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 other historical reference to Jesus is either centuries later or a proven forgery...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.
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?
