Is there anything original in the Jesus story?

[The Luke]

From a religious viewpoint then, how can you explain Noah's Ark?  2 of every single creature on the planet?  Surely that's impossible?

...it's probably possible once you dismiss reality itself.



The Luke

[leonp1981]

I gave you hard evidence.  You gave me just estimates, but yes religious conflicts have caused much death and suffering too.  I'm not going to deny that. 

My point is that it's time to admit that unnecessary human death and suffering is caused by human nature, with or without religion.  It's time to stop blaming religion for all the world's problems. 

Is religion responsible for the Holocaust?  Didn't the Nazis simply falsely blame the Jews for all of Germany's problems, much like some secular people today falsely blame religion for all of the world's problems?

I can't give you anything other than estimates, there are no hard facts available for the last 2000+ years.  Maybe I am wrong, maybe I'm right, but there is no way of proving it either way.  My original point is just that religion has a lot to answer for, and does the positive aspect of it outweigh the negatives?

And with the Holocaust, you said yourself the Nazi's blamed the Jews.  They wasn't just a particular type of person, they targeted a religious group, so you have to count the Holocaust deaths as being attributable to religion.

[leonp1981]

...it's probably possible once you dismiss reality itself.

The Luke

Well, he could have gone to a zoo and picked up some animals, that would have covered about 1% of the species on the planet.

[loco]

I can't give you anything other than estimates, there are no hard facts available for the last 2000+ years.  Maybe I am wrong, maybe I'm right, but there is no way of proving it either way.  My original point is just that religion has a lot to answer for, and does the positive aspect of it outweigh the negatives?

And with the Holocaust, you said yourself the Nazi's blamed the Jews.  They wasn't just a particular type of person, they targeted a religious group, so you have to count the Holocaust deaths as being attributable to religion.

Secular ideals, as I've shown you, have just as much if not more to answer for, yet I'm not calling for the end of secularism or for the end of secular people.

The Nazis targeted the Jewish ethnic group, not just the Jewish religion.  The Nazis were anti-Semitic, not just anti-Judaism.  The Nazis killed both, secular and religious Jews.

[MCWAY]

I just want to be sure that I'm getting McWay's point of view right here...

McWay believes that the Jesus story is original because he:
-dismisses the 76 other gospels relying only on HIS interpretation of the four canonical gospels
-dismisses the Gospel of Mary Magdalene despite it being older than any of the canonical gospels
-dismisses the Gospel of Judas, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Gospel of Pilate, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Gospel of Thomas, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Nag Hammadi texts
-dismisses the Dead Sea Scrolls
-dismisses the work of secular archaeologists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of secular folklorists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of secular historians if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of scientists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs (he's a Creationist)
-dismisses the tenets of science itself if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses 1500 years of Christian tradition
-dismisses Church history that is not in question
-dismisses the astrological nature of the Jesus myth
-dismisses the entire concept of a Mystery Religion (won't even Google it)
-dismisses the similarities between the Jesus myth and the dying/resurrecting godman Sol Invictus
-dismisses the role of crucifixion in previous religions because those gods didn't explicitly die on the cross
-dismisses the similarities between any previous religion and the Jesus myth because they are similarities and not word for word substitutions

...okay, now I understand.

No, you don't understand. You're nowhere near the ball park.

Your "challenge" was to name ONE detail about the Jesus account that wasn't lifted from these "mystery religions" and the figures that correspond with them, which I've been able to do quite easily.


"dismisses the 76 other gospels relying only on HIS interpretation of the four canonical gospels
-dismisses the Gospel of Mary Magdalene despite it being older than any of the canonical gospels
-dismisses the Gospel of Judas, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Gospel of Pilate, despite its provenance
-dismisses the Gospel of Thomas, despite its provenance"

For all your yakking about the "gospels" of Mary Magdelene, Judas, Thomas and the others, you have YET (despite being asked to do so, mutliple times) provided any specific references to back your claims. I, on the other hand, used specific references and texts to support my statements, while simultaneously skewering yours.

What's even more ridiculous is that your claim about the canonical Gospels weren't even correct, as easily shown by posting the specific texts. As for the dates of the canonical Gospels vs. the others, that all depends on which scholars you ask. I


"dismisses the entire concept of a Mystery Religion (won't even Google it)" - Try again!! I covered that with the reference to Dr. Nash's work, genius and elsewhere with the references to Attis and Osiris.

But, since I prefer to give the particulars, unlike you, from Dr. Nash's link.....

WHAT WERE THE MYSTERY RELIGIONS?

