Is there anything original in the Jesus story?

[MCWAY]

...quoting such apologist bullshit in order to spar above your intellect level only demonstartes how dim you are McWay.

If you understood even some of what you continuously copy and paste you'd be too smart to be a Christian, let alone a fundamentalist Christian. The above explanation is mathematically impossible, the dimensions of the Ark are given in the Bible... it's just not big enough, I won't even mention the genetic evidence to the contrary.



The Luke

PS- the Bible Noah's Ark story is lifted directly from Sumerian mythology (Google: "Uta Napishtim"), presumably plagiarized during the Babylonian captivity like much of Genesis was.

You mean the one, with the supposed ark in the form of a cube? The one that atheists repeatedly dredge up as being the source of the Genesis flood account, despite the fact that the Genesis account actually has actual dimensions suitable for stability in water (i.e. a 6:1 length-to-width ratio)?

You mean the one where Uey gathers up a bunch of silver and gold, despite the fact that, he’s got nowhere to spend it?

OOOOH!!!! That one. 

yes pwnd, the use of comma's incorrectly makes us stupid, yet the inability to grasp simple concepts, recognize an argument lacking axioms or the basic bastardization of logic are forgivable.

I grasp the simple concept that life comes only from other life. I believe some guy, by the name of Louis Pasteur, said something about that, after dismantling the (one-time) evolutionary tenet, known as "spontaneous generation" (but, that's another story for another time).

BTW, I didn’t call you “stupid”. It appears that you just “pwned” yourself (and you could work on your use of apostrophes, as well) ; D

[The Luke]

Jesus (sigh).... McWay is pretty hardcore.


I wonder how he's going to spin this one when there are no pre-packaged "copy and paste this in response to this" type apologists essays to quote.

No one can win the plausibility argument for the Ark and the Creation story, not in the face of any logical counter argument. No one.



The Luke

[loco]

CNN's John Roberts reports on two mountainous sites where the biblical Noah's Ark might be

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2007/02/27/roberts.noahs.ark.affl?iref=videosearch

[Necrosis]

You mean the one, with the supposed ark in the form of a cube? The one that atheists repeatedly dredge up as being the source of the Genesis flood account, despite the fact that the Genesis account actually has actual dimensions suitable for stability in water (i.e. a 6:1 length-to-width ratio)?

You mean the one where Uey gathers up a bunch of silver and gold, despite the fact that, he’s got nowhere to spend it?

OOOOH!!!! That one. 


I grasp the simple concept that life comes only from other life. I believe some guy, by the name of Louis Pasteur, said something about that, after dismantling the (one-time) evolutionary tenet, known as "spontaneous generation" (but, that's another story for another time).

BTW, I didn’t call you “stupid”. It appears that you just “pwned” yourself (and you could work on your use of apostrophes, as well) ; D

life comes from non life, you fail to grasp this concept. Otherwise all of science is wrong and you are right.

please show me where spontaneous generation was coined by any reputable scientist and for any reason.

[MCWAY]

Jesus (sigh).... McWay is pretty hardcore.


I wonder how he's going to spin this one when there are no pre-packaged "copy and paste this in response to this" type apologists essays to quote.

No one can win the plausibility argument for the Ark and the Creation story, not in the face of any logical counter argument. No one.



The Luke

Again, why re-invent the wheel? The reason it’s so easy to “copy and paste this in response to this” is because folks like you keep recycling the same garbage from the skeptic scrap heap, whether it’s about the Ark or it’s about these screwball claims, regarding Jesus Christ.

Speaking of which, we’re still waiting for you to produce the specific references that say that these other gods (Attis, Osiris, Buddha, etc.) died via crucifixion. This is the issue that you’ve been ducking for the better part of a week, as death by crucifixion is one detail about Jesus Christ that is NOT common with these other folks.

Despite numerous requests to demonstrate that you have passages to the contrary, you’ve done little but whimper, whine, and make excuses, trying to somehow transform self-castration and dismemberment into crucifixion, by feeling trying to use vague “tree” references.

life comes from non life, you fail to grasp this concept. Otherwise all of science is wrong and you are right.

please show me where spontaneous generation was coined by any reputable scientist and for any reason.

If you insist……..

