Is there anything original in the Jesus story?

[Deicide]

You don't comprehend very well, Deicide, and neither does the guy who came up with those videos.

His claims about Horus are absolutely BOGUS. The refutations to such claims are easy to find, and, unlike Luke, the specific references addressing those claims are given.

For example, where does it state that Horus was killed via crucifixion?

Furthermore, this dude claims tha Horus get sent to the underworld, which, per the account of Horus is INCORRECT. Horus' daddy, Osiris, is in the underworld (you will recall that's where Isis has birdie-sex with him to conceive Horus, which disqualifies his birth as being a "virgin" one). More from the "All About Horus" link!!

Here is some commentary on the "conception of Horus" from various Egyptian scholars:

"...drawings on contemporary funerary papyri show her as a kite hovering above Osiris, who is revived enough to have an erection and impregnate his wife." (Lesko, Great Goddesses of Egypt, p. 162)

"After having sexual intercourse, in the form of a bird, with the dead god she restored to life, she gave birth to a posthumous son, Horus." (Dunand / Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt, p. 39)

"Through her magic Isis revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him, eventually giving birth to their child, Horus." (Richard Wilkinson, Complete gods and goddesses of Ancient Egypt, p. 146)

"Isis already knows that she is destined to bear a child who will be king. In order to bring this about, she has to revive the sexual powers of Osiris, just as the Hand Goddess aroused the penis of the creator to create the first life." (Pinch, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology, p. 80)

In short, this was NO "virgin birth" as is clear also from repeated references to Osiris' "seed." A "miraculous birth" perhaps because it involves a dead and then revived husband, but not a virginal conception (sometimes wrongly called an "immaculate conception" -- that has to do in Catholic theology with Mary's conception without Original Sin, not Jesus' conception) nor a virgin birth as contained in the Bible (cf. Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38).





I'll deal with the blunders from the other two videos a bit later. But, suffice it to say that, if this guy ain't got his facts straight in that one, the other two can't be much better.

I am not taking about the videos.

[MCWAY]

Let's look at the claims from part 1 of the Zeitgeist video about the gods, from which Jesus Christ was supposedly crafted.



Attis of Phyrigia, born of the virgin Nana on December 25th, crucified, placed in a tomb and after 3 days, was resurrected.


In this longer Arnobius version, Attis' mother is Nana, the daughter of King Sangarius. She became pregnant and conceived Attis from a pomegranate fruit produced from the blood of Agdistis the fierce hunter, after an attempt by Liber to kill him. Endowed with extraordinary beauty, Attis became the favorite of Cybele along with Agdistis, both who were born from a huge rock called "Agdos." Attis dies from castration and the longer story ends like this:

"The Mother of the gods also shed bitter tears from which an almond tree sprang up, and then she took the sacred pine-tree, under which Attis had emasculated himself, into her den and joined the funeral laments of Agdistis, smiting her breasts and walking around the trunk of the tree. Agdistis begged Jupiter [or Zeus] to bring Attis back to life (revivisceret), but that was not permitted. Instead the god agreed that the body of Attis should not putrefy, that his hair should always grow and that his little finger should move for eternity. Satisfied with these favours, Agdistis consecrated the dead man's body to Pessinous and honoured him with yearly ceremonies and priestly services." (Lancellotti, page 4-5)

In other words, contrary to Luke's claims (and those of the video narrator):
- No death by crucifixion (death by self-castration or goring by a wild boar, depending on which version you pick)
- No resurrection
- "Virgin birth" is dubious (a deceptive conception with sperm disguised as fruit, tantamount to a form of rape, since the mother did not consent to impregnation).


Mithra of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, he had 12 disciples and performed miracles, and upon his death was buried for 3 days and thus resurrected, he was also referred to as "The Truth," "The Light," and many others. Interestingly, the sacred day of worship of Mithra was Sunday.


Mithra is essentially a deity of light; he draws the sun with rapid horses; he is the first to reach the summit of Mount Hara at the center of the earth; he shines with his own light in the morning and makes the many forms of the world visible; he is a divinity both of light and salvation. In the Iranian world he has a clear significance as a warrior god, and has the traits of a divinity who ensures rain and prosperity and protects cattle by providing it ample pasturage. The nature of the Iranian god as one of salvation can be inferred from myriad indications: in the Parthian epoch there existed a great syncretic myth of the Cosmocrator Redemptor, of which Mithra, born of a rock or out of a cave, was the protagonist. His rock-birth, later celebrated on December 25, was accompanied by special signs and luminous epiphanies taken as a symbol of royal initiation.