Other than Judaism and Christianity, the mystery religions were the most influential religions in the early centuries after Christ. The reason these cults were called "mystery religions" is that they involved secret ceremonies known only to those initiated into the cult. The major benefit of these practices was thought to be some kind of salvation.

The mystery religions were not, of course, the only manifestations of the religious spirit in the eastern Roman Empire. One could also find public cults not requiring an initiation ceremony into secret beliefs and practices. The Greek Olympian religion and its Roman counterpart are examples of this type of religion.

Each Mediterranean region produced its own mystery religion. Out of Greece came the cults of Demeter and Dionysus, as well as the Eleusinian and Orphic mystery religions, which developed later. Asia Minor gave birth to the cult of Cybele, the Great Mother, and her beloved, a shepherd named Attis. The cult of Isis and Osiris (later changed to Serapis) originated in Egypt, while Syria and Palestine saw the rise of the cult of Adonis. Finally, Persia (Iran) was a leading early locale for the cult of Mithras, which -- due to its frequent use of the imagery of war -- held a special appeal to Roman soldiers. The earlier Greek mystery religions were state religions in the sense that they attained the status of a public or civil cult and served a national or public function. The later non-Greek mysteries were personal, private, and individualistic.


"dismisses the role of crucifixion in previous religions because those gods didn't explicitly die on the cross" - Ummm....genius, YOU were the one who claimed that these guys (Attis, Osiris, Mithras, et. al) were crucified, which is patently FALSE. I've shown that on numerous occasions, which is why you resort to your pitiful "folklore" vs. "mystery" routine. The simple fact is that there is little difference between the two, with NEITHER VERSION matching that of the Jesus Christ account.

"dismisses Church history that is not in question" - That history has little to do with what Scripture says about Jesus (and about Mary). The issue isn't whether the Catholic Church deemed Mary a perpetual virgin (or if such is a requirement of the Catholic faith); it's whether such was actually the case. From the canonical Gospels, it clearly is NOT.

"-dismisses the similarities between the Jesus myth and the dying/resurrecting godman Sol Invictus

The bait-and-switch continues. Every time you find out that one of your figures doesn't fit the bill, you throw in another one, hoping to salvage your weak arguments. Plus, lest you forget, you were the one that claimed that these figures DIED by crucifixion, which is hardly the case. Therefore, you've resulted to using any vague and weak reference to a tree as a similarity, despite the fact that (in many of the cases) the tree has NOTHING to do with their deaths, whatsoever (as shown by references to these figures).


As for Sol Invictius, that deity propped up by Aurelian in 3rd century A.D., by which time Christianity had already been established, a composite of three or more other deities, the most dominant of which was Mithras. And (surprise, surprise    ), that account doesn't match that of Jesus Christ, in the least: No virgin birth; no crucifixion, no dying for man's sins.....etc. And, you continue your pathetic fixation on Dec. 25, despite the fact that Scripture (contrary to your unfounded claims) says NOTHING about Jesus Christ being born on that date or any date on the Hebrew calendar, corresponding to that date.

"- dismisses the similarities between any previous religion and the Jesus myth because they are similarities and not word for word substitutions"

Your paper-thin, poor-excuse-for-a challenge was to list the details that are DIFFERENT and NOT taken from these so-called "mystery religions". The more I continue to do that, the more excuses and doubletalk you produce, to save your pitiful hide.

More from Dr. Nash's link:

SEVEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIAN DEPENDENCE ON THE MYSTERIES

I conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions.

(1) Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

(2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a "Last Supper" in Mithraism or a "baptism" in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word "savior" with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.

(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.

(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions. All of our information about him makes it highly unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien speculations (Col. 2:.

(5) Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. "A man could become initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ....Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone." This Christian exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors. Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy.

(6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real historical events, as Paul regarded Christ's death and resurrection to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.

(7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, "It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction." It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.

Yet more differences and details, that I supposedly can't find, that shatter your "challenge" to bits.


dismisses the work of secular archaeologists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of secular folklorists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of secular historians if it is at odds with his religious beliefs
-dismisses the work of scientists if it is at odds with his religious beliefs (he's a Creationist)
-dismisses the tenets of science itself if it is at odds with his religious beliefs


The references I've used (past and present) to make the case for my arguments render these accusations as a bunch of bull!!!

Far from dismissing them, I've often used them, when making statements about certain subjects. You, on the other hand, continue to run your mouth, making claim after claim, without so much as providing the specifics. You frequently demand that people look it up for themselves; but (in a chronic case of talking-out-of-both-sides-of-your-neck), you cry about "Google-Fu'ing" references, particularly the ones that shrerd your assertions to ribbons.

