Is there anything original in the Jesus story?

[wavelength]

sure but dawkins refutes aquinas quite easily, what is so great about someone who makes fallacious arguments?
i havent seen any atheistic philosophical arguments refuted.

As long as he is aware of the fact that he must resort to philosophy resp. theology, his critizism is fine, although reviewed by many philosophers as feeble. I have only read parts of his book (God Delusion), but from what I have read and what I have seen in interviews and lectures, he seems to think he can go against the idea of God by means of science.

It also seems like he mainly criticizes the very simplistic views of the religious nuts. I never said anything against that. Whenever scientific fundis think they can disprove any scientific theory by means of spiritual scripture (aka Inteligent Design), it's the right of every scientist to defend the scientific method against that.

[Necrosis]

As long as he is aware of the fact that he must resort to philosophy resp. theology, his critizism is fine, although reviewed by many philosophers as feeble. I have only read parts of his book (God Delusion), but from what I have read and what I have seen in interviews and lectures, he seems to think he can go against the idea of God by means of science.

It also seems like he mainly criticizes the very simplistic views of the religious nuts. I never said anything against that. Whenever scientific fundis think they can disprove any scientific theory by means of spiritual scripture (aka Inteligent Design), it's the right of every scientist to defend the scientific method against that.

philosophy is just thought, reason and logic both products of the natural world. If you think that science can say nothing about reality then either can thought, since it is a product of the brain a material entity based in the same reality as science. Thought is not transcedent.

[wavelength]

philosophy is just thought, reason and logic both products of the natural world. If you think that science can say nothing about reality then either can thought, since it is a product of the brain a material entity based in the same reality as science. Thought is not transcedent.

I have already proven that none of this is true, see e.g.:

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.msg2783709#msg2783709
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.msg2759258#msg2759258

and following.

[Necrosis]

I have already proven that none of this is true, see e.g.:

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.msg2783709#msg2783709
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=198162.msg2759258#msg2759258

and following.

you think those are sound arguments?

the mind is a product of a material brain, how can it offer anything other then what the brain (a material) thing can do? it cant. it is not emergent, it is not transcedent, it is epiphenomenal.We can only describe things which we experience, we cannot talk about something that is immaterial. How much does a thought weigh, what is it made of, what does it sound,taste etc... it is fruitless, only a reductionist approach can offer some modicum of knowledge. Being material beings we cannot speak of the immaterial, beign finite, we cannot talk about infinite, being temporal we cannot understand or talk about eternal, existing we cannot talk about nothingness.

by definition the only thing we can observe is that which is avalible to our perception. science has expanded our perception, sure other things might exist but they will be discovered scientifically, not with thought.

[wavelength]

you think those are sound arguments?

the mind is a product of a material brain, how can it offer anything other then what the brain (a material) thing can do? it cant. it is not emergent, it is not transcedent, it is epiphenomenal.We can only describe things which we experience, we cannot talk about something that is immaterial. How much does a thought weigh, what is it made of, what does it sound,taste etc... it is fruitless, only a reductionist approach can offer some modicum of knowledge. Being material beings we cannot speak of the immaterial, beign finite, we cannot talk about infinite, being temporal we cannot understand or talk about eternal, existing we cannot talk about nothingness.

by definition the only thing we can observe is that which is avalible to our perception. science has expanded our perception, sure other things might exist but they will be discovered scientifically, not with thought.

Those are not new statements resp. arguments. Has all been discussed in the aforementioned thread. The problem with such statements is always that they are self-refuting.

[Necrosis]

Those are not new statements resp. arguments. Has all been discussed in the aforementioned thread. The problem with such statements is always that they are self-refuting.

least to say i am wholely unconvinced by your arguments in the slightest. I dont see what philosophy offers us that science doesnt expand on. We wouldnt know about the big bang with philosophy, we wouldnt have string theory, quantum loop gravity, evolution etc...

these things all answer the question of origins much better then thought, because origin may not be a logical event as evidenced by quantum mechanics. So how the hell is logic and reason suppose to describe or answer an illogical event?

[wavelength]

least to say i am wholely unconvinced by your arguments in the slightest. I dont see what philosophy offers us that science doesnt expand on. We wouldnt know about the big bang with philosophy, we wouldnt have string theory, quantum loop gravity, evolution etc...

All you talk about here are scientific aspects. You are right, that's the topic of science, not philosophy.

these things all answer the question of origins much better then thought, because origin may not be a logical event as evidenced by quantum mechanics. So how the hell is logic and reason suppose to describe or answer an illogical event?

The "illogical" you talk about only refers to scientific aspects and only to the logic of a certain scientific model. We have also discussed that before.