"The literary sources here are few but unmistakable: Mithras was known as the rock-born god. The inscriptions confirm this nomenclature: one even reads D(eo) O(omipotenti) S(oli) Invi(cto), Deo Genitori, r(upe) n(ato), 'To the almighty God Sun invincible, generative god, born from the rock'....Mithras also appears in the archaeological record as the rock-born god. Many images represent the god growing out of a rock with both arms raised aloft....After the bull-slaying, the rock-birth is the most frequently represented event of the myth, either as a detail on reliefs or, quite commonly, as a free-standing image." (Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras, page 62-63)

Again, we find with Mithra, as with Attis and Horus:

- No virgin birth (Mithras didn't even come from a woman, PERIOD; he came from blasted ROCK!!!)
- No death via crucifixion (The only death mentioned in his account is that of a bull)
- No resurrection (of course, there wouldn't be such, if he's never killed)
- Disciples? I see no such men mentioned, let alone there being 12 of them. If somebody has a references to these guys (some names would be nice), let's see them.

Alas, we have the same off-the-wall claims from folks, doing a rather pitiful job at scholarship....SIGH!!!

[MCWAY]

I am not taking about the videos.

Don't tell me you're talking about that mess on your thread about Price. You've posted that long diatribe multiple times here, and much of it is the same re-hashed mess that Luke is spouting, here.

[The Luke]

McWay,


Either you aren't even reading the articles you are copy and pasting, or you don't understand them...

Note: In this festival, Attis worshippers chopped down a tree and brought it to the temple. Then they put an effigy of Attis on it and mourned. This is, no doubt, where Luke keeps getting his spiel of Attis being "crucified". But all the version of the Attis cult have him dying, via self-castration; priests of Attis hacked off their own nuts to emulate their gods.)

...am I right in thinking that you actually know the details of this festival?

Attis followers would cut down a sacred tree and a designated priest/disciple would carry it back to the temple through the streets (on his back Jebus style). The followers of Attis would then set up the tree in the temple and a statue of the prostrate (arms out) dying Attis would then be nailed to the tree.

This crucifxion-ish celebration of Attis' death happens on Easter eve and is known as "The Day of Mourning", then a couple of days later Attis' followers meet in secret for a celebration known as the "Day of Joy" which begins the "rebirth" of the cycle of Attis' yearly celebrations.


You know all this and you STILL don't see any parallels with Christianity?

What is that? Hysterical blindness?


The Luke

[MCWAY]

McWay,


Either you aren't even reading the articles you are copy and pasting, or you don't understand them...

...am I right in thinking that you actually know the details of this festival?

The details were given in the link I posted, and elsewhere. Just in case you forgot: 

The attempts in the earlier scholarly literature to identify Attis as a "dying and rising deity" depend not on the mythology but rather on the ritual of the five-day festival of Cybele on March 22-27. Some scholars saw the "Day of Blood" (March 24) and the "Day of Joy" (March 25) as an analogy of the Christian relationship between Good Friday to Easter Sunday, and reasoned that if there was "mourning" on the first day, the object of the "joy" on the following day must be Attis' "resurrection."  But there is no evidence this is the case. The Day of Joy is a late addition to what was once a three-day ritual in which the Day of Blood was followed by a purificatory ritual and the return of the statue of the goddess to the temple. The Day of Joy in the cult celebrated Cybele, not Attis.

The sole text that connects the Day of Joy with Attis is a fifth-century AD biography of Isidore the Dialectician by the Neoplatonic philosopher Damascius who reports that Isidore once had a dream in which he was Attis and the Day of Joy was celebrated in his honor!

The ritual of the taurobolium (bull slaying) came to be associated with this cult at least from the second century AD and was frequently performed as an explicit homage to the emperor. At least in the fourth century AD the taurobolium was a kind of "baptism" performed with the blood of a sacrificed bull and described as such about 400 AD by Prudentius in his Peristephanon (10.1006-1050).

Neither myth nor ritual offers any warrant for classifying Attis as a dying and rising deity. There are some scholars who even question the "divine nature" of the original Phrygian Attis until he was turned into a "god" much later when imported in Greece and Rome (Lancellotti, page 10-11).