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.   

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at least once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.     

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. George Wald, Professor of Biology at Harvard University, "The origin of life",  Scientific American, August 1954 

In other words, this guy believes in spontaneous generation for philosophical, NOT SCIENTIFIC, reasons. He must believe in it, despite the lack of evidence; for if he does not, then he is forced to acknowledge a supernatural deity as the cause of life, which his ego won’t let him do. Wald is hoping for the “miracles” of time to create life out of non-life.

If time is the “hero of the plot”, who’s the villain? Could it be that pesky Deity, said to have created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1?

[loco]

Jesus (sigh).... McWay is pretty hardcore.

The Luke

Yes he is, The Luke!  McWay's tha man!

The Luke, when are you going to show us your reconstruction of the four Biblical gospels using ancient myths, along with all your sources and references?  I'm still waiting.

Let me get this straight.  You are saying that you can take multiple ancient stories, dating back before the time of Jesus, and with them piece together the entire record of Jesus as it appears in the four Biblical gospels, without leaving out a single detail?

...yep. With redundant duplication.

The Luke

Come on, The Luke, substantiate your bold claim. 

[Necrosis]

If you insist……..

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.   

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at least once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.     

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. George Wald, Professor of Biology at Harvard University, "The origin of life",  Scientific American, August 1954 

In other words, this guy believes in spontaneous generation for philosophical, NOT SCIENTIFIC, reasons. He must believe in it, despite the lack of evidence; for if he does not, then he is forced to acknowledge a supernatural deity as the cause of life, which his ego won’t let him do. Wald is hoping for the “miracles” of time to create life out of non-life.

If time is the “hero of the plot”, who’s the villain? Could it be that pesky Deity, said to have created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1?

where did you get this garbage from, no one sees it as a necessity, what hypothesis are you talking about. Did you get that off a christian site?

I assume so.

[The Luke]

The Luke, when are you going to show us your reconstruction of the four Biblical gospels using ancient myths, along with all your sources and references?  I'm still waiting.

Come on, The Luke, substantiate your bold claim. 

...gimme a quick bullet point list (brief and succinct) of what you consider the defining points of the Jesus story.

Something along the lines of:
-born of a virgin
-healed the sick
-crucified
-rose from the dead

...something like that, and I'll answer it.

Don't go copy and pasting huge apologist diatribes from nutty Christian "Dat der Bih-bull is totlee true!" websites as McWay does. That just wastes everyones time.


The Luke

PS- there's no need to reconstruct all four gospels, academics generally agree Mark's gospel is the basis for the other canonical gospels... supposedly all derived from the same lost source document which experts term "Q", and presumably that must be the "Secret Gospel of Mark" alluded to by early Church Fathers.

[MCWAY]

...gimme a quick bullet point list (brief and succinct) of what you consider the defining points of the Jesus story.

Something along the lines of:
-born of a virgin
-healed the sick
-crucified
-rose from the dead

...something like that, and I'll answer it.

Don't go copy and pasting huge apologist diatribes from nutty Christian "Dat der Bih-bull is totlee true!" websites as McWay does. That just wastes everyones time.


The Luke

PS- there's no need to reconstruct all four gospels, academics generally agree Mark's gospel is the basis for the other canonical gospels... supposedly all derived from the same lost source document which experts term "Q", and presumably that must be the "Secret Gospel of Mark" alluded to by early Church Fathers.

Loco has already given the brief bullet points, and so have I.

In fact, I've asked you several times to show the references, claiming that those other gods died via crucifixion. You've produced nothing.

Same for the "born of a virgin" stuff.....again, you've produced NOTHING.

The reason I paste what I do is simple. When I make a claim, I present the SPECIFICS to back it up, that anyone (at anytime) can see for him/herself.

I produce references to specific books, authors, and manuscripts, showing what the actual facts are. And, as is almost always the case, those facts differ DRASTICALLY from your screwball claims.

So let's see it, Luke.

Show that Attis was born of virgin, that he died via crucifixion, and that he rose from the dead. What references specifically spell that out, instead of saying (as nearly all of the ones to Attis actually do) that his conception was via a god getting his freak on (via the sneak), that he died by chopping his own nuts off, and that he REMAINED DEAD, despite the specific request to have him resurrected?