I suppose there is no need for him to address the issue of similarities between Jesus and Issa, the Kashmiri dying/resurrecting godman, who mimics Jesus in every single detail (crucified for blasphemy in Jerusalem by the Romans at the same time as Jesus).

Probably just easier to simply dismiss that one two.

The Luke

AHHHHH!!!! The lastest of your feeble attempts to save your claims, since Osiris, Attis, Dionysus, etc ain't getting it done. This is just sad!!! The claim, regarding Issa, is not that he is a mimic of Jesus, but that HE IS JESUS!!!! (as Issa is what the Muslims call him). Then, it goes to say that Jesus Christ supposedly traveled to India. Notwithstanding the questionable nature of this, IT'S ABOUT THE SAME GUY!!

Why doesn't it surprise me that you can't get your facts straight about this one? Of course, you're the same guy that said that Osiris got chopped in 72 pieces, later going into some gibberish about the magical number of 72 (since he actually got hacked in 14 pieces, what is the mumbo-jumbo significance of that number?).

[Deicide]

Secular ideals, as I've shown you, have just as much if not more to answer for, yet I'm not calling for the end of secularism or for the end of secular people.

The Nazis targeted the Jewish ethnic group, not just the Jewish religion.  The Nazis were anti-Semitic, not just anti-Judaism.  The Nazis killed both, secular and religious Jews.

Millenium plus of Christian based antisemitism...

[The Luke]

McWay,


You still haven't listed a single detail from the Jesus story that isn't plagiarised.

You say I don't give sources... how honest is that? I list books and religions and phrases anyone interested can Google or research themselves... you STILL harp on about me not citing sources... what do you want? Do you want me to copy and paste the actual words for you to dismiss?

Is that what you want me to do?

Fight your scripture quoting with more scripture quoting?


What's the point of that when I'm arguing against infantile hair-splitting? You've actually gone so far as to say that the Jesus story couldn't possibly be based on Attis because Jesus was crucified and Attis was nailed to a tree after he died and that technically isn't crucifixion... seriously dude, that's just plain dishonest.

Hate to break it to you, but to every reasonable person reading this that IS crucifixion. Argue that the victim has to actually die upon the cross all you want... but the parallels are clear.

You argue that I am wrong to cite Osiris being dismembered into 72 pieces... okay, but there are 3 different versions of this story: chopped into 4 pieces; chopped into 14 pieces and chopped into 72 pieces... so who's wrong? You? Me? Both of us?



Instead of claiming that I'm not citing sources, perhaps you could give me a list of sources you will accept?

As it stands now, you dismiss:
-ALL 76 gospels (apart from the 4 canonicals and even then only in the translation YOU prefer)
-ALL historical evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL literary evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL archaeological evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL astrological evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis

...it is obvious that you cannot be convinced by evidence, so why do you still demand it?


This thread was started in the form of a challenge... I've convinced every reasonable person reading this thread... on every point raised... you, who is willing to accept only the evidence that supports your own delusion, are the only holdout.


Seriously dude... word games, hair-splitting, dismissals, evasion and equivocation... you, sir, are an embarrassment to reason.



The Luke

[MCWAY]

McWay,


You still haven't listed a single detail from the Jesus story that isn't plagiarised.

I suggest you break out the bifocals and have another "Hooked on Phonics" session.

You say I don't give sources... how honest is that? I list books and religions and phrases anyone interested can Google or research themselves... you STILL harp on about me not citing sources... what do you want? Do you want me to copy and paste the actual words for you to dismiss?

Weren't you whining about my using "Google-Fu", not too long ago? Now, you want me to use it, which I've already done. And by doing so, I've dismantled virtually all of your silly claims. When I make a reference to the canonical Gospels, I ACTUALLY use the specifc texts (chapter and verse) from the Gospels to make my point. When I cite a non-Biblical source to support my claims, I actually provide a quote, a link, (in some rare cases), a video, or any combination of the three. That's called using specifics.

Is that what you want me to do?

Fight your scripture quoting with more scripture quoting?

When you make a specific claim, you use SPECIFIC references. When I mentioned that Jesus was about two years old, when the wise men find Him, I didn't just say "The BIBLE SAYS......"; I used chapter and verse to back it. That's because, boy genius, of all 66 books, only TWO of them chronicle Jesus' early life.