(Sources: see "Cybele" and "Dying and Rising Gods" in The Encyclopedia of Religion, and Attis: Between Myth and History by Maria Lancellotti, pages 1 ff).

Attis followers would cut down a sacred tree and a designated priest/disciple would carry it back to the temple through the streets (on his back Jebus style). The followers of Attis would then set up the tree in the temple and a statue of the prostrate (arms out) dying Attis would then be nailed to the tree.

Tell me something I don't know. That is based on the "Day of Mourning" ritual. And, lost in all of this is the fact that Attis DOES NOT DIE VIA CRUCIFIXION. He cuts his nuts off, which is why many priests and followers of the Attis/Cybele cult did the same. The tree is cut down, simply because Attis died underneath a tree (or got turned into one, as his "resurrection"). NEITHER correlates to death via crucifixion.

The stake or "tree" is what is used to carry off Attis' corpse. It has no bearing on how (or why) he died. Jesus, on the other hand, not only died of crucifixion, but He was removed from the cross to be placed in the tomb of Joseph of Aramithea. Try as you might, you can't stretch Attis' death with that of Jesus Christ in form, function, or purpose.

This crucifxion-ish celebration of Attis' death happens on Easter eve and is known as "The Day of Mourning", then a couple of days later Attis' followers meet in secret for a celebration known as the "Day of Joy" which begins the "rebirth" of the cycle of Attis' yearly celebrations.


You know all this and you STILL don't see any parallels with Christianity?

What is that? Hysterical blindness?

The Luke

There is no "crucifixion-ish celebration", genius, because that's not how Attis died. And, unlike Jesus, Attis un-manned himself, out of lust for his own mother. He DID NOT do so for the redemption of mankind.

[The Luke]

Hysterical blindness it is then...


The Luke

[MCWAY]

Hysterical blindness it is then...

The Luke

That affliction would fall on you, especially since YOU claimed that Attis, Osiris, Mithras, etc. DIED VIA CRUCIFIXION. Of course, since you can't back that up with any actual facts, you (in a classic case of severe desperation) look for any reference to a "tree" to claim that cruficixion occured, thus resulting in the account of Christ being lifted from these other figures.

It's a simple question. Does Attis die via crucifixion (as you claimed, earlier)? YES or NO!!!

Attis followers would cut down a sacred tree and a designated priest/disciple would carry it back to the temple through the streets (on his back Jebus style). The followers of Attis would then set up the tree in the temple and a statue of the prostrate (arms out) dying Attis would then be nailed to the tree.

Is that right.......?

On the first day of the festival, a pine tree was carried to Rome. It had the effigy of a young man tied to it and was enveloped with woolen bandages like a corpse and covered in wreaths and violets--the flower which sprang from the blood of Attis, when he died.....The burial of this effigy took place on the third day, the 'day of blood'. We hardly know the rites on the second day. Attis, dead and buried, was mourned with threnoi, but by a frenzied dance in which the priests wounded themselves. At an early date, undoubtedly, they castrated themselves, miming the castration of Attis. But, at night, the Chief Priest, in the role of Messenger, announced the ressurection of the god, and on the following day there followed the Festival of Joy, on which all kinds of licentiousness of Carnival type was practiced--complete freedom of expression, disguises. The last day, as I have said, was dedicated to Cybele. - Francisco Rodrigues Adrado, "Festival, Comedy, and Tragedy"

Let's see: an effigy of already DEAD man, covered in a woolen shroud and carried on a pine tree vs. Jesus carrying a cross, later carried by another man (Simon of Cyrene), on which He would actually be crucified.

Yep....those are DEAD ringers for one another!   


BTW, Loco is still waiting for you to support your earlier claims about the Bible "indirectly" stating that Jesus was born Dec. 25. I just hope he hasn't died laughing from these pitiful videos you got from YouTube.

And, on another note, that "72" you mentioned about Osiris wasn't in reference to the piece in which he got sliced. It was the number of conspirators that joined Set in plotting Osiris' death (which, contrary to your earlier claims, was NOT by crucifixion).

