Is there anything original in the Jesus story?

[OzmO]

I think this is a great thread.   I love reading the back and forth.  It's good stuff and I'm glad it's back on track somewhat.

I'm interested to read Luke's stuff  after he works out and loco's/McWay's rebuttals.

[MCWAY]

...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

Maybe after hitting the weights, you'll actually come back with some references to back some of your wild claims, though I wouldn't bet my house on it.

You, of all people, have no room to talk about looking at the details, as your posts have demonstrated that you've done anything but that.

Your claims about solar deities and dying/resurrecting godman stuff simply don't hold water. As I've mentioned numerous times, not only are your statements about Jesus way off the mark, your statements about the other figures are dead wrong, too.

Attis doesn't rise from the dead; neither does Osiris (he gets stuck in the underworld); and Mithras doesn't die at all. So, how do they fit this so-called "blueprint" of dying/resurrecting godmen?

And of those that die, NONE die via crucifixion. And, just to be clear, boy genius, method of execution is the detail that Jesus has that these other figures don't. That method is crucifixion, not self-castration, not drowning, not killing or being killed by animals. That's crucifixion, being EXECUTED via hanging on the cross, not allegedly/supposedly/kind-of-sort-of being put on a "tree", after being killed in another fashion.

[big L dawg]

what do you guys think about these religious nut jobs that are juiced to the gills.

[MCWAY]

...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.

More like....potatoe......... RUTABAGA!!!! One died via crucifixion; the other dies via self-castration, with no reference whatsoever of his dead body being nailed to a cross (earlier, you said it was a tree).

Explicitly being killed via crucifixion, boy genius, would be known as a.....DETAIL, something you falsely claim I can't find that differentiates Jesus from Attis or any of those other figures.

Did Jesus die by crucifixion? YES!! Did Attis die via crucifixion? NO!!

Did Jesus rise from the dead? YES!!! Did Attis rise from the dead? NO!!!

That's at least TWO DETAILS right there (and there are plenty more).

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

This comes from someone who can't differentiate between crucifixion and self-castration as different forms of execution.

[MCWAY]

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.

They don't anymore, because, as Wald put it, it goes back to that pesky spontaneous generation thing. Either life comes from life or it comes from non-life. And, if you can't prove it comes from non-life, then there's but one alternative left.

"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?

Make up you mind, Necrosis. Do evolutionists answers questions about origin or not? If they have "numerous theories", then they are indeed addressing (or attempting to address) origin of life on earth WITHOUT supernatural creation. Something (or someone) had to cause them rocks to smash togehter to get that 5-billion-year old "goo" on Earth, to get the "evolving" process (with no guidance or sentient direction, of course) started.

[Necrosis]

They don't anymore, because, as Wald put it, it goes back to that pesky spontaneous generation thing. Either life comes from life or it comes from non-life. And, if you can't prove it comes from non-life, then there's but one alternative left.

Make up you mind, Necrosis. Do evolutionists answers questions about origin or not? If they have "numerous theories", then they are indeed addressing (or attempting to address) origin of life on earth WITHOUT supernatural creation. Something (or someone) had to cause them rocks to smash togehter to get that 5-billion-year old "goo" on Earth, to get the "evolving" process (with no guidance or sentient direction, of course) started.

scientists answer questions of origin, biologist do, evolutionists dont. Evolution is after abiogenesis. They have numerous theories which work on computer models, in theory etc... recreating primitive earth in a laboratory is quite hard to do.

"Something (or someone) had to cause them rocks to smash togehter to get that 5-billion-year old "goo" on Earth, to get the "evolving" process (with no guidance or sentient direction, of course) started."

what evidence is there for this? how is this accomplished? why does it have to sentient? wouldnt adding in a hypercomplex, creating,sentient being make the question of his origin even vastly more complicated?

you have some pretty erroneous assumptions that have no basis in reality.

[MCWAY]

scientists answer questions of origin, biologist do, evolutionists dont. Evolution is after abiogenesis. They have numerous theories which work on computer models, in theory etc... recreating primitive earth in a laboratory is quite hard to do.

You're not making a lot of sense, here. A biologist is a specific kind of scientist. If that scientist believes in the theory of evolution, that makes him an evolutionist.

In the same vein, a biologist that believes in Creation is labeled a Creationist (i.e. Dr. Raymond Bohlin).

"Something (or someone) had to cause them rocks to smash togehter to get that 5-billion-year old "goo" on Earth, to get the "evolving" process (with no guidance or sentient direction, of course) started."

what evidence is there for this? how is this accomplished? why does it have to sentient? wouldnt adding in a hypercomplex, creating,sentient being make the question of his origin even vastly more complicated?

Not really!!! Many evolutionists hold the belief that matter has always existed; yet (as ironic as it is), they have a problem with the concept of a sentient being having always existed.

[big L dawg]

what do you guys think about these religious nut jobs that are juiced to the gills.

didn't figure mcway would touch that one.

[MCWAY]

didn't figure mcway would touch that one.

Nobody "touched" that one; and since that loaded question wasn't specifically addressed to me, I didn't answer it because I was tied up elsewhere.

If steroid use is sinful, it's such whether the use is legal or not. I'll use myself as an example.

According to Scripture, my body is the temple of the Lord, so intentionally doing damage to it is a no-no. I've used DHEA, on and off, over the last two or three years. It has done no harm (of which I'm aware) to my body. In that vein, that is not sinful.

If there is any issue, regarding steroid use and sinful behavior, it would be moreso with regards to the procurement of anabolics and legal issues. DHEA is legal to use now and has been since 1994. However, it was illegal prior to 1994. In fact, DHEA was considered a steroid.