I suspect the reason you don't provide the specifics is because, quite frankly, you're AFRAID to do so. Once someone sees the actual references for themselves, they can pluck your arguments like turkey being prepped for next's week Thanksgiving feast. I provided the specifics about Osiris to show that he doesn't match Jesus in the slightest degree. Same goes for Attis. I've done that in the past for Dionysus, Mithras and others. And, I can do it again, as many times as I deem necessary to torpedo your weak arguments.

What's the point of that when I'm arguing against infantile hair-splitting? You've actually gone so far as to say that the Jesus story couldn't possibly be based on Attis because Jesus was crucified and Attis was nailed to a tree after he died and that technically isn't crucifixion... seriously dude, that's just plain dishonest.

Would you like some more tissue? What you erroneously call "infantile hair-splitting" is, in fact, the VERY DETAILS that your wobbly "challenge" claimed no one could meet. The details are there. There is but scant difference between what you call the "folklore" and the "mystery" versions of these religions and figures. And NEITHER of them match the account of Jesus Christ, in form, function, life, purpose, death, or resurrection.

What's the point of that when I'm arguing against infantile hair-splitting? You've actually gone so far as to say that the Jesus story couldn't possibly be based on Attis because Jesus was crucified and Attis was nailed to a tree after he died and that technically isn't crucifixion... seriously dude, that's just plain dishonest.

Hate to break it to you, but to every reasonable person reading this that IS crucifixion. Argue that the victim has to actually die upon the cross all you want... but the parallels are clear.

You mean parallels like Jesus' dying for man's sins vs Attis' chopping off his nuts, lusting after his mama.   

And, just in case you missed it, THIS is what crucifixion is:

From WordNet:

the act of executing by a method widespread in the ancient world; the victim's hands and feet are bound or nailed to a cross
the death of Jesus by crucifixion
the infliction of extremely painful punishment or suffering

From the Free Dictionary:
a. The act of crucifying; execution on a cross.
b. Crucifixion The crucifying of Jesus on Calvary. Used with the.
c. A representation of Jesus on the cross.
2. An extremely difficult, painful trial; torturous suffering

From Answers.Com

The act of crucifying; execution on a cross. Crucifixion The crucifying of Jesus on Calvary.

Notice the pattern here.....EXECUTION!!!

Jesus was crucified; that's how He died. No matter how much you (and your Jesus-myth buddies) try to re-define it, drowning (Osiris), self-castration (Attis), being burned (Dionysus), and being gored by/killing bulls (Mithras) DO NOT EQUATE to crucifixion, no matter how many "trees" are in the picture.



What makes your sniveling even more ridiculous is Attis wasn't even nailed under a tree. He died underneath one (or get turned into one, depending on what version you prefer). The tree is chopped down and is either carried off (as Attis himself) or used to carried ALREADY DEAD body off to who-knows-where. Check the references to Attis, some of which I posted here.

And if all that weren't bad enough (and I nearly forgot about this one), this "mystery" version of Attis is PRECEDED by a version where Attis literally gets porked to death.......he gets gored by a wild boar.

You argue that I am wrong to cite Osiris being dismembered into 72 pieces... okay, but there are 3 different versions of this story: chopped into 4 pieces; chopped into 14 pieces and chopped into 72 pieces... so who's wrong? You? Me? Both of us?

Considering that Gospels cite that Jesus' body wasn't broken AT ALL (corresponding to an OT prophecy), it really doesn't matter. You use the 72-pieces thing to rail about some magical/mystical mess about the number and what not. And, regardless of how many versions of the Osiris account exists, NONE OF THEM mirror that of Jesus Christ (No being stuffed in a box and drowned, no dismemberment, no being stuck in the underworld, no birdie-sex, NADA!!!!).

Instead of claiming that I'm not citing sources, perhaps you could give me a list of sources you will accept?

Add some Visine, along with the bifocals. I said SPECFICS (that would be book, chapter, verses, passages, etc). This ain't new! You've been asked to do this more times than the law allows. Yet, you cluck, duck, and cry, when it's time to put up.

As it stands now, you dismiss:
-ALL 76 gospels (apart from the 4 canonicals and even then only in the translation YOU prefer)
-ALL historical evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL literary evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL archaeological evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis
-ALL astrological evidence that supports the Jesus Myth hypothesis

...it is obvious that you cannot be convinced by evidence, so why do you still demand it?