The basic Egyptian myth goes like this: Osiris became ruler of the land, but was tricked and slain by his jealous brother, Seth. According to the Greek version of the story, Typhon (Seth) had a beautiful coffin made to Osiris' exact measurements, and with 72 conspirators at a banquet, promised it to the one who would fit it. Each guest tried it for size, and Osiris was the one to fit exactly. Immediately Seth and the conspirators nailed the lid shut, sealed the coffin in lead, and threw it into the Nile. The coffin was eventually borne across the sea to Byblos, where Isis, who had been continually searching for her husband, finally located it. She returns the body to Egypt where Seth discovers it, cuts the corpse into pieces, and scatters them throughout the country. Isis transforms herself into a kite, and with her sister Nephthys, searches for and finds all the pieces (except the male member, which she replicates), reconstitutes the body, and before embalming to give Osiris eternal life, she revivifies it, couples with it, and thus conceives Horus.

"Of the parts of Osiris's body the only one which Isis did not find was the male member, for the reason that this had been at once tossed into the river, and the lepidotus, the sea-bream, and the pike had fed upon it; and it is from these very fishes the Egyptians are most scrupulous in abstaining. But Isis made a replica of the member to take its place, and consecrated the phallus, in honour of which the Egyptians even at the present day celebrate a festival." (Plutarch, Moralia V, On Isis and Osiris, 18)

BTW, the part where Isis "couples with it" (the newly-crafted penis of Osiris) DISQUALIFIES her from being a virgin; thus also disqualifies Horus' appearance as being a "virgin birth".

[The Luke]

McWay,

Again, just like there is a version of the Hamlet story where Hamlet kills the conspirators; marries Ophelia and lives happily ever after (Google: "Amlodhi" the Viking Hamlet)... there are alternate versions of the Horus; Mithras; Perseus; Achilles; Attis; Tammuz; Dionysus; Bacchus etc stories in which ALL these different gods are in some manner crucified, buried and then rise from the dead after three days.

This isn't open for debate. Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr openly admitted these parallels.

Similarly there is no need to keep harping on about my supposed failure to show how the Gospels INDIRECTLY give Jesus' birth date as 25th of December. I've explained my reasoning to the satisfaction of any reasonable reader... I've explained the astrological metaphors in detail and I've even posted videos that demonstrate the alignments in an easy to follow manner.



The Luke

[Deicide]

Now you just need to mention the birth date contradictions between Luke and Matthew...

Conclusion
There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

[MCWAY]

McWay,

Again, just like there is a version of the Hamlet story where Hamlet kills the conspirators; marries Ophelia and lives happily ever after (Google: "Amlodhi" the Viking Hamlet)... there are alternate versions of the Horus; Mithras; Perseus; Achilles; Attis; Tammuz; Dionysus; Bacchus etc stories in which ALL these different gods are in some manner crucified, buried and then rise from the dead after three days.

There is no "some manner" crucified. Either they were or they weren't. And, every version of these gods says that they weren't. Vague references to tree do not equate to crucifixion. That is a specific form of execution which NONE of these gods suffer.

This isn't open for debate. Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr openly admitted these parallels.

You mean THIS Justin Martyr .....

But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation." - Justin Martyr, "First Apology, chapter 55".

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidence4.htm

Both you and the guy who made this Zeitgeist video foolishly tried to use his quotes to make your case. Unfortunately, in your haste, you neglected to mention the rest of his words, in which he clearly points out the differences.

Similarly there is no need to keep harping on about my supposed failure to show how the Gospels INDIRECTLY give Jesus' birth date as 25th of December. I've explained my reasoning to the satisfaction of any reasonable reader... I've explained the astrological metaphors in detail and I've even posted videos that demonstrate the alignments in an easy to follow manner.

The Luke

Easy-to-follow....if you throw your reading comprehension out the door. One simple read of the Gospels puts an end to all the astrological silliness, as those who attempt to prop up this nonsense do so by reading things in the Gospels that aren't simply there. Once again:

- No mention of "three kings" (they ain't kings and the exact number of "wise men" is not known)
- The wise men don't find Jesus in "cave" or "stable" (that's more stretching and falsehood by you and this video guy); Jesus is said to be in a HOUSE.
- Whenever they find Him has no bearing on when He was born, because Jesus is about TWO YEARS OLD, when they show up.

Quit mixing up Western tradition with the Scripture and get your facts straight.....for once.

[MCWAY]

Now you just need to mention the birth date contradictions between Luke and Matthew...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

I would, except for one minor problem.....

The first periodic enrollment of Syria was made under Saturninus in BC. 8-7. The enrollment of Palestine was delayed by the causes described until the late summer or autumn of BC. 6. At that time, Varus was controlling the internal affairs of Syria, while Quirinius was commanding its armies and directing its foreign policy.