[MCWAY]

where did you get this garbage from, no one sees it as a necessity, what hypothesis are you talking about. Did you get that off a christian site?

I assume so.

Didn’t you just say that life has to come from non-life, or “all of science is wrong"?

The concept of spontaneous generation has been around for centuries. Scientists once believed that rats and mice “evolved” from spoiled grain, and that maggots generated from rotting meat. The deal is, as Wald mentioned in this blurb, that supposedly life came  from non-life.

As much as evolutionists love ducking the question of origin now, at the end of the day, the question gets asked, “How did life begin?” For Wald, the answer was simple: It HAD TO BE spontaneous generation. For if it was not, then he must concede the one thing that he (and other evolutionists of his era) did not want to concede: A supernatural cause for life on Earth.

[The Luke]

In fact, I've asked you several times to show the references, claiming that those other gods died via crucifixion. You've produced nothing.

...I never made this claim. If I did, then quote the post.

If you insist that I post references to back a claim I never made... then I'm sorry but I must in turn insist that you post sources to back the claim that you never made that Jesus was an Ewok from the Planet Endor.


What I did do was claim that there were traditions that these gods were crucified, traditions that predate Jebus... what you did was add (and then repeat and repeat and repeat) the phrase "died by crucifixion" so that you can split this hair over and over in an attempt to invalidate what I said.

Loco has already given the brief bullet points, and so have I.

...then quote the post. I've been reading this thread and I haven't seen any such post.


I want to be fair here... the original challenge still stands... just post one original detail from the Jesus story. The challenge wasn't "Luke, type up hundreds of pages of academically sourced and footnoted essays detailing the pagan precursors of every single detail of Jesus' life" it was "Is there anything original in the Jesus story". The onus is on you guys... it's a challenge.

I still haven't seen you guys put forward one single detail for consideration... I've only read page after page of nit-picking and unrelated copy-and-paste-Google-fu.


Do I have to start you off...?


Okay, it's easy:

Original point #1: The actual name "Jesus".



The Luke

[loco]

...I never made this claim. If I did, then quote the post.

If you insist that I post references to back a claim I never made... then I'm sorry but I must in turn insist that you post sources to back the claim that you never made that Jesus was an Ewok from the Planet Endor.


What I did do was claim that there were traditions that these gods were crucified, traditions that predate Jebus... what you did was add (and then repeat and repeat and repeat) the phrase "died by crucifixion" so that you can split this hair over and over in an attempt to invalidate what I said.

So now you are saying that Jesus' death by crucifixion is original and not borrowed from ancient myths?

Did you say earlier that whatever is found in the gospels of Matthew, John and Luke that is not found in the gospel of Mark is original?

The Luke

PS- there's no need to reconstruct all four gospels, academics generally agree Mark's gospel is the basis for the other canonical gospels... supposedly all derived from the same lost source document which experts term "Q", and presumably that must be the "Secret Gospel of Mark" alluded to by early Church Fathers.

[Deicide]

-The Sermon on the Mount

Show that this is based on ancient myths pre-dating Jesus, "every detail" of it, as you claimed.  And please do list sources and references to back up your claim!

Died by gun shot wounds.

[The Luke]

So now you are saying that Jesus' death by crucifixion is original and not borrowed from ancient myths?

...some of the other gods were crucified after they died, or weren't explicitly killed by the act of crucifixion itself. Crucifixion isn't original... McWay simply thinks Jesus is special because he died on the cross. Attis for example dies under the cross and was nailed to it after he died... potatoe... potatoe.

Not a dig at you Loco, but you need to read more closely if English is not your native language.

Did you say earlier that whatever is found in the gospels of Matthew, John and Luke that is not found in the gospel of Mark is original?

No... again, reading comprehension is important here.

Linguists believe there was a source document which they have named "Q" from which Mark's gospel was taken (the earliest copy of any canonical gospel is a copy of Mark dated to about 155 AD), sort of a summary or synopsis.

Matthew, Luke and John are most likely poor translations/copies of Mark with some instructional material added (from the "Q" document). Not surprising really, there were 80 gospels by the time Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

I would hazard a guess that the original "Q" document from which all the canonical gospels are derived is probably the "Secret Gospel of Mark" alluded to by some early Church Fathers.


