stories as myths and to insist that this case must be different. If you do this, admit it, you are a fideist, no longer an apologist (if there is any difference!).
Second, the "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs. (Of course, every biblicist does the same! "I said it! God believes it! That settles it!"). Today's Politically Correct "historical Jesuses" are no different, being mere clones of the scholars who design them.
C.S. Lewis was right about this in The Screwtape Letters: "Each 'historical Jesus' is unhistorical. The documents say what they say and cannot be added to." But, as apologists so often do, he takes fideism as the natural implication when agnosticism would seem called for. What he imagines the gospels so clearly to "say" is the mythic hero! When, in his essay, "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism," Lewis pulls rank as a self-declared expert and denies that the gospels are anything like ancient myths, one can only wonder what it was he must have been smoking in that ever-present pipe of his!
My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction.
Third, Jesus as the personal savior, with whom people claim, as I used to, to have a "personal relationship" is in the nature of the case a fiction, essentially a psychological projection, an "imaginary playmate." It is no different at all from pop-psychological "visualization" exercises, or John Bradshaw's gimmick of imagining a healing encounter with loved ones of the past, or Jean Houston leading Hillary Clinton in an admittedly imaginary dialogue with Eleanor Roosevelt.
I suppose there is nothing wrong with any of this, but one ought to recognize it, as Hillary Clinton and Jean Houston, and John Bradshaw do, as imaginative fiction. And so with the personal savior.
The alternative is something like channeling. You have "tuned in" to the spirit of an ancient guru, named Jesus, and you are receiving revelations from him, usually pretty trivial stuff, minor conscience proddings and the like. Some sort of imaginary telepathy.
In fact I don't believe most evangelical pietists mean anything by "having a personal relationship with Christ" than a fancy, overblown name for reading the Bible and saying their prayers. But if they did really refer to some kind of a "personal relationship," it would in effect be a case of channeling. I suspect this is why fundamentalists who condemn New Age channelers do not dismiss it as a fraud pure and simple (though obviously it is), but instead think that Ramtha and the others are channeling demons. If they said it was sheer delusion, they know where the other four fingers would wind up pointing!
Especially in view of the fact that the piety of "having a personal relationship with Christ" and "inviting him into your heart" is alien to the New Testament and is never intimated there as far as I can see, it is amazing to me that evangelicals elevate it to the shibboleth of salvation! Unless you have a personal relationship with Jesus, buster, one day you will be boiling in Hell. Sheesh! Talk about the fury of a personal savior scorned!
No one ever heard of this stuff till the German Pietist movement of the Eighteenth Century. To make a maudlin type of devotionalism the password to heaven is like the fringe Pentecostal who tells you you can't get into heaven unless you speak in tongues. "You ask me how I know he lives?" asks the revival chorus. "He lives within my heart." Exactly! A figment.
Fourth, Christ is a fiction in that Christ functions, in an unnoticed and equivocal way, as shorthand for a vast system of beliefs and institutions on whose behalf he is invoked. Put simply, this means that when an evangelist or an apologist invites you to have faith "in Christ," they are in fact smuggling in a great number of other issues. For example, Chalcedonian Christology, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Protestant idea of faith and grace, a particular theory of biblical inspiration and literalism, habits of church attendance, etc. These are all distinct and open questions. Theologians have debated them for many centuries and still debate them. Rank and file believers still debate them, as you know if you have ever spent time talking with one of Jehovah's Witnesses or a Seventh Day Adventist. If you hear me say that and your first thought is "Oh no, those folks aren't real Christians," you're just proving my point! Who gave Protestant fundamentalists the copyright on the word Christian?
No evangelist ever invites people to accept Christ by faith and then to start examining all these other associated issues for themselves. Not one! The Trinity, biblical inerrancy, for some even anti-Darwinism, are non-negotiable. You cannot be genuinely saved if you don't tow the party line on these points. Thus, for them, "to accept Christ" means "to accept Trinitarianism, biblicism, creationism, etc." And this in turn means that "Christ" is shorthand for this whole raft of doctrines and opinions, all of which one is to accept "by faith," on someone else's say-so.
When Christ becomes a fiction in this sense he is an umbrella for an unquestioning acceptance of what some preacher or institution tells us to believe. And this is nothing new, no mutant distortion of Christianity. Paul already requires "the taking of every thought captive to Christ," already insists on "the obedience of faith." Here Christ has already become what he was to Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor, a euphemism for the dogmatic party line of an institution. Dostoyevsky's point, of course, was that the "real" Jesus stands opposed to this use of his name to sanction religious oppression. But remember, though it is a noble one, Dostoyevsky's Jesus is also a piece of fiction! It is, after all, "The Parable of the Grand Inquisitor."
So, then, Christ may be said to be a fiction in the four senses that 1) it is quite possible that there was no historical Jesus. 2) Even if there was, he is lost to us, the result being that there is no historical Jesus available to us. And 3) the Jesus who "walks with me and talks with me and tells me I am his own" is an imaginative visualization and in the nature of the case can be nothing more than a fiction. And finally, 4) "Christ" as a corporate logo for this and that religious institution is a euphemistic fiction, not unlike Ronald McDonald, Mickey Mouse, or Joe Camel, the purpose of which is to get you to swallow a whole raft of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors by an act of simple faith, short-circuiting the dangerous process of thinking the issues out to your own conclusions.
If you've ever heard me answer a question, you know I overanswer them by a yard. I'll probably do the same thing in posing questions. What can you do when you're a motor-mouth.
These are three questions that I thought might be kind of interesting to talk about. So let me hit number one here. You could think of it as Dr. Rankin does.
The first one. Paul Tillich said that the historical Jesus can never be known with certainty. And that it's rather what he called the Gospel picture of Jesus as the Christ, the Christian preaching of Jesus Christ, that brings new life to the Christian. Now, what I'm thinking is, why is that not good enough? Why do Evangelicals think it all has to have actually happened, as Francis Schaeffer used to say, in space-time history? What is lost in the more liberal theological approach to that? So that'd be the first one. Why does it all have to have happened historically to be powerful for Christianity?
Second one. Francis Schaeffer again used to say that the Christian need never fear following the evidence wherever it leads because he will never, in a striking phrase, fall off the edge of the earth. That is, he will never find his faith destroyed by the facts. And yet, Schaeffer turns right around and gives a list of approved positions Christians may hold on creation and evolution, the only ones allowed by the Bible. In my experience, Tillich again is right that fundamentalism destroys the humble honesty of the search for truth. Research is by definition open-ended. How can there be any sincere research -- for example, the historical Jesus question -- when the outcome is dictated in advance by one's faith? How can there be real open-minded research when you know already your faith will be borne out?
Third one. Slightly different wavelength. Anyone who's read the promotional flyer for this evening must have been struck by the fact that both of us have come from opposite ends of the religious spectrum and passed each other in the middle as we changed places, even spending time at the same seminary. I once read a book called "The Psychology of Religious Doubt," which tracked individuals going from a conservative faith to a liberal one, and some that went from a liberal to a conservative one. The author concluded that each way the pilgrimage was an integrative journey away from a style of belief that didn't meet the person's emotional needs, toward one that did. And I'm just curious. Do you think that has anything to do with what happened to the two of us?