Tertullian, finding that the first periodic enrollment in Syria was made under Saturninus, inferred too hastily that the enrollment in Palestine was made under that governor. With full consciousness and intention, he corrects Luke’s statement, and declares that Christ was born during the census taken by Sentius Saturninus. Luke, more accurately, says that the enrollment of Palestine was made while Quirinius was acting as leader (ἡγεμών) in Syria.

The question will perhaps be put whether Luke could rightly describe the authority of Quirinius by the words “holding the Hegemonia of Syria”. The preceding exposition leaves no doubt on this point. The usage of Luke shows that he regards Hegemonia in the provinces as the attribute both of the Emperor and of the officers to whom the Emperor delegates his power. Now that is quite true in point of fact. The Emperor primarily held the supreme authority in Syria (which was one of the Imperatorial provinces, as distinguished from those which were administered by the Senate through the agency of its officers, entitled Proconsuls). But the Emperor could not himself be present in Syria or in Palestine, hence he delegated to substitutes, or Lieutenants, the exercise of his authority in the various provinces which were under his own direct power. These substitutes, when of senatorial rank, bore the title Legatus Augusti pro praetore, and when of equestrian rank the title Procurator cum jure gladii; but both Legati and Procuratores are called by Luke Hegemones, as exercising the Hegemonia that belongs to the Emperor. Now Quirinius was exercising this delegated Hegemonia over the armies of the Province Syria, and it seems quite in keeping with Luke’s brief pregnant style to say that he held the Hegemonia of Syria.

But why did Luke not name Varus, the ordinary governor, in place of dating by the extraordinary officer? If he had had regard to the susceptibilities of modern scholars, and the extreme dearth of knowledge about the period, which was to exist 1800 years after he wrote, he would certainly have named Varus. But he was writing for readers who could as easily find out about Quirinius as about Varus, and he had no regard for us of the nineteenth century. Quirinius ruled for a shorter time than Varus, and he controlled the foreign relations of the province, hence he furnished the best means of dating.

But why did Luke not distinguish clearly between this enrollment and the later enrollment of A. D. 7, which was held by Quirinius in Syria and in Palestine? We answer that he does distinguish, accurately and clearly. He tells that this was the first enrollment of the series, but the moderns are determined to misunderstand him. They insist that Luke confused the use of comparative and superlative in Greek, and that we cannot take the full force of the word “first” as “first of many”. They go on to put many other stumbling-blocks in the way, but none of these cause any difficulty if we hold fast to the fundamental principle that Luke was a great historian who wrote good Greek of the first century kind.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.iv.vii.html

[Deicide]

I would, except for one minor problem.....

The first periodic enrollment of Syria was made under Saturninus in BC. 8-7. The enrollment of Palestine was delayed by the causes described until the late summer or autumn of BC. 6. At that time, Varus was controlling the internal affairs of Syria, while Quirinius was commanding its armies and directing its foreign policy.

Tertullian, finding that the first periodic enrollment in Syria was made under Saturninus, inferred too hastily that the enrollment in Palestine was made under that governor. With full consciousness and intention, he corrects Luke’s statement, and declares that Christ was born during the census taken by Sentius Saturninus. Luke, more accurately, says that the enrollment of Palestine was made while Quirinius was acting as leader (ἡγεμών) in Syria.

The question will perhaps be put whether Luke could rightly describe the authority of Quirinius by the words “holding the Hegemonia of Syria”. The preceding exposition leaves no doubt on this point. The usage of Luke shows that he regards Hegemonia in the provinces as the attribute both of the Emperor and of the officers to whom the Emperor delegates his power. Now that is quite true in point of fact. The Emperor primarily held the supreme authority in Syria (which was one of the Imperatorial provinces, as distinguished from those which were administered by the Senate through the agency of its officers, entitled Proconsuls). But the Emperor could not himself be present in Syria or in Palestine, hence he delegated to substitutes, or Lieutenants, the exercise of his authority in the various provinces which were under his own direct power. These substitutes, when of senatorial rank, bore the title Legatus Augusti pro praetore, and when of equestrian rank the title Procurator cum jure gladii; but both Legati and Procuratores are called by Luke Hegemones, as exercising the Hegemonia that belongs to the Emperor. Now Quirinius was exercising this delegated Hegemonia over the armies of the Province Syria, and it seems quite in keeping with Luke’s brief pregnant style to say that he held the Hegemonia of Syria.

