The Empty Tomb

[G o a t b o y]

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  ).

[The Coach]

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.

[The Coach]

Depends on how you poll- If you poll mainly christians you'd get that figure.

There are lies-damned lies and statistics + polls  

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".

[Barracuda]

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.

[Barracuda]

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".

[Lurker79]

Well duh. If something good happens, it was God's will. If something bad happens, well...the Lord works in mysterious ways....

[The Luke]

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

[MCWAY]

...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”

[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

[MCWAY]

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!!!???

[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.

...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

[MCWAY]

...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..

[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.

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

[Deicide]

...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.

[Deicide]

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?)

[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.

...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

[MCWAY]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[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

[MCWAY]

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!!

[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.
   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

[MCWAY]

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.

[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

[MCWAY]

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.

[PANDAEMONIUM]

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.