If once is breaking the law to get anabolics, that could be viewed as sinful behavior. But as for the use itself, I would say the answer is no, UNLESS the use is excessive and leads to damage to the mind and or the body.

[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

Bump for The Luke's response on "The Sermon on the Mount" and on "death by crucifixion", after he completes his looooong workout.

[The Luke]

Bump for The Luke's response on "The Sermon on the Mount" and on "death by crucifixion", after he completes his looooong workout.

...let me run with the "Bible condoens slavery" thread, that's just getting hilarious.

I can't remember the name of the Buddhist text that the Beatitudes and Sermon on the Mount teachings are lifted from off the top of my head, and McWay will need that specific reference in order to find some pathetic apologist explanation penned by some obscure evangelical graduate of some Bible-thumping diploma-mill... but rest assured it's just another example Christian plagiarism.

Let's give McWay a chance to explain why Old Testament Yahweh condones slavery and genocide before we start arguing this. I'll need a chance to dig up that reference.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...let me run with the "Bible condoens slavery" thread, that's just getting hilarious.

I can't remember the name of the Buddhist text that the Beatitudes and Sermon on the Mount teachings are lifted from off the top of my head, and McWay will need that specific reference in order to find some pathetic apologist explanation penned by some obscure evangelical graduate of some Bible-thumping diploma-mill... but rest assured it's just another example Christian plagiarism.

Let's give McWay a chance to explain why Old Testament Yahweh condones slavery and genocide before we start arguing this. I'll need a chance to dig up that reference.


The Luke

SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!! You don't have the reference to back your claims. You'll excuse me if my jaw doesn't quite hit the floor from shock.

You’ve had OVER THREE WEEKS to come up with the specific historical references and passages that back your claims about the figures from whom Jesus Christ was supposedly crafted. Instead, you have made pitiful attempts at subject change (as Loco indicated), and supremely laughable efforts to wedge astrological silliness into the Biblical accounts, to make them say something that they do not.

Worst of all, you have come up with EXCUSE after EXCUSE as to why you can’t produce specifics, to support your assertions.

You were supposed to address the crucifixion and Sermon on the Mount thing LAST WEEK. Did you get pinned under a barbell for 7 seven days or something? Since you apparently can’t do that, you’ve resorted to  trying to change the subject to something that’s already being addressed on another thread.

Quit clucking, ducking, and making excuses for your not addressing Loco's questions (not to mention your FAILURE to produce any references, regarding Attis, Osiris, or any of these figures supposedly dying in the same manner that Jesus Christ did).

[big L dawg]

I love these reference junkies.they act like if you post a reference or a link then your argument is proving as fact.or that if you don't post a reference then your full of shit.anytime a conservative post's anything that came from fox news,its automatically dismissed.vice versa if a liberal gives a reference that MSNBC had something to do with.and the same could go with nearly any topic or debate.like when a Christian post a link to some bible beater web site to validate there argument.or an atheist post's some reference from a pro atheist book or web site.Like if you post a reference the person your debating will change there beliefs and suddenly agree with you.give me a break.

[MCWAY]

I love these reference junkies.they act like if you post a reference or a link then your argument is proving as fact.or that if you don't post a reference then your full of shit.anytime a conservative post's anything that came from fox news,its automatically dismissed.vice versa if a liberal gives a reference that MSNBC had something to do with.and the same could go with nearly any topic or debate.like when a Christian post a link to some bible beater web site to validate there argument.or an atheist post's some reference from a pro atheist book or web site.Like if you post a reference the person your debating will change there beliefs and suddenly agree with you.give me a break.

How silly of us “junkies”, to actually produce references to support our statements, rather than simply pulling wild claims out of our behinds!!

[big L dawg]

How silly of us “junkies”, to actually produce references to support our statements, rather than simply pulling wild claims out of our behinds!!

you missed the point as usual.Is there a reference the Luke or anyone could produce that would make you change your religious views?

[MCWAY]

you missed the point as usual.Is there a reference the Luke or anyone could produce that would make you change your religious views?

I didn't miss the point at all. Is there a reference Loco or I or anyone could produce that you make Luke (or you) change your religous views?

[big L dawg]

I didn't miss the point at all. Is there a reference Loco or I or anyone could produce that you make Luke (or you) change your religous views?

always a classic.answering the question with the same question your smart huh.

[Necrosis]

I didn't miss the point at all. Is there a reference Loco or I or anyone could produce that you make Luke (or you) change your religous views?

yes.

[MCWAY]

always a classic.answering the question with the same question your smart huh.

I won't go there.....it's too easy!!!

This isn't about changing anyone's religious views. I can't do that and neither can Luke. What I can do is present the information and demonstrate what the facts are. What someone does with those facts is on them.

[The Luke]

This isn't about changing anyone's religious views. I can't do that and neither can Luke. What I can do is present the information and demonstrate what the facts are. What someone does with those facts is on them.

Facts took out a restraining order against organised religion. Religion can't come within 300 yards of the facts.


The Luke

[leonp1981]

Facts took out a restraining order against organised religion. Religion can't come within 300 yards of the facts.


The Luke

 

[MCWAY]

Facts took out a restraining order against organised religion. Religion can't come within 300 yards of the facts.


The Luke

I didn't know you changed your name to "organized religion".

[big L dawg]

yea I was gonna tell you Luke.Make sure to use spell check.because if not mcway will call ya on it.so be carefull.

[big L dawg]

Bump for The Luke's response on "The Sermon on the Mount" and on "death by crucifixion."

BUMP 4 LIVIN IN MAKE BELIEVELAND

[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

Bump for The Luke's response on "The Sermon on the Mount" and on "death by crucifixion."