But why did Luke not name Varus, the ordinary governor, in place of dating by the extraordinary officer? If he had had regard to the susceptibilities of modern scholars, and the extreme dearth of knowledge about the period, which was to exist 1800 years after he wrote, he would certainly have named Varus. But he was writing for readers who could as easily find out about Quirinius as about Varus, and he had no regard for us of the nineteenth century. Quirinius ruled for a shorter time than Varus, and he controlled the foreign relations of the province, hence he furnished the best means of dating.

But why did Luke not distinguish clearly between this enrollment and the later enrollment of A. D. 7, which was held by Quirinius in Syria and in Palestine? We answer that he does distinguish, accurately and clearly. He tells that this was the first enrollment of the series, but the moderns are determined to misunderstand him. They insist that Luke confused the use of comparative and superlative in Greek, and that we cannot take the full force of the word “first” as “first of many”. They go on to put many other stumbling-blocks in the way, but none of these cause any difficulty if we hold fast to the fundamental principle that Luke was a great historian who wrote good Greek of the first century kind.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.iv.vii.html

You fish out some crap that is over a hundred years old; fundies love doing this.  In the last 100+ years scholarship has taken vast leaps away from Ramsay, William Mitchell (1851-1939).

[MCWAY]

You fish out some crap that is over a hundred years old; fundies love doing this.  In the last 100+ years scholarship has taken vast leaps away from Ramsay, William Mitchell (1851-1939).

Yep, because this refutes the "crap" you've been dishing out that's over a hundred years old (namely, the tired rehashed claims about the contradictory dates of Jesus' birth, the accusations that Jesus was crafted from Horus, Osiris, Attis, etc......all old rubbish from the so-called "Enlightenment" period, which Biblical scholars have dismantled, long before now).

Why reinvent the wheel? 

When you come up with something new, let me know.

[The Luke]

"But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation."
- Justin Martyr, "First Apology, chapter 55".

...that's dishonest McWay.

Justin Martyr was only doing what you are doing here... he was facetiously differentiating between the actual supposed physical real-world crucifixion suffered by Jesus, and the allegorical/metaphorical crucifixions suffered by these other gods he deems "imitators" of Christ.

He was NOT claiming that these gods weren't crucified... just that whereas Jesus was physically crucified, these gods were merely symbolically transfixed upon the Southern Cross constellation (aka: the Southern Tree constellation in Attis' case).


If you won't concede the parallels between the Jesus story and these other gods... will you at least concede the parallels between your ridiculous insistence that Attis being nailed to a tree isn't a proper crucifixion because he was already dead, and Justin Martyr's equally laughable distinction between symbolic/astrological and physical crucifixion?



The Luke

[Deicide]

Yep, because this refutes the "crap" you've been dishing out that's over a hundred years old (namely, the tired rehashed claims about the contradictory dates of Jesus' birth, the accusations that Jesus was crafted from Horus, Osiris, Attis, etc......all old rubbish from the so-called "Enlightenment" period, which Biblical scholars have dismantled, long before now).

Why reinvent the wheel? 

When you come up with something new, let me know.

I don't recall sayig that Jesus was crafted from Horus, Osiris, etc. That is not my perspective. I don't really care. I simply think that this figure never existed because there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support the idea.

I saw nothing in that which refuted Carrier's essay.

[MCWAY]

...that's dishonest McWay.

Justin Martyr was only doing what you are doing here... he was facetiously differentiating between the actual supposed physical real-world crucifixion suffered by Jesus, and the allegorical/metaphorical crucifixions suffered by these other gods he deems "imitators" of Christ.

He was NOT claiming that these gods weren't crucified... just that whereas Jesus was physically crucified, these gods were merely symbolically transfixed upon the Southern Cross constellation (aka: the Southern Tree constellation in Attis' case).

There's nothing dishonest about it. It's merely your usual cry, when the facts don't match your claims. To date, every god that you claim died via crucifixion has been shown to have died via some other means. That is why you repeatedly grasp at straws, trying to link any remote reference to a tree to "crucifixion".

If you won't concede the parallels between the Jesus story and these other gods... will you at least concede the parallels between your ridiculous insistence that Attis being nailed to a tree isn't a proper crucifixion because he was already dead, and Justin Martyr's equally laughable distinction between symbolic/astrological and physical crucifixion?