It was traditional among solar-deity Mystery Religions to have two versions of the dying/resurrecting godman story...
-an unenlightened abridged "Beginners" gospel filled with simple moral fables (canonical gospels);
-and an expanded "Hidden" gospel which contains passages missing from the fables which explain/highlight the astrological/mathematical allegories (Mark's Secret Gospel).

Most water baptised followers would only be privy to the basic miracle/redemption story, those initiated into the higher levels would be clued-in to the secret meanings. Centres of pagan pilgrimage such as Ephesus (home of the Ephesian Mystery Cult) would offer the more intelligent and educated followers baptism by earth, wind and fire (four elements).

Details are sketchy but the hierarchy was probably something like this:
-water baptism: any old pleb who is told the written miracle/redemption dying/resurrecting godman story
-earth baptism: access to the hidden gospel writings explaining that the religion is solar in origin
-wind baptism: orally conferred secret teachings explaining the cycles of the planets
-fire baptism: super-secret mathematical teachings regarding geodesy and secret histories

I could give an example if you'd like.


All of these higher levels and secret teachings are missing from Christian teachings because Christianity was started as a tell-them-nothing-except-everyone-gets-redeemed version of the Mystery Religion merely to raise money for the Quumran Essenes impending war effort against the Romans.

Kinda like Scientology was nothing more than a fundraiser for Hubbard. Miscavige just ran with it when the founding charlatan died. Saul of Tarsus is the Christian Miscavige... successor to the L Ron Hubbard of Christianity: James the Just, supposedly Jesus' brother (Jesus is fictitious).


The Luke

[Necrosis]

Didn’t you just say that life has to come from non-life, or “all of science is wrong"?

The concept of spontaneous generation has been around for centuries. Scientists once believed that rats and mice “evolved” from spoiled grain, and that maggots generated from rotting meat. The deal is, as Wald mentioned in this blurb, that supposedly life came  from non-life.

As much as evolutionists love ducking the question of origin now, at the end of the day, the question gets asked, “How did life begin?” For Wald, the answer was simple: It HAD TO BE spontaneous generation. For if it was not, then he must concede the one thing that he (and other evolutionists of his era) did not want to concede: A supernatural cause for life on Earth.

yes i did say that, how to you think that leads to spontaneous generation. If that was true we would of seen it by now.

ever hear of complexity theory, autocatalytic sets, bootstrapping etc??

evolutionists dont answer questions of origin, stop repeating this fallacy, it makes your entire argument weak.

"As much as evolutionists love ducking the question of origin now, at the end of the day, the question gets asked, “How did life begin?” For Wald, the answer was simple: It HAD TO BE spontaneous generation. For if it was not, then he must concede the one thing that he (and other evolutionists of his era) did not want to concede: A supernatural cause for life on Earth."

you have no idea what you are talking about, there a numerou theories that dont rely of supernatural creation. Where do you get your information from?

[loco]

yes i did say that, how to you think that leads to spontaneous generation. If that was true we would of seen it by now.

It's "would have seen it by now"...sorry, now I'm doing Deicide's job!     

[Deicide]

It's "would have seen it by now"...sorry, now I'm doing Deicide's job!     

I mentioned that for the purposes of linguistic study...anyway.

[MCWAY]

...I never made this claim. If I did, then quote the post.

If you insist that I post references to back a claim I never made... then I'm sorry but I must in turn insist that you post sources to back the claim that you never made that Jesus was an Ewok from the Planet Endor.

I've already done that, O ye of supreme memory loss, on multiple occassions

What I did do was claim that there were traditions that these gods were crucified, traditions that predate Jebus... what you did was add (and then repeat and repeat and repeat) the phrase "died by crucifixion" so that you can split this hair over and over in an attempt to invalidate what I said.

One, you haven't produce a SINGLE one of these traditions; whereas I have and NONE of them have the figures in question being crucified.

Instead you have attempted to save your behind by foolishly stating that Attis, Osiris, et. al., who clearly died via other means (i.e. self-castration, drowning, etc.), somehow got strapped to a "tree" (post-mortem) in a feeble attempt to say they were "crucified".