It's obvious that you CANNOT provide this alleged "evidence". And, your presumptuous use of the word "ALL" set you and your claims up for yet another plucking. The Jesus-myth hypothesis has been torn apart by Biblical and non-Biblical scholars (traditional and not-so-traditional) alike. That's why the debate about Jesus Christ, by and large, centers more around His divinity, not His mere existence.

This thread was started in the form of a challenge... I've convinced every reasonable person reading this thread... on every point raised... you, who is willing to accept only the evidence that supports your own delusion, are the only holdout.

As I said, when I first posted here, I reject your challenge, because this IS NO CHALLENGE. But, I was more than happy to beat on this tired Enlightenment-Period rehash. And, until I get bored with it, I will continue to beat on it.

Seriously dude... word games, hair-splitting, dismissals, evasion and equivocation... you, sir, are an embarrassment to reason.

The Luke

You are an embarrassment to simple reading comprehension. You make a bold claim, daring someone to challenge your assertion. Then, the specifics (for which you asked in the first place) get brought to the table, not only showing your supreme lack of knowledge in the details, but exposing your continued dependency on flawed claims.

You scream that Osiris was crucified. The references to him say he was not; you cry and make excuses

You wail that Attis was cruficied; Two posts (and a set of removed testicles later), you slither away, looking for another way out

You bleat about Jesus mimicking Issa; It finally dawns on you (thanks to my post) that Issa is Jesus' name is Islam; let the weasling continue.

You come with "Sol Invicitus"; that turns out to be a re-hash of Mithra, already shown NOT to be a source of supposed plagiarism....cue the whining about dishonesty.

You chirp about how I won't even look up "mystery religion", foolishly forgetting that not only have I done that (with the references to Osiris and Attis, posted for all to see). But, I did so, yet again, with the link to Dr Nash's article.

And the list of foolishness goes ON!!!!

[The Luke]

You bleat about Jesus mimicking Issa; It finally dawns on you (thanks to my post) that Issa is Jesus' name is Islam; let the weasling continue.

...I was referring to the Kashmiri Issa. (Jesus has a few different versions of his name)

He was a "son of god", who was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans under Pilate's order in Jerusalem around 30 AD. He is, in essence what you might be most afraid of... an exact duplicate of Jesus.


I realise that there isn't going to be any way to convince you. If I name a god, you research it find a few different versions of the story and pick the one that best suits your argument. Then you quote the opinions of Jebus-freak academics to support your deliberately misconstrued straw man argument.

You won't even concede any parallel... even if it means differentiating between nailed to a tree and crucified, that's weak.


Perhaps some of the people reading could chime in letting us know who is making the better argument?

I think the current score is 4:nil to me.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...I was referring to the Kashmiri Issa. (Jesus has a few different versions of his name)

He was a "son of god", who was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans under Pilate's order in Jerusalem around 30 AD. He is, in essence what you might be most afraid of... an exact duplicate of Jesus.

Earth to Luke, they're talking about the same guy. What part of "Issa is Jesus' name in Islam" don't you understand?

I realise that there isn't going to be any way to convince you. If I name a god, you research it find a few different versions of the story and pick the one that best suits your argument. Then you quote the opinions of Jebus-freak academics to support your deliberately misconstrued straw man argument.

WAAAH, WAAAH, WAAAAH!!!! When the facts don't match your cornball claims, you go into baby-with-wet-diaper mode. The simple fact is that all the versions of these figures, so-called "folklore", "mystery religion", etc. have been examined. And, the result is, boy genius, the same: THEY DO NOT MATCH, meaning that Jesus Christ wasn't crafted from these figures. Every time that get pointed out, you have more excuse than a convict, headed back to jail.

Once again, you've been asked (far too many times) to produce the SPECIFIC "mystery religions", regarding these figures that shows their alleged parallel with Jesus Christ, indicating that Christ was crafted from them. To this very day, you have not done so.

To spell it out, produce the "mystery religion" version of Osiris, and show the specifics; do the same for Attis.

Show that those alleged version, not only differ significantly from what I printed, regarding those guys, but that they match the aspects of Christ's account. In essence, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Let me save you some of the trouble, though. The difference between the "folklore" version of Osiris and the "mystery religion" one is that Osiris gets a name change, which I believe is Serapis. Outside of that, it's business as usual.

You got references that say something to the contrary, let's see them (and spare me, and the rest of us, your tired excuses for not putting your money where your mouth is).

You won't even concede any parallel... even if it means differentiating between nailed to a tree and crucified, that's weak.