The Luke

YOU said Attis died via crucifixion (so, did the guy in that video); the simple fact is he did not. I'm not conceding anything. I need not do so, because your ridiculous claims (and his) have been deemed FALSE. Charging that the corpse of Attis being strapped to a tree is the same as death via crucifixion makes about as much sense as giving someone the electric chair, after he's been killed in the gas chamber.

[MCWAY]

I don't recall sayig that Jesus was crafted from Horus, Osiris, etc. That is not my perspective. I don't really care. I simply think that this figure never existed because there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support the idea.

And, that statement is just as wrong, as it was the last time you mentioned it.

Your quibble about your Price thread, in which you paste his words, mentions the same gibberish that Luke keeps bringing up here. My point was that the claims of the Gospels contradicting each other, with regards to when Jesus was born, is "over a hundred years old". That's why using Ramsay's findings will work just dandy. The claim ain't new, and neither is the refutation.

I saw nothing in that which refuted Carrier's essay.

Then, I'd suggest a re-read!!! 

[The Luke]

YOU said Attis died via crucifixion (so, did the guy in that video); the simple fact is he did not.

...why do you insist upon bearing false witness against me in this way? Aren't you supposed to be a Christian? If you can't produce the post of mine in this thread which explicitly claimed such, then I would put it to you that you owe me an apology.

Misquoting your opponent in order to invalidate their argument is the height of intellectual dishonesty.



I claimed Attis was crucified... there were several traditions which held that he was.

It is you who has decided to narrowly define crucifixion as EXECUTION upon a cross solely in order to score points here. The dead Attis being nailed to a tree DOES constitute Attis being crucified. By your definition, you'd stand at the bottom of the cross for three long excruciating hours claiming Jesus wasn't crucified at all... and only proclaiming him crucified when he actually expired.

Now you are extending the misquote to include my claiming Attis DIED upon the cross. That's just a blatant lie.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...why do you insist upon bearing false witness against me in this way? Aren't you supposed to be a Christian? If you can't produce the post of mine in this thread which explicitly claimed such, then I would put it to you that you owe me an apology.

Misquoting your opponent in order to invalidate their argument is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Indulging in your usual whine-fest, I see. I don't owe you an apology, because I posted YOUR VERY OWN WORDS, in black-and-white. And, I can do it again, like so:

McWay,

1) ALL the gods I listed are virgin births (in their Mystery Religion form).

They have to be, when the sun is "born" on the 25th of December it rises in the constellation Virgo (the virgin) also known as the "House of Bread" or "Beth-le-hem" in Hebrew.


2) ALL the gods I listed are either crucified on a tree or a cross by an evil tyrant (again I'm referring to the Mystery Religion form)

They have to be. When the sun "dies" at Easter time, it happens near the stars of the Southern Cross. Allegorically this is represented by the sun (Jebus) being transfixed upon a cross/tree/tau. The first celebration of this happened in 2,400 BC... the first Mithras Easter.


3) Not sure about the "30 pieces of silver"; but I believe most of the Mystery Religion godmen are betrayed by a male lover/friend/disciple/confident... I think Issa was betrayed for crucifixion on a Tau (t-shape) for a "handful of coins".


Again, I'm referring to the Mystery religion versions of these godmen... which may differ from the folklore version. Listing differences between Jebus and the folklore version of these gods is tantamount to claiming the movie ET isn't based on the Jesus story (which it is).


The Luke
PS... one point at a time, let's keep the posts readable.

I owe YOU an apology? I don't think so.

BTW, who's the evil tyrant that crucified Attis? After all, you claimed that "ALL" of the gods were crucified. So, what's his name (and, for once, let's have a specific reference: chapter and verse).

I claimed Attis was crucified... there were several traditions which held that he was.

And these traditions would be.........

Indeed, you did claim that Attis was crucified. That means THAT'S HOW HE WAS KILLED. But, that ain't how the account goes. I've posted at three accounts about Attis, and his death is in one of two manners: Gored to death by a wild boar, or (the far more popular and noted manner) SELF-CASTRATION.

You've been asked for the better part of a week to produce the specific accounts, which state that Attis died in this manner. And, you've produced.....NOTHING (with the exception of excuses).

For you to actually think that the mention of crucifixion would involve someone that's already dead, instead of it being used to kill someone is, quite frankly, PREPOSTEROUS.