It's really all in the aformentioned thread. I provided a simple logic deduction that clearly shows that there must be more to the world than what science can say about it. The deduction clearly shows that scientific positivism (like any form of positivism) is illogical. The deduction is still unchallenged. Do you want to try again?

[Necrosis]

All you talk about here are scientific aspects. You are right, that's the topic of science, not philosophy.

The "illogical" you talk about only refers to scientific aspects and only to the logic of a certain scientific model. We have also discussed that before.

It's really all in the aformentioned thread. I provided a simple logic deduction that clearly shows that there must be more to the world than what science can say about it. The deduction clearly shows that scientific positivism (like any form of positivism) is illogical. The deduction is still unchallenged. Do you want to try again?

sure, but you havent offered me anything to argue about. Philosophy is a product of a material brain, how can it then talk about things beyond the material? you cant comment on something immaterial.

you almost sound like your about to start arguing for vitalism

[The Luke]

I realise this thread has been sidetracked somewhat...

But I think my challenge still stands...?


No one has shown any major detail of the Jesus story that isn't either stolen from an earlier Mystery Religion or conforms to the standard astrological metaphors utilised by such religions.


The Luke

[Necrosis]

I realise this thread has been sidetracked somewhat...

But I think my challenge still stands...?


No one has shown any major detail of the Jesus story that isn't either stolen from an earlier Mystery Religion or conforms to the standard astrological metaphors utilised by such religions.


The Luke

yes even five to six blantant similarities brings the whole story into question. The stories in the bible are borrowed, clearly.

[wavelength]

sure, but you havent offered me anything to argue about. Philosophy is a product of a material brain, how can it then talk about things beyond the material? you cant comment on something immaterial.
you almost sound like your about to start arguing for vitalism

As I said, no new arguments, your oblivion isn't my fault. In these few statements you pretty much summarize all inaccuracies and misconceptions that have already been debunked in the old thread (philosophy beeing a product of the "material" brain, material vs. immaterial, etc.). If you read through it, you will see that I have already responded to all of those statements and arguments. IMO it makes no sense to start from zero all over again. Besides that, as Luke said, we are off topic.

[big L dawg]

philosophy are questions that may never be answered.
religion are answers that may never be questioned.

[MCWAY]

I realise this thread has been sidetracked somewhat...

But I think my challenge still stands...?


No one has shown any major detail of the Jesus story that isn't either stolen from an earlier Mystery Religion or conforms to the standard astrological metaphors utilised by such religions.


The Luke

This is cute!!!

Exactly what qualifies as a “major” detail, Luke?

Your “challenge” was a bona-fide joke, for several reasons, the most notable of which is every attempt you have to fuse certain details about Christ’s life to fit your claims have been shown to be INACCURATE, based on simple Biblical and historical research.

But, just to reiterate (because your memory appears to be shot at times).

-   Jesus was born of a virgin; in other words, his mother did NOT have sex (in human or animal form) with a man (or a god, on the sneak).
-   Nowhere in Scripture does it claim that He was born Dec. 25 (or any date on the Hebrew calendar that corresponds to Dec. 25)
-   Nowhere in Scripture does it state that “three kings” attend His birth, for three reasons:
      •   The “kings” were actually wise men
      •   The exact number is not given in Scripture
      •   They don’t attend Jesus’ birth; they find him when He’s about 2 years old.
-   Mary Magdelene ain’t Jesus’ wife (much to the chagrin of Da Vinci Code addicts)
-   Mary Magdelene and Jesus’ mother weren’t the only ones who went to the tomb.
-   Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin; Jesus had at least SIX siblings, four of whom (His brothers) we know by name.
-   Jesus’ death was by crucifixion; the other figures from whom the account of Jesus was supposedly crafted died in manners, ranging from
             dismemberment to self-castration to being barbecued.
-           Getting your feet washed is a far cry from getting them chopped off or shot with arrows.

These are some of the "major" details, that cut your "challenge" to ribbons.

[Necrosis]

As I said, no new arguments, your oblivion isn't my fault. In these few statements you pretty much summarize all inaccuracies and misconceptions that have already been debunked in the old thread (philosophy beeing a product of the "material" brain, material vs. immaterial, etc.). If you read through it, you will see that I have already responded to all of those statements and arguments. IMO it makes no sense to start from zero all over again. Besides that, as Luke said, we are off topic.

agreed, the mind is clearly a product of a material brain, philosophy is at odds with science, and immaterial things or non things cannot be commented on by virtue of their nature. You have not debunked anything, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the mind is the brain, you would win a nobel if you debunked this as consciouness research is booming now.

you can beleive what you want, you haven't been scientific in any discussion we have engaged in and you havent displayed any knowledge of philosophy. You have one argument, one sole argument and you seem to think that it is irrefutable.