I concede no parallel, because there is no parallel. Attis wasn't nailed to a tree, genius, as a form of death. All of the references to him, "mystery religion" or otherwise, have him dying in the same manner.....SELF-CASTRATION. Crucifixion is a form of execution. Since that ain't how Attis (or Osiris, or Dionysus or Mithras or....<<fill in the blank with some other goofball figure, alleged to be someone from whom Jesus was crafted>>>) died, there's no parallel.

Said another way: Attis didn't die from crucifixion, didn't die for mankind's sins, wasn't betrayed by his buddy for 30 pieces of silver, wasn't born of a virgin (that is, no hanky-panky with anyone, human, deity, or otherwise).....stop me anytime you like.

Perhaps some of the people reading could chime in letting us know who is making the better argument?

I think the current score is 4:nil to me.

The Luke

Wow!! I'm ssssoooooooo crushed. 

[The Luke]

Earth to Luke, they're talking about the same guy. What part of "Issa is Jesus' name in Islam" don't you understand?

...there was a Kashmiri/Pakistani wiseman/healer named Issa. I know the word "Issa" is utilised in the Koran to refer to Jebus, but that's not the guy I'm referring to.

If you insist that Jesus and the Kashmiri Issa are the same person, then you're in for devastating reveal.



The Luke

[MCWAY]

...there was a Kashmiri/Pakistani wiseman/healer named Issa. I know the word "Issa" is utilised in the Koran to refer to Jebus, but that's not the guy I'm referring to.

If you insist that Jesus and the Kashmiri Issa are the same person, then you're in for devastating reveal.

The Luke

Yep, just like all the other devastating reveals that were supposed to result from your ramblings. Nobody mentioned the Koran, Luke. The claim is that Jesus Christ visited India (the city of Kashmir, in particular), during or prior to His ministry.

Once again, another one of your wild claims goes up in smoke.

[The Luke]

Yep, just like all the other devastating reveals that were supposed to result from your ramblings.

...the Kashmiri Issa, was a faith-healer/miracle-worker who (supposedly) traveled to Jerusalem to spread the good word of Buddhist humanism around 20-30 AD. As a religious rabble-rouser he was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans on the orders of Pilate. He then rose from the dead three days later, said goodbye to his disciples and wandered off home to the mountains of Kashmir.

The Kashmiri Issa openly claimed to actually BE the Jewish Jesus upon whom the Christian cult was founded till the end of his life (if memory serves he lived to be 88)... and hundreds of thousands of his followers believed/believe this to be true right up to today.


I realise that you're eager to somehow PROVE I'm wrong about all this Jesus myth stuff McWay, (which is why I don't take offense at your tactics), but haven't you found yourself continuously having to champion flawed arguments and having to cherry-pick your sources in order to do so?

Take a long, hard look at the (Kasmiri) Issa, do due diligence with the research... at the least it should give you pause.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...the Kashmiri Issa, was a faith-healer/miracle-worker who (supposedly) traveled to Jerusalem to spread the good word of Buddhist humanism around 20-30 AD. As a religious rabble-rouser he was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans on the orders of Pilate. He then rose from the dead three days later, said goodbye to his disciples and wandered off home to the mountains of Kashmir.

The Kashmiri Issa openly claimed to actually BE the Jewish Jesus upon whom the Christian cult was founded till the end of his life (if memory serves he lived to be 88)... and hundreds of thousands of his followers believed/believe this to be true right up to today.


I realise that you're eager to somehow PROVE I'm wrong about all this Jesus myth stuff McWay, (which is why I don't take offense at your tactics), but haven't you found yourself continuously having to champion flawed arguments and having to cherry-pick your sources in order to do so?

Take a long, hard look at the (Kasmiri) Issa, do due diligence with the research... at the least it should give you pause.


The Luke

It does........pause for hysterical laughter.

The Kashmiri Issa openly claimed to actually BE the Jewish Jesus upon whom the Christian cult was founded till the end of his life (if memory serves he lived to be 88)... and hundreds of thousands of his followers believed/believe this to be true right up to today........Openly claimed by WHOM?

The claims about Jesus and city of Kashmir are that Jesus Christ, aka, Issa (the same one in the New Testament) traveled to India, at some point in His life.

This is why your ramblings get picked apart so easily. You make these grandiose statements with absolutely NOTHING to back them up, of course.

You then demand that people do the research. Once they do, and find that your positions are full of bull, cue your crying about "cherry-picking" sources and what not. Of course, one would not have to do any of this alleged "cherry-picking", if you actually provided specific references (book-chapter-verse style).

But, of course, you're too lazy, cowardly, or both to do that.