I want to be fair here... the original challenge still stands... just post one original detail from the Jesus story. The challenge wasn't "Luke, type up hundreds of pages of academically sourced and footnoted essays detailing the pagan precursors of every single detail of Jesus' life" it was "Is there anything original in the Jesus story". The onus is on you guys... it's a challenge.

I still haven't seen you guys put forward one single detail for consideration... I've only read page after page of nit-picking and unrelated copy-and-paste-Google-fu.

Then, it's time you get some Lasix surgery. You CANNOT even back your claims about these other traditions that have these other figures dying in any manner, REMOTELY CLOSE to Jesus Christ, which is why you have to try and use vague "tree" references.

Do I have to start you off...?


Okay, it's easy:

Original point #1: The actual name "Jesus".


The Luke

You can start yourself off by producing the accounts that state that these guys died in a certain manner OTHER than the ones prescribed to them. And, boy genius, we're talking about CAUSE OF DEATH, not what supposedly happen to their corpses, post-morten (which you can't back up with references, anyway).

So now you are saying that Jesus' death by crucifixion is original and not borrowed from ancient myths?

Luke is foolishly

Did you say earlier that whatever is found in the gospels of Matthew, John and Luke that is not found in the gospel of Mark is original?

[/quote]

[MCWAY]

So now you are saying that Jesus' death by crucifixion is original and not borrowed from ancient myths?

He claims that Osiris’ body got strapped to a "tree" and dismembered, after Set DROWNED him. So, that’s supposed to be proof that he was “crucified”.

He also thinks that Attis, after hacking off his gonads and bleeding to death, was nailed to a "tree" (even though I posted some time ago the account, which states that an effigy of Attis was carried off on a tree, covered in a shroud that was decorated with flowers). That’s supposed to count as “crucifixion”.

It apparently hasn’t dawned on him that at least one original detail (which he foolishly thinks we can’t find) about Jesus Christ vs. those other figures is the MANNER OF DEATH that Jesus suffered.

That is crucifixion, as in HOW JESUS DIED. Yet, boy genius here, whines about my “splitting hairs”, because I have the audacity to think (as darn near everyone does who hears the term) that crucifixion is a FORM OF EXECUTION, not what supposedly happened to a corpse, post-mortem (notwithstanding the fact, that he can’t produce the references backing his claims about Osiris or Attis, anyway).

Did you say earlier that whatever is found in the gospels of Matthew, John and Luke that is not found in the gospel of Mark is original?

Whether he says that or not really makes no difference. Each gospel does indeed contain unique material, not contained in the others, which is what you would expect from 4 different accounts. Mark and John focus more on Jesus' ministry and mention virtually nothing about His birth; whereas Luke and Matthew chronicle Jesus' lineage and birth, while giving information about His early years.

[loco]

...some of the other gods were crucified after they died, or weren't explicitly killed by the act of crucifixion itself. Crucifixion isn't original... McWay simply thinks Jesus is special because he died on the cross. Attis for example dies under the cross and was nailed to it after he died... potatoe... potatoe.

Not a dig at you Loco, but you need to read more closely if English is not your native language.

True, English is not my native language and yes, it is possible for me to misunderstand your posts from time to time.  But that is not the cause here. 

You claimed that "every detail" of the Jesus story was borrowed from ancient myths.  You asked for Christians to post one thing that was original about Jesus.  MCWAY posted Jesus death by crucifixion, which you claimed was not original.  Nobody here is arguing that "Crucifixion isn't original."  The historian Josephus described in detail the crucifixion of hundreds of Jews by the Romans. But this particular deity(Jesus) dying by crucifixion is indeed original, and you just admitted to it.  None of your ancient deities died by crucifixion.

No... again, reading comprehension is important here.

Linguists believe there was a source document which they have named "Q" from which Mark's gospel was taken (the earliest copy of any canonical gospel is a copy of Mark dated to about 155 AD), sort of a summary or synopsis.

Matthew, Luke and John are most likely poor translations/copies of Mark with some instructional material added (from the "Q" document). Not surprising really, there were 80 gospels by the time Constantine convened the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

I would hazard a guess that the original "Q" document from which all the canonical gospels are derived is probably the "Secret Gospel of Mark" alluded to by some early Church Fathers.