[The Luke]

McWay,


I appreciate that as a fundamentalist Christian you aren't capable of rational thought on this subject, but you're just being dishonest here.

-Jesus was born of a virgin; in other words, his mother did NOT have sex (in human or animal form) with a man (or a god, on the sneak)

...and how is this "visitation" from god resulting in Mary's pregnancy any different from the blueprint laid out by the Mystery Religions?

-Nowhere in Scripture does it claim that He was born Dec. 25 (or any date on the Hebrew calendar that corresponds to Dec. 25)

...I didn't claim so. I doubt you could quote a post of mine asserting this. What I did do was explain how the metaphors used in the nativity story clearly coincide with the allegorical astrological description of the 25th December dawn. I remember using the word "indirectly".

-Nowhere in Scripture does it state that “three kings” attend His birth, for three reasons:
-The “kings” were actually wise men   
-The exact number is not given in Scripture

...this is just dishonest wordplay.
The phrase used to describe the "wise men" is "magi". Magi are stargazing wandering priest-kings who always travel in threes (lunar, solar and stellar experts). I suspect that you are using gospels that are modern translations from English to English.

-They don’t attend Jesus’ birth; they find him when He’s about 2 years old.

...I'd love to know the specific line of scripture that says this. I certainly don't remember it.

Either way, it STILL conforms to the astrological blueprint.

Mary Magdelene ain’t Jesus’ wife (much to the chagrin of Da Vinci Code addicts)

...the Gospel of Mary Magdalene says otherwise. But then again, you couldn't possibly entertain a source document that predates any of the canonical gospels could you?

Mary Magdelene and Jesus’ mother weren’t the only ones who went to the tomb.

...Mary Magdalene, as Jesus' wife, is the first and sole witness to the risen Jesus.

Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin; Jesus had at least SIX siblings, four of whom (His brothers) we know by name.

...the assertion of Papal Infallibility has only ever been used twice regarding articles of faith. One of those fundamental tenets of Christianity is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead and was subsequently assumed bodily into heaven.
The other fundamental tenet of Christianity backed by Papal Infallibility is the belief that Jesus' mother Mary REMAINED A VIRGIN for her entire life till she was also assumed bodily into heaven.

Again, you are using gospels that have been translated from English to English... previous to Vatican II the phrases in question were ALWAYS translated as "cousins" rather than "siblings" and the phrase "Jesus' brothers" was always translated as "members of Jesus' extended family" or "Jesus' cousins".

So, I take your point... but Vatican scholars and expert translators disagree.

Jesus’ death was by crucifixion; the other figures from whom the account of Jesus was supposedly crafted died in manners, ranging from dismemberment to self-castration to being barbecued.

Those are the FOLKLORE versions of those gods stories.

...Sol Invictus is crucified.

...Osiris was either nailed to a tree or nailed to a rack before he was dismembered, his body parts were then spread to the FOUR CARDINAL POINTS (The Southern Cross constellation) and pieces of him did end up stuck in trees.

...Issa, the Kasmiri/Pakistani/Indian version of Jesus was actually crucified Roman style, in Jerusalem by the Romans on the orders of Pilate.

The Mystery Religion versions of Achilles; Tammuz; Attis; Mithras; Horus; Hercules and even Pythagoras (the mathematician) are all crucified on either a tree; tau or cross.


You're just being dishonest here McWay... you dismiss well made arguments and quality source documents, then CHOOSE to misconstrue some other tiny detail so you can run with that as the thrust of your counter argument.

Rather than continuously nitpick with patently false assertions like a Creationist, perhaps you could explain how it is (in your opinion) that the Jesus story so closely mimics the astrological dying/resurrecting godman blueprint?



The Luke

[leonp1981]

I've gotta say, this is an interesting back and forth.  I'm intrigued by some of the evidence put forward by The Luke, and find it very convincing.

[The Luke]

I've gotta say, this is an interesting back and forth.  I'm intrigued by some of the evidence put forward by The Luke, and find it very convincing.

Luke ...1
McWay ...nil


The Luke

[wavelength]

agreed, the mind is clearly a product of a material brain, philosophy is at odds with science, and immaterial things or non things cannot be commented on by virtue of their nature. You have not debunked anything, the overwhelming evidence suggests that the mind is the brain, you would win a nobel if you debunked this as consciouness research is booming now.

you can beleive what you want, you haven't been scientific in any discussion we have engaged in and you havent displayed any knowledge of philosophy. You have one argument, one sole argument and you seem to think that it is irrefutable.