I guess it hasn’t dawned on you that you’ve shot yourself in the foot, once more. Earlier you claim that Issa died in the exact same manner that Jesus did (i.e. put to death by Pilate via crucifixion). Now, you claim that you’re talking about a different Issa, who died at age 88.

And before you start howling about my being dishonest or claiming that you didn't say that...........

...I was referring to the Kashmiri Issa. (Jesus has a few different versions of his name)

He was a "son of god", who was crucified for blasphemy by the Romans under Pilate's order in Jerusalem around 30 AD. He is, in essence what you might be most afraid of... an exact duplicate of Jesus.

Which is it? Did this Issa die via crucifixion or did he died of old age? Here's a hint: Dying at age 88 is NOT an "exact duplicate" of the life of Jesus Christ.

Maybe, instead of keeping score, you should start counting how many toes you have left.

 

[loco]

Perhaps some of the people reading could chime in letting us know who is making the better argument?

I think the current score is 4:nil to me.


The Luke

Definitely not you.  Why in the world do you not list your sources?  And when are you going to give us the book, chapter and verse in the Bible that says that Jesus was born on December 25, and that he was visited by 3 kings?

Hey, how is that reconstruction of the 4 Biblical gospels from ancient myths coming along?  I'm looking forward to reading it when you are done.  You better post sources too, don't just make stuff up as you go.

[The Luke]

Definitely not you.  Why in the world do you not list your sources?  And when are you going to give us the book, chapter and verse in the Bible that says that Jesus was born on December 25, and that he was visited by 3 kings?

...why didn't you quote my post where I said so?

You are asking me to copy and paste source material when you guys are busily paraphrasing what I post in order to discredit me. Dishonest.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...why didn't you quote my post where I said so?

You are asking me to copy and paste source material when you guys are busily paraphrasing what I post in order to discredit me. Dishonest.


The Luke

Nobody has to paraphrase your statements, Luke. They’re right here in black-and-white, in all their silliness, for all to see.

And, while you're trying to scramble to answers Loco's question, you can also address this Issa thing. One minute you claim, he's an exact duplicate of Jesus Christ; the next, you're saying that Issa died an 88-year-old man. Which is it?

[The Luke]

Nobody has to paraphrase your statements, Luke. They’re right here in black-and-white, in all their silliness, for all to see.

...quote the post where I claimed there was a Gospel passage claiming Jesus was born on 25th of December.

Both of you are using the same dishonest tactic here... attacking YOUR own sloppy paraphrasing.

And, while you're trying to scramble to answers Loco's question, you can also address this Issa thing. One minute you claim, he's an exact duplicate of Jesus Christ; the next, you're saying that Issa died an 88-year-old man. Which is it?

...do some research and see just how much he parallels the Jesus myth. People in Kashmir STILL believe Jesus to be a mythologised version of Issa.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...quote the post where I claimed there was a Gospel passage claiming Jesus was born on 25th of December.

Both of you are using the same dishonest tactic here... attacking YOUR own sloppy paraphrasing.

Get a grip, Luke. Nobody’s misinterpreting your words or distorting them.

Quote from: The Luke on November 13, 2008, 02:25:52 PM
McWay,


The Bible does give Jesus birthdate as 25th December... just indirectly.

Once again, where is this chapter and verse that "indirectly" give this date?  Your last pitiful attempt of an explanation was......

Quote from: The Luke on November 13, 2008, 02:25:52 PM
The bright star that leads the three kings to Jesus is Sirius (the Dog Star) which is the brightest star in the night sky. The sun rises further and further along the horizon as the days get shorter leading up to the mid-winter solstice (December 21st), then suddenly the sun turns back and begins to gain strength (longer days).


The first day when a solar measurement will show this (one degree of reversal) is the 25th of December when the sun rises below Sirius at a point on the horizon indicated by the line of three stars known as the "Three Kings" or "Three Wise Men".

You just have to know the code to the allegory: Jesus is the sun, the story is an astrological allegory.

Seriously, isn't it suspicious that the Jebus story includes ALL these astrological symbols? In the correct order?

A virgin birth marked by a bright star and attended by "three wise men"? Come on guys...


The Luke

Once again, you forget that the shepherds find Jesus, immediately after his birth, WITHOUT the use of a star. The stars merely leads the wise men to where Jesus was. And, based on the Gospels (Matt. 2, to be more precise), they find Him when He’s about 2 years old. Jesus was born in a manger, inside a stable. The wise men find Him in a house, meaning that they don’t find Jesus the day He was born. And, whenever they find Him, there is NO INDICATION of a date, much less Dec. 25.