It is you who has decided to narrowly define crucifixion as EXECUTION upon a cross solely in order to score points here. The dead Attis being nailed to a tree DOES constitute Attis being crucified.

Me, and WordNet, and Webster's Dictionary, and darn near every dictionary, encylopedia, or thesaurus that mentions and defines the word. But, I guess all of those folks are in some global conspiracy to re-define crucifixion for the expressed purpose of "misquoting" you. 

By your definition, you'd stand at the bottom of the cross for three long excruciating hours claiming Jesus wasn't crucified at all... and only proclaiming him crucified when he actually expired.

No, boy genius, I'd proclaim that Jesus was crucified, BECAUSE THE CROSS WAS THE INSTRUMENT USED TO KILL HIM. The same CANNOT be said for Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, etc., all of whom you claimed were crucified.


Stop your sniveling and excuse-making. You can't back your words about Attis, or you would have done so by now. Crucifixion is a form of EXECUTION, how you kill people. Your desperately trying to salvage the use of a tree to carry off a corpse into crucifixion is downright PATHETIC. And, to top it all off, the effigy of Attis was strapped to a tree, anyway, representing an already deceased dude, killed by his own hand that removed his own balls.

Now you are extending the misquote to include my claiming Attis DIED upon the cross. That's just a blatant lie.

The Luke

Genius, that was crucifixion means.....DEATH BY being put on a cross, period. If that's not how Attis died, then he DIDN'T GET CRUCIFIED. Same goes for Osiris, Dionysus, and the rest.

One cuts off his nuts and bleeds to death; another gets stuck in a coffin and DROWNED; yet another gets burned and/or eaten (except for his heart). NONE OF THAT equals crucifixion. Put all the trees in the equation you like. That changes nothing.

[The Luke]

Well then, by that definition Jebus wasn't crucified either...

There is no way to know if he died on the cross or was killed by Longinus' spear... never know, he could have just slipped into a coma when the spear put him out of his misery.


You've taken a leap into absurdity here McWay... are you really insisting that had Jesus fallen off the cross and died hitting the ground that he then wasn't crucified?

You quote from dictionaries then decide to use only one of the listed definitions, that's weak?


The Luke

[Deicide]

Well then, by that definition Jebus wasn't crucified either...

There is no way to know if he died on the cross or was killed by Longinus' spear... never know, he could have just slipped into a coma when the spear put him out of his misery.


You've taken a leap into absurdity here McWay... are you really insisting that had Jesus fallen off the cross and died hitting the ground that he then wasn't crucified?

You quote from dictionaries then decide to use only one of the listed definitions, that's weak?


The Luke

An Luke, MCWAY is one of those faith heads who practices 'belief at all costs'; he would never even consider a single shred of anything that would run counter to his fundamentalist faith as it would be antithetical to his stance that the entire Bible is factual in all its details. I used to have these sparing matches with him all the time and he has been annihilated by other people with doctoral degrees in the field of ancient history and still did not concede defeat. He is the ultimate faith head.

[drkaje]

Challenge to Christians/Evangelicals:

Name or cite one single detail or incident in the Jesus story that is not:
-lifted from a previous Pagan Mystery Religion
-an astrological allegory

Bet you can't.


The Luke

PS... short succinct posts please so I can answer them.

Zorastonians (sp?) even have rebirth after 3 days.

[Naked4Jesus]

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.

I second that.  Very intriguing indeed and I'm also quite convinced.

[leonp1981]

Luke mentioned a lot of astrological metaphors within the Bible and it's a very simple idea that different people will observe the same thing and take a different meaning from it.

For example, the constellation dipping below the horizon signified both washing of the feet, loss of the foot, and the losing of a shoe.  It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that three people looked at that same constellation and came up with three different stories.

Similarly, the Southern Cross was supposed to signify the crucifixion?  Well, if you showed a group of people a picture of the constellation, and ask them what they see happening, they will all give a different answer.

The point being that arguing about washing vs. losing a foot vs. losing a show, is pointless, because the original incident/story/picture is very likely to be the same.  All that has happened is that the original incident/story/picture was seen through three different sets of eyes, and passed down through three different channels of communication.

I thought I'd pop this pic in here, as it seems to illustrate some of the points being discussed here.  One picture, but there is more than one way of looking at it.

[garebear]

Die, thread!