It is. If it's not, refute it. You can't. Quite obviously it's you who must resort to "belief", not me. Of course my arguments are in no way original. It's philosophic child's play. Scientists are always critizised when they overstep the limits of science, both from philosophers and from other scientists. Dawkins is the best example for that. Regarding my knowledge of philosophy, I think we can agree that we are both laymen in this category. Regarding your comment about me not being "scientific": I understand the methods and restrictions of science, an ability which cannot be assigned to the positivistic pseudo-philosophers.

Of course I could concretely respond to every of your statements above, but a) I already did that numerous times and b) I think it will end again in you bowing out with an insult. If you can come up with any new argument, which was not already disproven in one of the other threads, we can of course continue the discussion. Otherwise, I won't respond here anymore.

[MCWAY]

McWay,
I appreciate that as a fundamentalist Christian you aren't capable of rational thought on this subject, but you're just being dishonest here.

Hardly!

...and how is this "visitation" from god resulting in Mary's pregnancy any different from the blueprint laid out by the Mystery Religions?

Simple! There's no sex involved, PERIOD. God isn't having any sex with Mary. Mary is a virgin, when she has Jesus (i.e. PRIOR TO her conception and birth of Jesus Christ, she has no sex with humans, gods in the guise of humans, or anyone else).

...I didn't claim so. I doubt you could quote a post of mine asserting this. What I did do was explain how the metaphors used in the nativity story clearly coincide with the allegorical astrological description of the 25th December dawn. I remember using the word "indirectly".

Yes, you did and Yes, I can! As for your "indirectly", you were asked to show what verses in the account of Jesus correspond to Dec. 25 date. So far, you have produced NOTHING!!!

...this is just dishonest wordplay.
The phrase used to describe the "wise men" is "magi". Magi are stargazing wandering priest-kings who always travel in threes (lunar, solar and stellar experts). I suspect that you are using gospels that are modern translations from English to English.

Make up your mind, here. Are they priests or are they kings? You're the one with the dishonest word play, attempting to use your "slash" techniques, in order to make the data from the Jesus account fit your pre-conceived (and ill-supported) claims. Plus, what I said was that Scripture does NOT give the specific number of wise men.

Extra-Biblical traditions have the number of wise men as being anywhere from two to twelve. Western tradition usually affixes the number at three,  because of the three gifts given to Christ: gold, myrrh, and frankencense. And they are described as priests, astrologers, and men of science. That does NOT automatically equate to "kings".

From WordNet Search 3.0, "Magi":

Noun
S: (n) Wise Men, Magi ((New Testament) the sages who visited Jesus and Mary and Joseph shortly after Jesus was born; the Gospel According to Matthew says they were guided by a star and brought gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh; because there were three gifts it is usually assumed that there were three of them)
S: (n) magus (a magician or sorcerer of ancient times)
S: (n) magus (a member of the Zoroastrian priesthood of the ancient Persians)

...I'd love to know the specific line of scripture that says this. I certainly don't remember it.

Either way, it STILL conforms to the astrological blueprint.

So, you don't remember it; yet you claimed with certainty that the wise men attended Jesus' birth. That's rich!!! This is why I post specifics, because (unlike you) I can actually support my statements with actual references, not speculation and vague generic assertions. As I said before, only 2 books of the Bible chronicle Jesus' early life (Let me make this easy on you; it's Matthew).

Matt. 2:7, 16:, Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, 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.

...the Gospel of Mary Magdalene says otherwise. But then again, you couldn't possibly entertain a source document that predates any of the canonical gospels could you?

One, who says that it predates the canonical Gospels? Two, we have four Gospels that make no indication of Jesus being married vs. one that does. Not good odds, there, especially with one Gospel, detailing Jesus' passing the care of his MOTHER (not his wife) to one of His disciples, as He's dying.

Furthermore, had Mags been Jesus' wife, one of His brothers would have redeemed her, upon Jesus' death anyway. That was according to Hebrew law.

So, any way you slice it, your skewed claims about her being Jesus' wife just don't work.

...Mary Magdalene, as Jesus' wife, is the first and sole witness to the risen Jesus.

Incorrect, on several fronts.

1) Mags ain't Jesus' wife.
2) She wasn't the only one who saw Him. Mary (His mother), Salome, the disciples (including the one who claimed that He wouldn't believe that it was Jesus, UNTIL he touched the wounds in Jesus' hands and side).