...do some research and see just how much he parallels the Jesus myth. People in Kashmir STILL believe Jesus to be a mythologised version of Issa.


The Luke

I've already done that, and you'll start blubbering about my using "Google-Fu", when shown that your claims don't match.

All of the flap about Jesus and the city of Kashmir is based on the assertion that Jesus Christ HIMSELF traveled to India, at some point in his life, that point supposedly being the 18-year gap in His chronicled history from the gospel of Luke.


You said that Issa died EXACTLY the same way that Jesus did. Yet, in this latest blunder of yours, you stated that Issa dies at age 88. Which is it?

[loco]

...why didn't you quote my post where I said so?

You are asking me to copy and paste source material when you guys are busily paraphrasing what I post in order to discredit me. Dishonest.


The Luke

Nowhere, I repeat, NOWHERE does Scripture claim that Jesus was born Dec. 25. That day was picked because the Roman Catholic Church wanted a Christian celebration to replace a pagan one.

McWay,

The Bible does give Jesus birthdate as 25th December... just indirectly.

The bright star that leads the three kings to Jesus is Sirius (the Dog Star) which is the brightest star in the night sky

Where?  Where?  Dec. 25?  3 Kings?  Post book, chapter and verse in the Bible.

You might be showing us that Roman Catholic traditions about Jesus and Mary are based on certain myths, but you are not proving that the 4 Biblical gospels, "every detail" as you said, are all based on ancient myths.

[The Luke]

I still have yet to see this supposed post of mine wherein I claimed the canonical gospels give Jesus date of birth as 25th of December...

I see a quote of one of my posts in which I referred to an INDIRECT date given by a preponderance of astrological references which mimic such astrological allegory in other stories that DO include the 25th of December date. But not the post you two accused me of making.

Is this the character of Christian discussion... misquoting in order to falsely undermine your opponent?  

 

Once again, you forget that the shepherds find Jesus, immediately after his birth, WITHOUT the use of a star. The stars merely leads the wise men to where Jesus was.

...which Angel was it that directed the shepherds again? Just out of interest?

All of the flap about Jesus and the city of Kashmir is based on the assertion that Jesus Christ HIMSELF traveled to India, at some point in his life, that point supposedly being the 18-year gap in His chronicled history from the gospel of Luke.

...wrong. Issa (the Kasmiri Issa) is actually buried in Kashmir.

Your Google-fu is weak young paduwan.

You said that Issa died EXACTLY the same way that Jesus did. Yet, in this latest blunder of yours, you stated that Issa dies at age 88. Which is it?

...he died on the cross and rose from the dead. But rather than being assumed bodily into heaven, he lived out his life in India/Kashmir/Pakistan.

By the way, doesn't the gospel of Thomas (or some such suppressed Dead Sea Scroll, Nag Hamaddi text) have Thomas and a very aged Jesus meeting up at a wedding in the hills of India around 70 AD?

When you manage to verify this, might an apology be in order?


The Luke

[Deicide]

I can't believe that people are still arguing about this....

[The Luke]

I can't believe that people are still arguing about this....

...I'm not arguing, I'm winning!


The Luke

[loco]

I still have yet to see this supposed post of mine wherein I claimed the canonical gospels give Jesus date of birth as 25th of December...

I see a quote of one of my posts in which I referred to an INDIRECT date given by a preponderance of astrological references which mimic such astrological allegory in other stories that DO include the 25th of December date. But not the post you two accused me of making.

The Luke

Nowhere, I repeat, NOWHERE does Scripture claim that Jesus was born Dec. 25. That day was picked because the Roman Catholic Church wanted a Christian celebration to replace a pagan one.

McWay,

The Bible does give Jesus birthdate as 25th December... just indirectly.

The bright star that leads the three kings to Jesus is Sirius (the Dog Star) which is the brightest star in the night sky.

[The Luke]

Loco,


Question for you...

Can you see the word "indirectly" in the following post?

The Bible does give Jesus birthdate as 25th December... just indirectly.

...if you can, then just how do you expect me to quote the chapter and verse that DOESN'T overtly mention the 25th of December?


For the record, as I already explained, the "bright star"; "three kings" or "three magi"; a "cave" or "stable"; a "virgin"; the constellation Virgo ("Beth-le-hem" in Hebrew) are ALL common astrological allegories that denote the 25th of December dawn "birth" of the new sun.

The gospel stories conform to this blueprint.


The Luke