It was traditional among solar-deity Mystery Religions to have two versions of the dying/resurrecting godman story...
-an unenlightened abridged "Beginners" gospel filled with simple moral fables (canonical gospels);
-and an expanded "Hidden" gospel which contains passages missing from the fables which explain/highlight the astrological/mathematical allegories (Mark's Secret Gospel).

Most water baptised followers would only be privy to the basic miracle/redemption story, those initiated into the higher levels would be clued-in to the secret meanings. Centres of pagan pilgrimage such as Ephesus (home of the Ephesian Mystery Cult) would offer the more intelligent and educated followers baptism by earth, wind and fire (four elements).

Details are sketchy but the hierarchy was probably something like this:
-water baptism: any old pleb who is told the written miracle/redemption dying/resurrecting godman story
-earth baptism: access to the hidden gospel writings explaining that the religion is solar in origin
-wind baptism: orally conferred secret teachings explaining the cycles of the planets
-fire baptism: super-secret mathematical teachings regarding geodesy and secret histories

I could give an example if you'd like.


All of these higher levels and secret teachings are missing from Christian teachings because Christianity was started as a tell-them-nothing-except-everyone-gets-redeemed version of the Mystery Religion merely to raise money for the Quumran Essenes impending war effort against the Romans.

Kinda like Scientology was nothing more than a fundraiser for Hubbard. Miscavige just ran with it when the founding charlatan died. Saul of Tarsus is the Christian Miscavige... successor to the L Ron Hubbard of Christianity: James the Just, supposedly Jesus' brother (Jesus is fictitious).


The Luke

I am aware of the alleged "Q" document, as I am aware of the differences and similarities between the four Biblical gospels.  My point here is that you claimed to have the ability to reconstruct all four Biblical gospels from ancient myths, "every detail of it", then you said that since three of the four are based on Mark, you would need to reconstruct only Mark. 

But since I have read different translations of all four gospels multiple times, in different languages, I know that Mark is the shortest gospel and that the other three contain unique information that is not shared by Mark or by the others.

So if you are going to reconstruct the gospel of Mark only, what about all the information found in the other gospels that is not found in Mark?  Is that information not borrowed from ancient myths?  And if you claim that it is, then why do you say that you don't have to reconstruct those other three gospels in order to substantiate your claim?

In order to substantiate your claim, you must do what you claim to have the ability to do, reconstruct all four Biblical gospels using ancient myths, "every detail."

[loco]

...gimme a quick bullet point list (brief and succinct) of what you consider the defining points of the Jesus story.

Something along the lines of:
-born of a virgin
-healed the sick
-crucified
-rose from the dead

...something like that, and I'll answer it.

-The Sermon on the Mount

Show that this is based on ancient myths pre-dating Jesus, "every detail" of it, as you claimed.  And please do list sources and references to back up your claim!

[The Luke]

In order to substantiate your claim, you must do what you claim to have the ability to do, reconstruct all four Biblical gospels using ancient myths, "every detail."

...never made the claim I was going to do this. You've misread.

What'll probably happen here (now that the thread is on track) is that I'll explain the pagan sources from which these different details are plagiarised. After a couple of details being exposed, you guys will start checking and researching the details yourselves before you post them... and that way, you guys will come to realise that the Jebus story is indeed a solar-deity dying/resurrecting godman Mystery Religion.


I'll get to the Sermon on the Mount tomorrow (gotta hit the gym) and I'll address the crucifixion question after that.



The Luke

[loco]

...never made the claim I was going to do this. You've misread.

What'll probably happen here (now that the thread is on track) is that I'll explain the pagan sources from which these different details are plagiarised. After a couple of details being exposed, you guys will start checking and researching the details yourselves before you post them... and that way, you guys will come to realise that the Jebus story is indeed a solar-deity dying/resurrecting godman Mystery Religion.


I'll get to the Sermon on the Mount tomorrow (gotta hit the gym) and I'll address the crucifixion question after that.



The Luke

Have a good workout!   

[Deicide]

This fucking thread is getting annoying...

[loco]

This fucking thread is getting annoying...

Then why do you keep coming back?  Are you a glutton for punishment?