...the assertion of Papal Infallibility has only ever been used twice regarding articles of faith. One of those fundamental tenets of Christianity is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead and was subsequently assumed bodily into heaven.
The other fundamental tenet of Christianity backed by Papal Infallibility is the belief that Jesus' mother Mary REMAINED A VIRGIN for her entire life till she was also assumed bodily into heaven.

Again, you are using gospels that have been translated from English to English... previous to Vatican II the phrases in question were ALWAYS translated as "cousins" rather than "siblings" and the phrase "Jesus' brothers" was always translated as "members of Jesus' extended family" or "Jesus' cousins".

You mean just as you claimed that only the wife and mother would visit the tomb....OOOPS!!! There were other women there, according to the Gospels.


This has NOTHING to do with the Pope. And, lest you forget, there's at least one NON-Biblical source confirming the existence of one of Jesus' siblings (that would be Josephus, who commented on the death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James").

Therefore, this whole issue of Mary's perpetual virginity is basically moot. And, nowhere in Scripture is it stated that Mary is assumed into heaven, anyway.

Those are the FOLKLORE versions of those gods stories.

...Sol Invictus is crucified.

So were the thieves, next to Jesus. These were the Romans, who had a thing for crucifying people.

...Osiris was either nailed to a tree or nailed to a rack before he was dismembered, his body parts were then spread to the FOUR CARDINAL POINTS (The Southern Cross constellation) and pieces of him did end up stuck in trees.

Aren’t you using the “folklore”, when referring to Osiris’ dismemberment? Yet, you complain about my using that, when demonstrating just how off-the-mark these figures are, in comparison to Jesus (i.e. Osiris stays in the underworld, the land of the DEAD, thus disqualifying him from any resurrection).

Same goes for Attis and his self-inflicted gonad removal.

...Issa, the Kasmiri/Pakistani/Indian version of Jesus was actually crucified Roman style, in Jerusalem by the Romans on the orders of Pilate.

Some references would be nice. But providing references ain’t your forte’.

The Mystery Religion versions of Achilles; Tammuz; Attis; Mithras; Horus; Hercules and even Pythagoras (the mathematician) are all crucified on either a tree; tau or cross.


You're just being dishonest here McWay... you dismiss well made arguments and quality source documents, then CHOOSE to misconstrue some other tiny detail so you can run with that as the thrust of your counter argument.

Rather than continuously nitpick with patently false assertions like a Creationist, perhaps you could explain how it is (in your opinion) that the Jesus story so closely mimics the astrological dying/resurrecting godman blueprint?

The Luke

You're flip-flopping, again. First you brag that no one that name a specific detail. Then, once the details are given, you resort to silly games, trying to qualify "tiny" details from "major" ones, when your claims are easily demonstated to be FALSE and inaccurate.

Then, you continue your contortions by switching to the “folklore” versions of those other figures, when you think you can find a match between them and Jesus; then, you switch to the alleged “mystery versions” (the specifics to which YOU STILL HAVE YET TO PROVIDE), when you can’t.

[Necrosis]

It is. If it's not, refute it. You can't. Quite obviously it's you who must resort to "belief", not me. Of course my arguments are in no way original. It's philosophic child's play. Scientists are always critizised when they overstep the limits of science, both from philosophers and from other scientists. Dawkins is the best example for that. Regarding my knowledge of philosophy, I think we can agree that we are both laymen in this category. Regarding your comment about me not being "scientific": I understand the methods and restrictions of science, an ability which cannot be assigned to the positivistic pseudo-philosophers.

Of course I could concretely respond to every of your statements above, but a) I already did that numerous times and b) I think it will end again in you bowing out with an insult. If you can come up with any new argument, which was not already disproven in one of the other threads, we can of course continue the discussion. Otherwise, I won't respond here anymore.

i havent isnsulted you and you refuse to answer any or my questions and/or give examples.

what the hell is pseudo philosophy

what are you arguing for, im still not sure. State your position on the existence of a god, deity etc... honestly, im confused as to what you are arguing. Are you arguing for dualism of mind and brain? and you arguing for the existence of a immaterial existence beyond ours, are you arguing that philosophy is closer to reality the objective observation?

i am versed in philosophical arguments so in order to move forward state your position and define terms.

you argued that descartes and aquinas were "great thinkers" a patently false statement. How can someone be great but wrong all the time.

[wavelength]

i havent isnsulted you and you refuse to answer any or my questions and/or give examples.

You haven't in this thread (besides saying that I have no idea about science or philosophy). You have in the other, you called the posts "clusterfuck of pseudo-intellect". I have no problem with it, I just think a pissing match is a waste of time.

what the hell is pseudo philosophy

Maybe you could explain what the hell "pseudo intellect" is?

I have given the definition of "pseudo philosophy" several times already. It's when someone is making philosophic statements thinking that they are based in science (or some other restricted body of knowledge). Example: A scientist applies a scientific rule to the term "reality", when in fact all he is allowed to talk about as a scientist are the scientific aspects of reality; thinking that this way he could make a holistic statement about reality.

what are you arguing for, im still not sure. State your position on the existence of a god, deity etc... honestly, im confused as to what you are arguing. Are you arguing for dualism of mind and brain? and you arguing for the existence of a immaterial existence beyond ours, are you arguing that philosophy is closer to reality the objective observation?

Dualism is a misconception, same as material vs. immaterial (science defines neither). Philosophy deals with objective observation just as much as science, just in a less restricted way. Has all been elaborately discussed in the named thread.

i am versed in philosophical arguments so in order to move forward state your position and define terms.

Position about what exactly?

you argued that descartes and aquinas were "great thinkers" a patently false statement. How can someone be great but wrong all the time.

Maybe we shouldn't focus on that anymore. I always like to discuss on my own terms rather than quote other people. Just out of interest, what works of Descartes, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, or Kierkegaard have you read, first hand? Those are the ones I have named.

[The Luke]

McWay,


You STILL have yet to point out just one detail in the Jesus story that isn't lifted from a dying/resurrecting godman...?

Now you're getting silly... you dismiss the Gospel of Mary Magdalene dated to 60-70 AD in favour of the canonical gospels, the oldest of which dates to 155 AD. That's dishonest.

You keep quoting the references to Jesus in Josephus' Histories... when these references are proven fakes (the recently discovered Slavic Josephus' Histories proves this). That's also dishonest.

You claim Isis doesn't parallel Jesus' mother Mary... because she had sex with Osiris' incorporeal ghost in the underworld, despite the fact that the Egyptians refer to this version of Isis as "Mary Isis, the Virgin". That's also dishonest.

You keep screaming that Jesus had brothers and sisters... but this is a translation trick, for the last two thousand years these passages have been translated as "cousins"; "brethren" and "family members" and Jesus mother was attested an ever-virgin as a doctrinal article of faith by the Christian Church. You have chosen to accept a new translation, seemingly solely for the purposes of this argument. That's also dishonest.

You claim Osiris and Attis (for example) aren't really crucified.... nailed to a tree, nailed to a rack, nailed to beam of wood... seriously dude, that's blatantly dishonest. Then you have the gall to dismiss the example of Issa, the Kashmiri Jesus, who was crucified for blasphemy, in Jerusalem, by the Romans, on the orders of Pilate, at the same time as Jesus.

That's worse than dishonest, that's just plain stoopid.


I'll repeat my challenge, just one detail from the Jesus story... you name it, I'll explain it and give illustrative examples of the precursors... then you can scream: "No, that's not the same... this guy has a funny hat".

I'm winning people over... you're just lowering peoples opinion of you.


The Luke

[big L dawg]

The Luke is takin Mcway to school!

[The Luke]

The Luke is takin Mcway to school!

The Luke: 2
McWay: nil


The Luke

[MCWAY]

[

McWay,


You STILL have yet to point out just one detail in the Jesus story that isn't lifted from a dying/resurrecting godman...?

Now you're getting silly... you dismiss the Gospel of Mary Magdalene dated to 60-70 AD in favour of the canonical gospels, the oldest of which dates to 155 AD. That's dishonest.

And you dismiss the canonical Gospels, which traditional scholars were written in 1st-century A.D; whereas the "Gospel of Mary Magdelene" is dated early/mid 2nd century A.D.

Regardless, you made a butt-load of assertions, claiming that the canonical Gospels supported them. And, that was easily shown to be incorrect.

And, it appears that you’ve lost your ability to count.

You keep quoting the references to Jesus in Josephus' Histories... when these references are proven fakes (the recently discovered Slavic Josephus' Histories proves this). That's also dishonest.

Please!!!! Loco has covered this more times than I care to count. There are two references to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquities. One of them (in the Greek versions, known as the Testimonium Flavinium) has interpolations which emphasize Christ’s deity (Note: the Arabic version of TF does not have such); the other, known as the lesser passage, is the one that identifies James as the brother of Jesus, “who was called Christ”. The authenticity of that passage, according to leading Josephian scholar, Louis Feldman, ” has been almost universally acknowledged."


It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.

Although Josephus' reference to the martyrdom of James is universally accepted by critical scholars, there has been more controversy over the fuller reference to Jesus. The TF contains some obvious Christian glosses that no Jew would have written; such as "he was the Christ" and "he appeared to them alive again the third day."

A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby's own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument. - Christopher Price, "Did Josephus Refer to Jesus? A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum"


With the passage involving James (Jesus' brother) being authentic, the perpetual virgin stuff for Mary goes bye-bye.

You claim Isis doesn't parallel Jesus' mother Mary... because she had sex with Osiris' incorporeal ghost in the underworld, despite the fact that the Egyptians refer to this version of Isis as "Mary Isis, the Virgin". That's also dishonest.

What the Egyptians term it makes little difference. There ain’t no hanky-panky (naturally or supernaturally) as it relates to Mary’s conception of Jesus Christ.

divine mother" of ancient Egypt. She was known as the great goddess of magic and "universal nature," and used her powers to raise her dead (and dismembered) husband Osiris back to life (Osiris was represented as the Sun, he also ruled the underworld). As "Virgin of the World," Isis birthed Horus, the Egyptian god of the sun and moon, day and night. Metaphorically speaking, Isis is the celestial mother of the Sun (son) of god. It was her son, Horus, who eventually killed Typhon, the Egyptian devil. And, according to legend, Isis–mother of all–remains eternally virgin. She is often portrayed "as the virgin with child," and is regularly depicted as one crowned with a lunar orb and the horns of a bull.

Goddess veneration of the "virgin with child" has been a central belief for various societies throughout history, including some aspects of Christianity. Indeed, many leading occultists see striking parallels between the Roman Catholic "Virgin Mary"–the "Queen of Heaven"–and the goddess Isis. And the comparison is startling. Presently, Roman Catholicism holds Mary to be eternally virgin, just as Isis was. Catholicism also contends that Mary was without sin, making her into a type of "god." In fact, there are some who claim that Mary is the "fourth person" within the Trinity. This belief is linked to Catholicism’s claim that Mary now has a direct say in mankind’s salvation through her (Catholic) role of co-redemption and mediation. Hence, the elevated Mary becomes a "goddess" in the Catholic faith, just as Isis was a goddess in the pantheon of Egyptian deities. And just as Isis was (and still is) called "Mother of the World" and "Queen of Heaven," so too Mary is now exalted with these same titles.

While the Roman Catholic/Isis comparison shows a tangible link between Catholicism and the mystery religions, Mary as Biblically understood shows little connection. Yes, Mary was the virgin mother of Jesus, Son of God, but she didn't remain a virgin. Mark 6:3 actually lists four of Jesus’ brothers and mentions sisters as well. Nor was the Biblical Mary sinless. Romans 3:23 makes it clear that "all have sinned"–which would include Mary. The only exception to this rule is found in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:15 is one example among many that attests to Jesus’ sinless character).

The Bible makes it clear that Christ’s death and resurrection was a completed act. The Biblical Mary plays no direct role in His work of salvation. As Jesus Himself said, "It is finished." He didn’t say, "It’s finished, subject to the continuing work of Mother Mary." - Carl Teichrib "Isis: 'Queen of Heaven'"

You keep screaming that Jesus had brothers and sisters... but this is a translation trick, for the last two thousand years these passages have been translated as "cousins"; "brethren" and "family members" and Jesus mother was attested an ever-virgin as a doctrinal article of faith by the Christian Church. You have chosen to accept a new translation, seemingly solely for the purposes of this argument. That's also dishonest.

Wrong again! No matter what translation I choose, the term is the same, with regards to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, the Greek words for those are “adelpho” and “adelpha”, respectively. Plus, in the context of Mark 6, it’s referring to Jesus’ relatives.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

That’s talking about His mama, brothers, and sisters. Nothing in this or supporting text indicates that these are distance relatives.

As for the perpetual virgin stuff with Mary, that may be true of the Catholic church, but it definitenly is NOT a doctrinal article of faith in Protestant circles, as many Christians on this forum will tell you.

You claim Osiris and Attis (for example) aren't really crucified.... nailed to a tree, nailed to a rack, nailed to beam of wood... seriously dude, that's blatantly dishonest. Then you have the gall to dismiss the example of Issa, the Kashmiri Jesus, who was crucified for blasphemy, in Jerusalem, by the Romans, on the orders of Pilate, at the same time as Jesus.

That's worse than dishonest, that's just plain stoopid.

I don’t claim that; the accounts of those two speak for themselves. Of course, when faced with that, you start flip-flopping, between the so-called “folklore” versions and the “mystery” ones.

From Encylopedia Mythica:

Osiris

Osiris was killed by his brother Seth, who shut his body in a chest and threw it into the Nile, where it washed up onto the shore and was trapped in a huge tree. The King Byblos turned it into a pillar in his palace. Isis (who had been searching for her husband) discovered the trunk, and retrieved the trunk and the body. While Isis was away, Seth found the body, and chopped it up into many pieces, and scattered them throughout Egypt. Isis and her sister, Nephthys, found the pieces and made wax models of them to give to priests to be worshipped. When they found all of his pieces, they were so sad they wailed loudly enough for Re, the father god, to have pity on them. He sent Anubis and Thoth to help. They mummified Osiris, and put his body in a lion headed pier. Isis changed into a kite and fanned breath into Osiris.
He was not allowed to stay in the land of the living, and was sent to the underworld to serve as king, and to judge the souls of the dead.
 
   

Here’s a hint: If his body were shut in a chest that means he was ALREADY DEAD, killed by method OTHER than crucifixion.

From Theoi.com –

Attis:

His story is related in different ways. According to Ovid (Fast. iv. 221), Cybele loved the beautiful shepherd, and made him her own priest on condition that he should preserve his chastity inviolate. Atys broke the covenant with a nymph, the daughter of the river-god Sangarius, and was thrown by the goddess into a state of madness, in which he unmanned himself. When in consequence he wanted to put an end to his life, Cybele changed him into a firtree, which henceforth became sacred to her, and she commanded that, in future, her priests should be eunuchs. (Compare Arnob. adv. Gent. v. 4, and AGDISTIS.) Another story relates, that Atys, the priest of Cybele, fled into a forest to escape the voluptuous embraces of a Phrygian king, but that he was overtaken, and in the ensuing struggle unmanned his pursuer. The dying king avenged himself by inflicting the same calamity upon Atys. Atys was found by the priests of Cybele under a fir-tree, at the moment he was expiring. They carried him into the temple of the goddess, and endeavoured to restore him to life, but in vain. Cybele ordained that the death of Atys should be bewailed every year in solemn lamentations, and that henceforth her priests should be eunuchs.



By the way, how do you chop off your own nuts, if you’re crucified to a tree or beam? The tree involved is where he DIED and the beam of wood is what his followers used to carry off his ALREADY-DEAD corpse.

To top it all off, we have one version where he gets TURNED INTO A TREE, a far cry from being crucified on one. This is where you start sniveling about the “folklore” stuff, to make up for the fact that Attis’ account doesn’t mirror that of Jesus Christ, in the least.


From Answers.com

In Phrygian the spring festival was held in honour of the self-mutilated and resurrected god Attis, the son of the mother goddess Cybele. According to one legend, Attis was so harassed by an affectionate monster that he castrated himself. Another recounts that he was put to death because of his love for Cybele, daughter of the King of Phrygia and Lydia. The sanctuary of the mother goddess was at Pessinus, hard by the River Sangarius, in the reeds of which she discovered her youthful lover. Cybele equates with Inanna, Attis with Tammuz. She was attended by lions, and the castration, death, and rebirth of her consort, usually shown as an effeminate youth, was recalled in an annual ceremony full of bloodletting. Rams were sacrificed, their blood used for baptism; initiates unmanned themselves, and her eunuch priests cut their own flesh in a frenzy. At Rome, where the ‘mystery’ cult was introduced in 205 BC, we know that the pine was connected with Attis, whose effigy wore grave linen. Just as the god died and was restored to life again, so the initiate, in union with him, entered a state of blessedness which was thought to endure beyond the grave. Union was achieved through either self-mutilation or a sacred marriage: to all devotees was open what had once been the prerogative of West Asian kingship.

Of course, lost in ALL is the “major” detail that dying for man’s sin (Christ) is a tad different from hacking off your nuts out of feverish LUST FOR YOUR OWN MAMA!

Let's see: That's self-castration (Attis) and death by suffocation or drowning in a pine box (Osiris).......A FAR CRY from being crucified, as you so erroneously claimed happened to those two.

I'll repeat my challenge, just one detail from the Jesus story... you name it, I'll explain it and give illustrative examples of the precursors... then you can scream: "No, that's not the same... this guy has a funny hat".

I'm winning people over... you're just lowering peoples opinion of you.


The Luke

Oh, you mean like your claim that the canonical Gospels has Mags being the only woman at the tomb. Or the one that has “three kings” finding Jesus Dec. 25?
Or, the one that had Mags alone seeing a resurrected Christ?

You’ll repeat your “challenge” and it’ll get taken apart, just as it’s been the other 50 times you’ve propped it up. When your claims are shown to be false, you’ll flip to the “mystery religion” excuse. When that doesn’t work, you’ll flop back to what you deem the “folklore” stuff. Then, you’ll make screwball claims that the canonical Gospels, which I will repeatedly show to be inaccurate (citing chapter and verse, for all to see).